Property:ArticleSummary
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
T
In the Chinese Buddhist Canon, there are two corpuses of texts which go by the name of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra'' (henceforth, ''MNS''). The first corresponds in main to the ''Mahāparinibbāna-suttanta'' in the ''Dīgha-nikāya'' of the Pāli Canon. Being essentially Hīnayāna in outlook, it has received little attention in China. The second, which exhibits all the features of a Mahāyāna text, generated immediate enthusiasm on its first introduction into China in the early fifth century, and has exerted enormous influence on the development of Chinese Buddhist thought. Especially worth mentioning in this connection is its teaching of Buddha-nature. It is well-known that the idea of Buddha-nature, one of the central concepts in Chinese Buddhism, was first made popular in the country by the Mahāyāna version of the ''MNS'', which remains the principal source of reference as well as the final authority in all subsequent discussions on the subject. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to assert that without a proper understanding of the Buddha-nature doctrine as appears in this Mahāyāna version of the ''MNS'', it would be impossible to grasp the significance of the subsequent evolution of the concept in the Chinese Buddhist tradition.<br> It is the orthodox belief that the ''MNS'' teaches that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature. Since in the ''MNS'' "Buddha-nature" refers to "the nature of the Buddha" and "to possess" the Buddha-nature in the case of sentient beings usually indicates "to have in the future,"'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F2F-QINU`"' this belief amounts to the conviction that the MNS maintains that all sentient beings will achieve Buddhahood someday. This conviction is well attested by the text of the ''MNS''. Thus, we find it clearly expressed in the ''MNS'' that "all three vehicles will eventually share the same Buddha-nature":
'"`UNIQ--poem-00002F31-QINU`"'
Those who refuse to accept the tenet that all sentient beings without exception will possess the Buddha-nature are criticized by the ''MNS'' as wanting in faith.'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F33-QINU`"' In the sūtra, this idea of the universal presence of the Buddha-nature is presented as one of the distinctive themes of Mahāyāna writings'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F34-QINU`"' as well as among the principal claims to excellence of the ''MNS'' itself.'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F35-QINU`"' It is so highly esteemed that it is described as representing the "essential meaning" (''tzu-i'') of the Buddha's teaching;'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F36-QINU`"' and, together with the doctrine of the eternal nature of the Tathāgata, it is said to be definitive (''chüeh-ting'') and not open to future amendments.'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F37-QINU`"'<br> If this thesis of the eventual enlightenment of all sentient beings does indeed constitute the central theme of the ''MNS'', it is strongly qualified by the presence in the sutra of the concept of the'' icchantika''. The term "''icchantika''" is derived from the Sanskrit root ''is'' meaning "to desire," "to wish" and "to long for." This explains the variant Chinese renderings of the term "''icchantika''" as "a being of many desires" (''to-yü''), "a being cherishing desires" (''lo-yü'') and "a being full of greed" (''ta-t'an'').'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F38-QINU`"' But in the ''MNS'', the failings attributed to the ''icchantikas'' far exceed those which are usually associated with people of such descriptions. In the sūtra, the ''icchantika'' is described as "devoid of good roots"'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F39-QINU`"' and as "the most wicked being."'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F3A-QINU`"' He is depicted as "having no capacity for the [true] Dharma"'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F3B-QINU`"' such that he can never be rehabilitated by the instruction of the Buddha and so will never attain supreme enlightenment. Taken at its face value, this picture of a being condemned forever to spiritual darkness appears to contradict the proposition of the ''MNS'' that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature and so are destined for Buddhahood, and commentators of the ''MNS'' have been hard pressed to find a viable way out of this apparent dilemma.<br> The present article, which is the second of a two-part study on the problem of Buddha-nature in the ''MNS'','"`UNIQ--ref-00002F3C-QINU`"' is an attempt to unravel the various strands of thought present in the ''MNS'' regarding the character and fate of the ''icchantikas''. It is hoped that our discussion, brief and sketchy as it is, will be of help in throwing light on this highly intricate question. (Liu, "The Problem of the ''Icchantika''," 57–59)
The aim of this paper is to throw some light on the question of how the authors of early texts on buddha-nature (''tathāgatagarbha'', ''buddhadhātu'' etc.) in India, in the first centuries of the Common Era, perceived the process of awakening, i.e., how they imagined the actual realization of this buddha-nature, and how they described this process in terms of their own underlying vision. As far as I can see, the discussions of the last twenty years or so about the question of whether buddha-nature thought might actually be Buddhist at all'"`UNIQ--ref-00000537-QINU`"' have lost their immediate punch and relevance, and might already have become an historical topic to be studied in its own right. New approaches have entered the world of academic Buddhist Studies. They have shown Buddhism to be a multilayered phenomenon to be studied on many diverse levels, and honored
it as such, taking into consideration not only doctrinal aspects of the religion, but also the contexts in which these doctrines came into existence, as much as their assumed social ramifications. I have never doubted that the idea that all sentient beings have buddha-nature, alongside other notions, has always been of central interest for the Mahāyāna movement. It is an idea which can be found expressed in many of the sūtras of the Mahāyāna – not only those explicitly dedicated to the elucidation of this issue, but also in texts which in certain passages subscribe to the theory in passing, so to say.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000538-QINU`"' (Zimmermann, introduction, 513–14) +
In the present chapter I will discuss how the seventh Karma pa, Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454-1506), connects ''rang rig'','"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF4-QINU`"' in the sense of ''tshad ma'i 'bras bu'' (San: ''pramāṇaphala''),'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF5-QINU`"' with tathāgatagarbha in his major work, the ''Rig gzhung rgya mtsho''.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF6-QINU`"' Si tu Paṇ chen Chos kyi 'byung gnas (1699-1776) has pointed out that "there were several different brands of ''gzhan stong'', among which he adhered most closely to that of the Seventh Lord and Zi lung pa, which was somewhat different than that of Dol po pa."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF7-QINU`"' This statement points to the fact that the kind of ''gzhan stong'' ("empty-of-other" doctrine) that Si tu Paṇ chen blended with mahāmudrā and spread throughout the Karma Bka' brgyud pa traditions of Khams was derived from the seventh Karma pa.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF8-QINU`"'<br> The seventh Karma pa also influenced the great Sa skya scholar Shākya mchog Idan's later writings. While the seventh Karma pa is remembered as one of the most outstanding masters of the lineage and the founder of the Karma bka' brgyud ''bshad grwa'' at Mtshur phu, Shākya mchog Idan is described as "the most influential advocate of the ''gzhan stong'' in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BF9-QINU`"' Both masters are, in their own ways, still sources of the continued presence of an influential type of modified ''gzhan stong'' in the Bka' brgyud tradition,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BFA-QINU`"' distinct from Dol po pa's position.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BFB-QINU`"' The seventh Karma pa's ''Rigs gzhung rgya mtsho'' was studied at all the ''bshad grwas'' of the Karma Bka' brgyud tradition, with special emphasis on the first and the third part of the text,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BFC-QINU`"' while Shākya mchog ldan's writings have played an important role in the 'Brug pa Bka' rgyud ''bshad grwa'' tradition of Bhutan.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000BFD-QINU`"'
Articles/The Soul of Chinese Buddhism: Buddha-Nature and Universal Awakening; The Rise of Chinese Buddhist Humanism +
'''4.1 Buddhicizing the Chinese “soul” '''<br>
'''4.1.1 The Nirvāṇa Sūtras.''' Like many other ancient cultures, the Chinese, too, have a concept of a soul or abiding entity that survives the person‘s death. The Chinese word for such an abiding entity is ''línghún'' 靈魂. One of ancient China‘s largest and wealthiest temple, built in 328 (Eastern Jin dynasty) by the Indian monk, Huìlǐ 慧理,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' is called '''Língyǐn Sì''' 靈隐寺, the "Temple of the Soul‘s Retreat," belonging to the Chán school, located north-west of Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. In its heyday, during the kingdom of Wúyuè guó 吳越國 (907-978) [5.1.2.1], the temple boasted of 9 multi-storey buildings, 18 pavilions, 72 halls, more than 1300 dormitory rooms, inhabited by more than 3000 monks. Many of the rich Buddhist carvings in the ''Fēilái fēng'' 飛來峰 grottos and surrounding mountains also date from this era.<br> The Chinese word for ''anattā'' (P) or ''anātman'' (Skt) (non-self) is ''wúwǒ'' 無我, literally meaning "not-I." There is no Chinese word for ''not-linghun''. As such, although a Chinese Buddhist would intellectually or verbally accept the notion that there is no I (that is, an agent in an action), he would probably unconsciously hold on to the idea of some sort of independent abiding entity or eternal identity, that is, the ''linghun'', which is in effect the equivalent of the brahmanical ''ātman''. The situation becomes more complicated with Mahāyāna discourses, such as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, that speak of a transcendent Buddhanature as the true self.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
Read more [http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40b.4-The-soul-of-Chinese-Buddhism.pdf here] +
[Matthew Kapstein] discusses Tibetan esoteric traditions in which experiences of light and obscuration play prominent roles. The focal point here is the Great Perfection (''rdzogs-chen'') tradition of meditation, above all its teaching that some adepts who achieve the highest realization attain a "rainbow body" at death. When this takes place, the adept's physical remains dissolve into light and so make manifest the thoroughgoing transformation of the person that had been catalyzed by prior spiritual discipline. (Kapstein, preface, xii) +
Articles/The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism: The Work of Ārya Maitreya with a Commentary by Āryāsanga +
According to the Tibetan tradition, the foundation of all the exegetical literature connected with the Buddhist Scripture of the latest and, partly, of the intermediate period'"`UNIQ--ref-00000465-QINU`"' is contained in the 5 treatises ascribed to the Bodhisattva Maitreya. These are:—<br><br>
1) The ''Sūtrālaṁkāra'','"`UNIQ--ref-00000466-QINU`"'<br>
2) " ''Madhyānta-vibhanga'','"`UNIQ--ref-00000467-QINU`"'<br>
3) " ''Dharma-dharmatā-vibhanga'''"`UNIQ--ref-00000468-QINU`"'<br>
4) " ''Abhisamayālaṁkāra'','"`UNIQ--ref-00000469-QINU`"' and<br>
5) " ''Uttaratantra''.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000046A-QINU`"'<br><br>
Of these 5 treatises the original Sanskrit text of the ''Sutrālaṁkāra'' has been edited by Prof. [[Sylvain Levi]], who has likewise given a French translation of it. The Sanskrit text of the ''Abhisamayālaṁkāra'' and its Tibetan translation have been recently edited by Prof. Th. Stcherbatsky and by myself in the Bibliotheca Buddhica and will be followed by an analysis of the 8 subjects and the 70 topics which form its contents. The 3 other works have not, till now, met with the full appreciation of European scholars. The reason perhaps is that we possess only their Tibetan translations in the Tangyur (MDO XLIV), the original Sanskrit texts having not, up to this time, been discovered. An investigation of this branch of Buddhist literature according to the Tibetan sources enables us to ascertain the exclusive importance of the said 3 treatises as containing, in a very pregnant form, the idealistic and monistic teachings of later Buddhism. In particular the Tibetan works draw our attention to the ''Uttaratantra'', the translation and analysis of which forms the subject-matter of the present work. It is indeed the most interesting of the three, if not of all the five, being the exposition of the most developed monistic and pantheistic teachings of the later Buddhists and of the special theory of the Essence of Buddhahood,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000046B-QINU`"' the fundamental element'"`UNIQ--ref-0000046C-QINU`"' of the Absolute, as existing in all living beings. (Obermiller, introduction, 81–82)<br><br>
[http://prajnaquest.fr/downloads/BookofDzyan/ReferenceBooks/Obermiller/ratnagotravibhaga_or_uttaratantra_obermiller_1931.pdf Read more here . . .]
According to Don Handrick, who uses this translation in [[Maitreya's Sublime Continuum on Buddha Nature by Don Handrick|his teachings on the ''Uttaratantra'']], this is a "rather wordy" translation of the first chapter of the ''Uttaratantraśāstra'', made so due to the heavy use of parenthetical information derived from various commentaries on the text that the translators use to explicate the root verses. The work is a draft compilation and is not for general distribution. Permission has been granted for use in FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition) Basic Programs. +
Articles/The Yogācārā and Mādhyamika Interpretations of the Buddha-nature Concept in Chinese Buddhism +
The idea of Buddha-nature was first made popular in China in the early fifth century with the translation of the Mahāyāna ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' (hereafter cited as ''MNS''),'"`UNIQ--ref-00000EA7-QINU`"' and since then, it has remained one of the central themes of Chinese Buddhist thought. Already in the fifth and early sixth centuries, a wide variety of theories on the Buddha-nature had begun to appear, but extant information about them remains scanty and scattered.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000EA8-QINU`"' It is in the writings of Ching-ying Hui-yüan (523–592),'"`UNIQ--ref-00000EA9-QINU`"' the Yogācārin, and in Chi-tsang (549–623), the Mādhyamika, that we find the earliest available full-scale treatments of the subject. Hui-yüan and Chi-tsang hold a number of views in common with respect to the question of Buddha -nature:<br>
'"`UNIQ--poem-00000EAD-QINU`"'
Nevertheless, given their very different theoretical upbringings and doctrinal affiliations, it is inevitable that they would carry to their explanations of the Buddha-nature concept some of the basic principles and assumptions of their respective philosophical traditions. In examining and comparing the Buddha-nature teachings of Hui-yüan and Chi-tsang our present study attempts to show how the Buddha-nature concept has come to assume divergent significances when read in the context of the two main streams of thought in Mahāyāna Buddhism: Yogācāra and Mādhyamika. (Liu, "The Yogācāra and Mādhyamika Interpretations of the Buddha-nature Concept in Chinese Buddhism," 171) +
. . . We observe that in the non-dualist philosophy of the ''Uttaratantra'' only one ontological entity, that is, the Cosmical Body of the Buddha is recognised. The substratum of everything that exists is this Essence of the Buddha. The phenomenal nature does not really exist. It appears to exist due to the force of Transcendental Illusion. Absolute Monism is also the foundation of Modern Science. What really exists is Consciousness alone which has no plural. The plurality of the cosmos is only apparent, illusory. (Goswami, concluding remarks, 281–82) +
For a short but brilliant analysis of the positions of Dol po pa and Śākya mchog Idan we are very much indebted to the Jonang master Tāranātha, who is considered to be a follower and proponent of Dol po pa's doctrine. In each of the ''Twenty-one Differences with regard to the Profound Meaning'' a fictive initial statement of Śākya mchog Idan is followed by a similarly fictive reply of Dol po pa, Tāranātha being, of course, well aware of the fact that this is all ahistorical.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001029-QINU`"' To be sure, it is not possible to establish Śākya mchog ldan's or Dol po pa's views on the basis of this short text alone, but it does sharpen our awareness of the subtle aspects of ''gźan stoṅ'' when studying the bulky and often not very systematic works of these masters. Furthermore, critically evaluating these doctrinal differences against the background of pertinent Indian texts in such traditions as the Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha promises to be a second interesting task. Both are, however, beyond the scope of this paper. Such an evaluation will, however, be undertaken with regard to the different presentations of ''trisvabhāva'' as an example of how one might proceed.<br> Tāranātha begins his somewhat delicate task of comparing the two masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan in a conciliating manner, by explaining that both supposedly see what is profound reality and hence should not have different thoughts about it. It is only in order to accommodate the different needs of their disciples that they enunciate variant views. Even though the essential ''gźan stoṅ'' view and meditation practices of both masters are the same, there are a lot of minor differences regarding tenets (''grub mtha''') that arise when formulating the view on the level of apparent truth.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000102A-QINU`"'<br> The first four of the twenty-one points address differences in the exegesis of the Madhyamaka and Maitreya texts which are considered to be commentaries on the Buddha's intention underlying the second and third turnings of the "Wheel of the Dharma" (''dharmacakra'').'"`UNIQ--ref-0000102B-QINU`"' Points 5-8 embody Śākya mchog ldan's and Dol po pa's different understanding of non-dual wisdom. In points 9-16, their views on the ''trisvabhāva'' theory are distinguished. In a related topic, Tāranātha also elaborates the different understandings of self-awareness (point 11), entities and non-entities, and conditioned and unconditioned phenonema (all in point 13). Next, our attention is drawn to different ways of relating the four noble truths with the apparent and ultimate (point 17). The last four points deal with the two masters' views on the Buddha-nature. (Mathes, "Tāranātha's 'Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning'," 294–95)<br><br>
[https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8952/2845 Read more here . . .]
W
Wǒnch'ǔk (613–696) was an influential Korean expatriate scholar-monk active during the seventh century in T'ang dynasty China. Considering his impact on contemporary Chinese Buddhist thought as well as on later Tibetan and Japanese Buddhist developments, it is surprising that Wǒnch'ǔk has yet to receive the attention he deserves from the academic world, including Korean scholarship. Possible explanations for this neglect are the complexity of his philosophy and the fact that one of his major works, ''Haesimmilgyǒng so'', a commentary on the ''Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra'' (The Sūtra of the Explanation of Profound Mysteries), has not been preserved in its entirety.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Moreover, ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun shu'', or ''Sǒngyusingnon so'' in Korean, his commentary on the ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun'' (''Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra''; Treatise on the Completion of Consciousness-Only)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'—probably his most representative work—has been lost. Despite this dearth of extant materials, what does remain unequivocally demonstrates Wǒnch'ǔk's impact on Chinese interpretations of Indian Yogācāra theories, an area of doctrine that was the subject of fervent contention among noted Sinitic scholiasts. Wǒnch'ǔk stands at the juncture between the period dominated by the translation of Indian and Central Asian Buddhist texts and the era when "Chinese Buddhism" coalesced into a distinct tradition. Given the diverse notions of "Chinese" identity evident during the cosmopolitan T'ang dynasty, during which China subsumed many different cultures and territories, I am also interested in exploring how a figure like Wǒnch'ǔk can be viewed as representing a more abstract notion of "Sinitic" identity. (Cho, introductory remarks, 173) +
Z
Articles/Zhanran's Arguments in Support of His Buddha-Nature Theory, as Presented in His Diamond Scalpel Treatise: Starting from an Analysis of the Title +
The Sinicised schools of Buddhism – such as Tiantai 天台 – are deeply rooted in the Indian Buddhist teachings, but at the same time, their masters reinterpreted the inherited teachings, and attributed new meanings to the translated texts, by shifting the emphasis, changing the point of views, etc. Through the process of interpreting and reinterpreting, some new theories emerged having diametrically different ideas from those of the original Buddhist teachings. All of them are original and intriguing examples of a Chinese way of thinking and worth of being subjects of a more detailed examination. When creating commentaries to the Indian ''sūtras'' and treatises, the Chinese masters elaborated their own theories. Rather than the word by word, sentence by sentence type of commentaries, these commentaries attempting to explain and expand the 'subtle' meaning of a parable, a symbol or certain characters, proved to be more adequate to the purpose of elaborating original, ingenious ideas, reaching far beyond the original textual meaning, and the presupposed intention of the author or translator.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001197-QINU`"' A typical example of such approach is the ''magnum opus'' of the ''de facto'' founder of the Tiantai school, Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), ''The Subtle Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra'' (''Miaofa lianhua jing xuanyi'' 妙法蓮華經玄義; T33: 1716), where the author presents the basic tenets of the Tiantai school, in the form of explaining the character 'miao' 妙 (meaning 'subtle' or 'wonderful'), the very first character of the most well-known Chinese translation of the ''Lotus Sūtra''.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001198-QINU`"' In the eyes of the author (and his followers), this single character offers sufficient basis to expound his novel insights, in a way that, despite their novelty, are at the same time linked to the Buddhist tradition. A substantial part of the lengthy commentary is centered on the 'explanation' of the term 'subtle'. According to Zhiyi, this notion is the best expression of ultimate reality. 'For Chih-i the word 'subtle' symbolizes and summarizes that which is beyond conceptual understanding, and thus it is the word most appropriate to describe reality, which is ultimately indescribable.''"`UNIQ--ref-00001199-QINU`"'<br> From this, we can draw the conclusions that for a Tang Dynasty (618–907) monk, trained on the teachings and traditions of a Sinitic school of Buddhism, the title of a Buddhist writing is highly important, for mainly two reasons: (1.) it can bear the very essence, the 'subtle' meaning of the whole work, and (2.) it can serve as an anchor, that bounds it to the 'original' Buddhist teachings, serving as a means of legitimatisation, at the same time. These two aims can be detected in Zhanran's'"`UNIQ--ref-0000119A-QINU`"' 湛然 (711−782) choice of the title for his ''Diamond Scalpel'' (''Jin’gang bei'' 金剛錍; T46:1932) treatise. The ''Diamond Scalpel'' treatise, in one fascicle, written in his old age, is a relatively short work, compared to his lengthy commentaries, yet well deserves to be considered his most creative, genuine work. The main theme of the treatise is the Tiantai interpretation of the teaching of Buddha-nature, as inherently including insentient realm, as well as all sentient beings. While expounding the topic, and presenting his arguments, the main tenets of the Tiantai school emerge one after the another, offering the reader a complete picture of the self and the world, suffering and the ways to liberation, etc. – i.e. problems of utmost importance for a Buddhist practitioner –, as seen by a Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk. At a first reading, the title of the treatise does not seem to tell us a lot about its content, but taking a closer look, and applying a more careful, meticulous examination, we find that Zhanran's choice of title must have been the result of a thoughtful consideration, for it perfectly suites the above mentioned two criteria. Following Zhiyi’s legacy, Zhanran chooses a title, which 'symbolizes and summarizes' the main issues to be discussed in his treatise. More precisely, first of all, it hides an allusion to a simile from a mahāyāna ''sūtra'' (thought to render the words of the Buddha), and thus anchors, bounds the whole work to the 'original' teachings of the Buddha, and secondly, after decoding the symbols and references, and interpreting them in the light of Tiantai philosophy, we find that these three characters can truly be regarded the quintessence of the work, the very argument in support of the theory of Buddha-nature of the insentient. Zhanran, following the example of his great predecessor, Zhiyi, expounds and argues based on the most important texts and tenets of mahāyāna Buddhism, while interpreting, reinterpreting, and often furnishing these with new, ingenious meanings.<br> First, we are going to examine the provenance and possible interpretations of the title – i.e. the context in which the basic notions appear, before Zhanran's time –, Zhanran's own explanation of the title, i.e. the very first paragraph of his work, and further interpretations of the title (and its explanation) found in later commentaries, written to the treatise, by Tang and Song Dynasty monks. Through this one, particular example we can get a glimpse into the complex process of how Chinese monks interpreted and reinterpreted the texts inherited from India, the way in which through focusing on, and/or consciously selecting certain motifs, similes or even terms, embellished these with new meanings, which were further used as tools to prove their own ideas and theories, as if these were identical with the original teachings of Buddha Śākyamuni. Secondly, we are going to examine the most important arguments Zhanran is using to prove his theory about the Buddha-nature of the insentient. I will argue that these arguments can be grouped around two key concepts, already concealed within the title. (Pap, "Zhanran’s Arguments in Support of his Buddha-Nature Theory," 129–130)
Ś
The ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādanirdeśa'' (ŚSN; The Lion's Roar Teaching of Queen Śrīmālā) is one of the most famous Mahāyāna sūtras representative of the Tathāgatagarbha theory. In this sūtra, Queen Śrīmāla, who is the daughter of King Prasenajit of Śrāvasti and is married to King Yaśomitra of Ayodhyā, relates her understanding of the true doctrine (saddharma) to which the Lord Buddha listens and gives his affirmation. This sūtra employs the narrative of Queen Śrīmālā to express the Tathāgatagarbha theory that "although all beings are enmired in afflictions (kleśa), in essence they are the same as the Buddha, that is, all living beings dwell within the womb (garbha) of the Tathāgata (i.e., Buddha)." Since this sūtra, like the ''Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra'', is being expounded by a layperson instead of the Buddha, it is representative of the non-monastic form of religion typical of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and historically enjoyed immense popularity in China and Japan.<br> There are two Chinese translations of the sūtra: the Guṇabhadra (求那跋陀羅) version translated
in A. D. 436 called the ''Shengman shizihou yicheng dafangbian fangguang jing'' 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經, T. 353, vol. 12 <ŚSN (Ch.1)>); and the Bodhiruci (菩提流支) version of A. D. 710 called the ''Shengman furen hui'' (勝鬘夫人會, T. 310(48), vol. 11 <ŚSN(Ch.2)> ), which is the 48th sūtra of the ''Ratnakūṭa'' collection (''Da bao ji jing'' 大寶積經) There is also a ninth century Tibetan translation called the '''Phags pa Iha mo dpal 'phren gi seṅ ge'i sgra śes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo'' <ŚSN(Tib.)>. The English translation by Alex and Hideko Wayman is based on the Chinese translation.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001080-QINU`"' Readers are referred to this work for more detailed information. There is also a great deal of research that has been done on this sūtra by Japanese scholars, which we will not touch upon here.<br> The original version of this sūtra has been lost, and there are only a few fragmentary quotations in Sanskrit in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya''. In The Schøyen Collection, however, I was able to discover three virtually complete folios that cover the final portion of the sūtra as well as another two fragments related to other sections. As the sūtra ends on the recto side of folio no. 392,'"`UNIQ--ref-00001081-QINU`"' the verso side of the same folio begins another sūtra which is the subject of the next report in this volume. In the following, I will introduce the above mentioned three folios and two fragments related to the ŚSN. (Matsuda, "Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādanirdeśa," 65)
This paper is being presented as part of a panel on the topic of Reformulations of Yogācāra in Tibet. Particularly, it relates to Tibetan commentary on ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' (''AA'') I:39, in which it is taught that the foundation (''pratiṣṭhā'') for religious practice is the ''dharmadhātu'' and that since the ''dharmadhātu'' is undifferentiated (''asaṃbhedā''), there are ultimately no distinct ''gotras'' corresponding to the three vehicles. This teaching is usually interpreted as a Mādhyamaka justification for one final vehicle, as opposed to the three-vehicle theory, attributed to Cittamātra/Vijñaptimātratā, and which is closely related to the doctrine of three gotras found in sutras such as ''Saṃdhinirmocana'' and ''Laṅkāvatāra'' and śāstras such as ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''. However, there are some Tibetan writers outside the influential Gelug tradition who see the equation of ''gotra'' with ''dharmadhātu'' as an essentially Yogācāra doctrine. This alternative viewpoint implies that Yogācāra and Cittamātra are not, as is commonly held to be the case, the same thing and brings to the fore the question of whether Yogācāra is better understood as a tradition that transcends traditional doxographic categories. Through an analysis of Śākya-mchog-ldan’s explanation of ''AA'' I:39, which includes a differentiation of two other terms that are also often held to be synonymous, namely ''gotra'' and buddha-essense (or ''tathāgatagarbha''), I aim to highlight some of the ways in which his ‘reformulation’ of Yogācāra implies a reformulation of certain Cittamātra doctrines. Finally, I conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the extent to which doxographical discourse both restricts and allows for the formulation of an individual point of view. (Gilks, introduction, 1) +
