On the Ratnagotravibhāga

From Buddha-Nature

< Articles

Revision as of 11:59, 5 December 2019 by JeremiP (talk | contribs) ((by SublimeText.Mediawiker))
LibraryArticlesOn the Ratnagotravibhāga

On the Ratnagotravibhāga
Alexander Gardner
2018/09/12
Original content written for the Buddha-Nature Project.
Article
Article
Citation:
Gardner, Alex. "On the Ratnagotravibhāga." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, September 12, 2018. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/On_the_Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga.

Abstract

The Indian treatise that this website identifies as the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is also known by a handful of other titles in multiple languages. It is fairly common for ancient works of literature to be known by many names, especially if, like the Ratnagotravibhāga (to give it its abbreviated name), it has been translated into many languages. This essay will explain the multiple names, discuss what is known of its authorship, and briefly survey the existing recensions and translations.

The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China the Awakening of Faith was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.

Text
Maitreya, Asaṅga: Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra
The Ratnagotravibhāga, commonly known as the Uttaratantra, or Gyu Lama in Tibetan, is one of the main Indian scriptural sources for buddha-nature theory. It was likely composed during the fifth century, by whom we do not know. Comprised of verses interspersed with prose commentary, it systematizes the buddha-nature teachings that were circulating in multiple sūtras such as the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, and the Śrīmaladevisūtra. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to the Bodhisattva Maitreya and the commentary to Asaṅga, and treats the two as separate texts, although this division is not attested to in surviving Indian versions. The Chinese tradition attributes the text to *Sāramati (娑囉末底), but the translation itself does not include the name of the author, and the matter remains unsettled. It was translated into Chinese in the early sixth century by Ratnamati and first translated into Tibetan by Atiśa, although this text is not known to survive. Ngok Loden Sherab translated it a second time based on teachings from the Kashmiri Pandita Sajjana, and theirs remains the standard translation. It has been translated into English several times, and recently into French. See the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, read more about the Ratnagotravibhāga, or take a look at the most complete English translation in When the Clouds Part by Karl Brunnholzl.

The Titles

The title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra[1] is attested in the surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. It roughly translates as “The Highest Teaching (uttaratantra) of the Mahāyāna, A Treatise (śāstra) Analyzing (vibhāga) the Source (gotra) of the Three Jewels (ratna).”
gotra
Disposition, lineage, or class; an individual's gotra determines the type of enlightenment one is destined to attain.
term page
One surviving Sanskrit reference, Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkāra, gives the name as Mahāyānottara: [Treatise] on the Superior Mahāyāna [Doctrine].[2] Western scholars only became aware of Sanskrit versions in the 1930s (see below); prior to this, they knew the text only in Chinese or Tibetan translation, and this was complicated by the fact that both the Chinese and the Tibetan traditions divide the text into two. Where in India the Ratnagotravibhāga was a single work comprised of root verses, explanatory verses, and prose commentary, the Chinese and Tibetan translators and commentators considered the root and explanatory verses to be one text and the complete text, including the prose commentary, to be a second. Thus not only do we have multiple names in multiple languages for the treatise, but multiple names in Chinese and Tibetan for its different parts.

Takasaki & Kano

Book
A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra)
A classic translation and study of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Ratnagotravibhāga, with reference to the Chinese.
Takasaki, Jikidō. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIII. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO), 1966. https://archive.org/details/bdrc-W1KG1582/page/n1/mode/2up.
Book
Buddha-Nature and Emptiness
An essential study of a key text that presents buddha-nature theory and its transmission from India to Tibet, this book is the most thorough history of buddha-nature thought in Tibet and is exceptional in its level of detail and scholarly apparatus. It serves as a scholarly encyclopedia of sorts with extensive appendices listing every existent commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantraśāstra), as well as covering Ngok Lotsawa's commentarial text and his philosophical positions related with other Tibetan thinkers.
Kano, Kazuo. Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 91. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016.
The Chinese title of the combined verses and prose is Jiu jing yi cheng bao xing lun[3], which
Takasaki
has reconstructed as Uttara-ekayāna-ratnagotra-śāstra[4] and which translates to something like “Treatise on the Superior Jewel Family of the Single-Vehicle.”[5]
Kano
, however, suspects that the yicheng 一乘 is a mistake for dacheng 大乘, or Mahāyāna.[6] If this is the case then the title would back translate to a more familiar form (note that the Chinese does not contain the word "tantra.") In the standard edition of the Chinese canon, the extracted verses come first, after which the complete text is given (see below for references), without a new title. Both translations are credited to
Ratnamati
in the early sixth century.[7] It is not known why he—or someone else—separated the text into two, although one might speculate that it was done to make memorization easier.

Continuum vs. Teachings

When it comes to translating the title of the text Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, often referred to simply as the Uttaratantra or rgyud bla ma in Tibetan, there is a clear discrepancy between those that render the term tantra (rgyud) as a 'teaching' or 'doctrine' and those that translate it as 'continuum'...

Continuum vs. Teachings: Discrepancies in the Translation of the Term Tantra (rgyud) in the Subtitle of the Ratnagotravibhāga

Keep reading...
The Tibetan tradition names the extracted verses Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which back-translates into Sanskrit as Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra, and might be rendered in English as something like “Treatise on the Superior Mahāyāna Tantra.” The complete text, however, is titled Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, which reconstructs as Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra-vyākhyā, and translates to “A Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Mahāyāna.” It is important to note that the title Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā—or any version with "vyākhyā"—is not attested in any surviving Sanskrit manuscript. Kano surmised that the root verses were extracted by a disciple of the Tibetan translator and given the title of the work, at which point the entire text was deemed to be a commentary and therefore given the title of “vyākhyā.”[8] Note that the Tibetan tradition dispensed with the phrase “Ratnagotravibhāga” in the title; it is commonly known as the Uttaratantra.

For more on this

Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā
Western scholars on the Ratnagotravibhāga have largely followed Tibetan tradition and divided the text in two, abbreviating the root verses as RGV and the entire text as RGVV.

Authorship[9]

The identity of the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga is not known. We have names, but the Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan traditions differ so radically that scholars have been unable to reach a consensus. The Sanskrit manuscripts found in Tibetan libraries in the 1930s do not identify an author, nor do the Chinese translations, which date to the early sixth century; only later catalogs provide a name. In brief, the Chinese tradition points to a man named Sāramati, a member of the kṣatriya clan from Central or Northern India. The later Indian and Central Asian traditions point to
Maitreya
as the author of the entire text, while Tibetan tradition credits the verses to the Bodhisattva Maitreya and the prose commentary to
Ārya Asaṅga
.[10]

The earliest Chinese attribution comes from the important treatise Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀 written in 594 by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597), who identifies the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga as Jianyi 堅意. Two texts from the seventh century both name the author Jianhui 堅惠.[11] Jianyi and Jianhui can both be rendered as Sāramati or Sthiramati; yi 意 and hui 惠, which both mean "wisdom," were used at the time to render mati.[12] The issue is over the jian 堅, meaning "firm," and whether it transcribes sāra or sthira; both sthira and sāra can have the meaning of "strong" or "firm."

Maitreya

Asaṅga

Ratnamati

Sāramati

Sthiramati

In his 1950 edition of the Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotravibhāga,
Johnston
asserted that the author was Sthiramati, the author of several Yogācara-inflected commentaries on Abhidharma literature known in both China and Tibet (by the name Slob dpon blo gros brtan pa, which translates to "firm wisdom").[13] Multiple Japanese and European scholars have also taken this position.
Book
Buddhist Cosmic Unity
The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivart is a short Mahāyāna sūtra extant in its entirety only in Chinese translation. To judge from its use as a proof-text in the seminal philosophical treatise Ratnagotravibhāga, which quotes roughly half of the sūtra, it is a fundamental scripture expressing ideas about the unitary nature of saṁsāra and nirvāṇa, and each individual’s innate capacity for awakening, called in this text and elsewhere ‘tathāgatagarbha,’ ‘embryo of the tathāgatas.’
      Although the text has hitherto drawn the attention primarily of Japanese scholars, this is the first critical edition of the sūtra, aligning its Chinese text with the available Sanskrit, offering a richly annotated English translation, a detailed introduction which places the work in its historical and doctrinal context, and a number of appendices exploring key notions, providing a reading text shorn of annotation, and enumerating the prolific quotations of the work found in Chinese Buddhist literature. This volume is thus an important contribution to studies of developing Mahāyāna Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine and the textual history of scriptures.
(Source: Hamburg University Press)
Silk, Jonathan, A. Buddhist Cosmic Unity: An Edition, Translation and Study of the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta. Hamburg Buddhist Studies Series 4. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2015/154/pdf/HamburgUP_HBS4_Silk_Unity.pdf.
Jonathan Silk
, however, convincingly argues against this view, although he is more careful than others, placing an asterisk before the name (*Sāramati) to indicate that it is nowhere attested in surviving Sanskrit literature. He points out that Jianyi/*Sāramati is credited with another composition, the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa (Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun 大乘法界無差別論), which Silk finds to be so closely related to the Ratnagotravibhāga to assure him that they were written by the same person. (Note the asterisk, meaning that all we have is a Chinese-language version.) Additional evidence comes from a passage in Fāzàng's commentary to his teacher *Devendraprajña's translation of the above text, in which he gives the author's name as Jianhui and also as Suoluomodi 娑囉末底, which Fāzàng glosses as “firm wisdom,." and which points to "sthira" rather than "sāra."[14] As Kano has noted, Chinese tradition after Zhiyi settled on this individual, Sāramati, as the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga.[15]
Article
On the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna
An introduction to the Awakening of Faith
Gardner, Alex. "On the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, October 9, 2019. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/On_the_Awakening_of_Faith_in_the_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na

Central Asian tradition, on the other hand, credited the treatise to the Bodhisattva Maitreya. The earliest surviving example of this is a fragment of a Khotanese Hybrid Sanskrit discovered in the library cave at Dunhuang in the early twentieth century that quotes the “Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra” and credits it to “the bodhisattva Ārya Maitreya.” The fragment quotes both root verses and commentarial verses without suggesting different authorship. Kano dates this fragment to the 840s based on the Chinese text written on the front side of the paper.[16]

While the Central Asian and late Indian tradition of the Ratnagotravibhāga credits Maitreya as the sole author of the text, the Tibetan tradition splits the authorship of the work between Maitreya (the basic and explanatory verses) and Asaṅga (prose commentary). This split dates to the very beginning of the text's history in Tibet; the colophon to Ngok's translation credits Maitreya with the verses and Asaṅga with the prose.[17] This continued to be the Tibetan tradition and is followed by most scholars who work from the Tibetan side. A few scholars have proposed that perhaps Sāramati was given the epithet "Maitreya," which would thereby unite the Chinese and Tibetan traditions, but Kano points out that there is no evidence to support this conjecture.[18] Why Ngok gave credit to Asaṅga for the prose commentary section of the text is not yet understood. As Kano points out, the Kashmiri tradition in which Ngok trained does not appear to have ascribed authorship to Asaṅga.[19] One might speculate that a Tibetan scribe separated the verses from the prose to make a more easily memorized text; if this occurred around the time that Asaṅga's star was rising in Tibet with the translation of his Yogācāra treatises, then the scribe may have felt there would be value in linking Asaṅga's name to the Ratnagotravibhāga.

Surviving recensions of the text in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan

There are three surviving manuscripts of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Sanskrit, all incomplete. All of these were located only in the middle of the twentieth century. The first, in eleven folia[20], dates to the tenth or eleventh centuries. It was discovered and photographed in the library of Ngor Monastery in the early 1930s by a Bengali scholar named Sāṅkṛtyāyana.[21] This manuscript is currently stored in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. A second manuscript of Nepalese provenance and dating to around the twelfth century was located at Zhalu Monastery, again by Sāṅkṛtyāyana.[22] Kano does not indicate where this manuscript is currently located. The third, also from Zhalu, was brought to the China Ethnic Library in Beijing sometime between the 1960s and 1990s and is now housed at the Tibet Museum in Lhasa. On the basis of the first two, Johnson prepared an edited version which was published posthumously in 1950 and continues to serve as the standard (with slight corrections) Sanskrit version.

The Ratnagotravibhāga was translated into Chinese by Ratnamati (Lenamoti 勒那摩提). It is preserved in the Chinese canon under the title of Jiujing yicheng baoxinglun 究竟一乘寶性論, Taishō no. 1611, vol 31. The Chinese edition is significantly different from the Sanskrit and Tibetan, suggesting that very different versions were circulating in India. The first sections (lines 813a8-820c20) consists of eighteen opening verses that are not found in Sanskrit or Tibetan translation; Takasaki suggested that these were composed by the translator.[23] The treatise itself is lines 820c21-848a27 complete with root verses, commentarial verses, and prose commentary.

Ratnamati is said to have come to China from Madhyadeśa (zhongtianzhu 中天竺) between 498 and 508 and translated the Ratnagotravibhāga between 511 and around 520 in Luoyang.[24] He may or may not have brought the manuscript with him, and may have been assisted by Bodhiruci.[25]

According to Tibetan histories, the Ratnagotravibhāga was translated into Tibetan six times. Only that of Sajjana and Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab (rngog lo tsA ba blo ldan shes rab, 1059-1109) survives. The extracted verses are Derge 4024/Peking 5525, titled Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos. The full text is Derge 4025/Peking 5526, under the title Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa. There exist multiple manuscripts and prints of this full translation, many of which the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project has microfilmed.[26]

Sajjana and Ngok Lotsāwa were the second team to translate the Ratnagotravibhāga; before them Atiśa Dīpaṃkara[27] and Naktsho Tsultrim Gyelwa[28] had done so. Translations after Ngok were made by Patsab Nyima Drak,[29] Marpa Dopa Chokyi Wangchuk,[30] Jonang Lotsawa Lodro Pel (the basic verses only),[31] and Yarlung Lotsāwa.[32] Alongside that of Sajjana and Ngok, at least the translations by Atiśa and Naksho and by Patsab survived into the sixteenth century, as Go Lotsāwa Zhonnu Pel[33] consulted them for his famous commentary.[34]

Translations into European Languages

Book
The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature
The Uttar Tantra like many other texts of the time was written in very terse, compact language with extremely deep and subtle references which makes the text accessible to only an extremely erudite scholar. This book follows an oral tradition used by lamas for the last ten centuries which meant that every point was numbered, placed in a category, stated, restated, emphasized, and then summarized. Thrangu Rinpoche spent several months giving a line by line commentary on this Uttar Tantra. Had the transcript simply been typeset, the commentary would have been about 700 pages long and would have been very difficult to follow. So with the help of chapters, headings, and extensive elimination of repetition and categorization, the Uttar Tantra was brought down to a manageable size which could be easily read by Westerners. A glossary and appendix of Tibetan terms were also added for the reader not familiar with Buddhist terms. A commentary have also been made so that the reader could read it without having to refer to the root text. The result is quite extraordinary. We have a complete rendering of an intact text of the period by someone who not only has studied it for a lifetime, but who has done the same meditative practices that Asaṅga did to reach the realization described in the text. ln addition to this we have Thrangu Rinpoche’s line by line exposition explaining every word of the text. The covering of a text with this precision with the guide of Kongtrul's shastra which has to be one of the greatest commentaries on any religious text of this period is something which has been available to only a few rare individuals living over the past centuries in monasteries in Tibet. (Source: Exotic India)
Thrangu Rinpoche. The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature; A Commentary on The Uttara Tantra Ṣāstra of Asaṅga. Translated by Ken Holmes and Katia Holmes. Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 131. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1994. https://archive.org/details/uttaratantraatreatiseonbuddhanaturecommentaryofasangathrangukhenchenrinpochesatguru_202003_3_y/mode/2up.
Book
Maitreya on Buddha Nature: A New Translation of Asaṅga's Mahāyāna Uttara Tantra Śāstra
During the last years of his life, Buddha Sakyamuni revealed the deepest of his teachings, in what we now call the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. These show the heart nature of every one and every thing to be the sublime perfection of enlightenment. This unrecognized inner essence is known as buddha nature. To discover it completely is to become a Buddha, with all a Buddha's qualities and power to help others. But what, really and truly, is a Buddha? What lies at the heart of the Buddha's teachings, the dharma? What is it that illuminates the Buddhist saints of the sangha? These and many other questions are answered in precise and beautiful poetry by Asanga, in his great classic, the Mahayana Uttara Tantra, which has become one of the most important doctrinal texts of Tibetan Buddhism.

This new and refreshingly accessible translation is accompanied by a commentary based on the explanations of the most learned contemporary masters of the Kagy Tradition. It provides an introduction for those new to buddha nature as well as a major and essential reference work, to which one can return again and again for inspiration and guidance.

(Source: back cover)
Holmes, Ken, and Katia Holmes, trans. Maitreya on Buddha Nature: A New Translation of Asaṅga’s Mahāyāna Uttara Tantra Śāstra. Forres, Scotland: Altea, 1999.
Book
When the Clouds Part
"Buddha nature" (tathāgatagarbha) is the innate potential in all living beings to become a fully awakened buddha. This book discusses a wide range of topics connected with the notion of buddha nature as presented in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and includes an overview of the sūtra sources of the tathāgatagarbha teachings and the different ways of explaining the meaning of this term. It includes new translations of the Maitreya treatise Mahāyānottaratantra (Ratnagotravibhāga), the primary Indian text on the subject, its Indian commentaries, and two (hitherto untranslated) commentaries from the Tibetan Kagyü tradition. Most important, the translator’s introduction investigates in detail the meditative tradition of using the Mahāyānottaratantra as a basis for Mahāmudrā instructions and the Shentong approach. This is supplemented by translations of a number of short Tibetan meditation manuals from the Kadampa, Kagyü, and Jonang schools that use the Mahāyānottaratantra as a work to contemplate and realize one’s own buddha nature. (Source: Shambhala Publications)
Brunnhölzl, Karl. When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra. Tsadra Foundation Series. Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2014.
The Ratnagotravibhāga was first translated into a European language in 1931 by the Russian Buddhologist
Eugène Obermiller
, who worked from the Tibetan. It was published under the title The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism.[35] Following Sāṅkṛtyāyana’s discovery of the Sanskrit manuscripts and Johnson’s edition, Japanese scholar Takasaki Jikidō published a second English translation, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. He worked primarily from the Sanskrit, but also consulted the Chinese and Tibetan translations.[36] Ken and Katia Holmes, students of Thrangu Rinpoche (b. 1933), translated the basic verses from the Tibetan in the 1970s, publishing it first in 1979 as Changeless Nature,[37] which they revised in 1989 as The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature[38] and again in 1999 as Maitreya on Buddha Nature.[39] In 2014 Karl Brunnhölzl translated the Ratnagotravibhāga from the Tibetan in When the Clouds Part.[40]

Further Reading

Article
Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature
Scholars of Buddhism writing in European languages have celebrated, derided, and frequently misinterpreted the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha for well over a hundred years. While some have seen it as a crucial theoretical step to explain how deluded, impure sentient beings can become buddhas, others have dismissed the entire idea as non-Buddhist. Following Chinese and Tibetan scholiasts, Western scholars have labeled tathāgatagarbha as either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, although most now understand that the doctrine arose independently of either of these main Mahāyāna schools. The philosophical question of whether ultimate reality can or should be described in positive terms, and the ethical matters of faith and practice all come to the fore in discussions of tathāgatagarbha, and scholars have for the most part spent the last century explicating the scripture and commentary that have sought to make sense of it all. To the degree that academics have assumed the role of interpreting Buddhist doctrine to Western audiences, tathāgatagarbha—“buddha-nature” to the popular reader—seems now to be the foremost shared interest of the academic and the practitioner. This essay attempts to be exhaustive, referencing all books, articles, and chapters that take buddha-nature as the primary focus. It discusses only scholarship published in European languages.
Gardner, Alex. "Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, July 16, 2019. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/Outline_of_Western_Scholarship_on_Buddha-Nature.
  1. According to the Sanskrit grammatical rules associated with sandhi, the word boundaries of the “a” of Mahāyāna and the “u” of Uttaratantra combine as “o.” The title could just as easily be rendered “Mahāyāna Uttaratantra Śāstra.”
  2. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 27, note #41.
  3. 究竟一乘寶性論
  4. Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga, 7.
  5. Brunnhölzl (When the Clouds Part, 93) gives the Chinese title as Ratnagotraśāstra, which comes from the common abbreviation of 寶性論.
  6. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 27 note #40.
  7. This date is not universally accepted. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 20-21.
  8. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 18
  9. This section is based on the scholarship of Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity, Appendix A; Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 20-31; Takasaki, A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga, 6-9; Brunnhölzl, When the Clouds Part, 94. For a chart of modern scholars’ positions on the authorship of the Ratnagotravibhāga, see Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 29.
  10. It should be noted that in contemporary Tibetan communities some teachers assert that the commentary section of the Ratnagotravibhāga was composed by Vasubhandu. This claim was noted by Japanese scholar Nakamura Zuiryū in 1961. See Kano, Buddha-nature and Emptiness, 20-31. Kano considers the assertion to be "weak on evidence."
  11. These are a commentary on the Sandhinirmocanasūtra (jieshenmi jingshu 解深密經疏) by the Korean monk Wǒnch’ǔuk 圓測 (613-696) and the Huayan patriarch Fāzàng’s 法藏 (643-712) treatise Dacheng fajie wuchabie lunshu 大乘法界無差別論疏. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 22.
  12. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 22
  13. Silk (Buddhist Cosmic Unity, 150) points out that in China, Sthiramati’s name was usually translated as Anhui 安慧 and transliterated (in contemporary pronunciation) as either xichiluomodi 悉恥羅末底 or xidiluomodi 悉地羅末底. Pronunciation of Chinese characters has changed radically over the centuries, and while scholars have made valiant attempts at reconstructing previous pronunciations, it is an imperfect art.
  14. Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity'', 152-153.
  15. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 24.
  16. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 25. Kano also suggests (page 27) that this text was unlikely to have had any impact on the Tibetan tradition of the treatise, as Tibetans universally name the text Mahāyānottaratantra. He also points to the curious fact that Devendraprajñā, the translator of the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa, was himself Khotanese and yet ascribed both that text and the Ratnagotravibhāga to Sāramati rather than Maitreya.
  17. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 28.
  18. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 30.
  19. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 28.
  20. These are folia 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, and 26.
  21. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Sanskrit Palm-leag Mss. in Tibet, 33. The great twentieth-century Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel noted the existence of this manuscript in 1934. See Jinpa and Lopez, Grains of Gold, 42.
  22. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, "Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet," 34; Sferra, "Sanskrit Manuscripts," 47.
  23. Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga, 9-14.
  24. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 21.
  25. Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity, 7-8.
  26. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 19 note #4; he points out that these have yet to be studied.
  27. His dates are 982-c. 1055
  28. Nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba, 1011-1064
  29. Pa tshab nyi ma grags, born 1055
  30. Mar pa do pa chos kyi dbang phyug, 1042-1136
  31. jo nang lo tsA ba blo gros dpal, 1299/1300-1353/1364
  32. Yar klung lo tsA ba, dates unknown
  33. ’Go lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal, 1392-1481
  34. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness Chapter 6 for a survey of these six translations, including surviving passages of the five that have been lost.
  35. Obermiller, Eugène, "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism."
  36. Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga.
  37. Maitreya, Changeless Nature, 1979.
  38. Maitreya, The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature.
  39. Maitreya, Maitreya on Buddha Nature.
  40. Brunnhölzl, When the Clouds Part.
Retrieved from "https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php?title=Articles/On_the_Ratnagotravibhāga&oldid=30505"