Property:ArticleAbstract
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
R
The tantric path of Buddhism is complex and arduous, but its surprising culmination is the practice of spaciousness, ease, and simplicity known as Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. +
With an intention to contribute a little to gaining a fuller and more accurate picture of the intellectual agenda and philosophical edifice of Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po (henceforth: Rong-zom-pa), an eleventh-century Tibetan scholar, I wish to address in this article merely one question, namely, how Rong-zom-pa interprets what we shall call the positivistic ontology of the Tathāgatagarbha school[1] while he himself undoubtedly proposes a radically negativistic ontology of a Madhyamaka sub-school
called Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda. To be sure, the word ontology is used here in the sense of the philosophical theory about the true or ultimate reality of phenomena (according to any given Buddhist system).[2] In particular, the idea that the “root-less-ness” of the mind (or, the rootless mind) is the "root" of all phenomena, or ideas similar to it, is explicit in a number of textual sources that are de facto considered the literature of the Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda by Rong-zom-pa.[3]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#It was apparently Lambert Schmithausen who employed the term "Tathāgatagarbha school" (i.e. “Tathāgatagarbha-Schule”) for the first time. See, for example, Schmithausen 1969, 167–168. In a public lecture in 1998, however, he employed the term "Tathāgatagarbha-Richtung" with the explanation that at least in India, this strand of Mahāyāna Buddhism, unlike Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, does not seem to have devolved into a bigger and independent school. See Schmithausen 1998, 2; Schmithausen 1973, 132.
#As a response to some points raised by the reviewers of this article, I wish to offer here some words of explanation. First, in a short article such as this, it has been impossible to either explain at length all the doctrinal backgrounds and arguments that have been presupposed by Rong-zom-pa or cite chunks of relevant Tibetan passages and critically edit and translate them. This will have to wait for another occasion. Second, insofar as every philosophical Buddhist system or sub-system would have its own conception of true reality, thereby using various terms (e.g. ''śūnyatā'', ''tathatā'', ''dharmadhātu'', ''bhūtakoṭi'', ''samatā'', ''dharmatā'', and so on), one can indeed speak of the ontology of any given Buddhist philosophical system, no matter whether it is positivistic or negativistic. The Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda, too, has its own very distinct theory of true reality, which, according to Rong-zom-pa, is the "indivisibility of the two modes of reality" (''bden pa gnyis dbyer med pa''). In my view, the argument that because Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda denies any (metaphysical) substratum, be it theistic or otherwise, one cannot even speak of “negativistic” ontology, for it is no ontology at all, does not hold. Such a claim is unfounded insofar as we are speaking here of a "negativistic" ontology of all saṃsāric and nirvāṇic phenomena. Third, it is true that the expression "the ontology of substratum-less-less" indeed sounds like an oxymoron, but we cannot deny that, in general, Mahāyāna sources abound in paradoxical statements, as exemplified by the idea of what are called the "eight [kinds of] profundity" (''zab mo brgyad'') (Mi-pham, mKhas 'jug, 238.1-241.4), which are said to be often misunderstood as contradictions, and a comprehension of them is said to be a realization (''abhisamaya'': ''mngon par rtogs pa'') of a bodhisattva of the eighth stage. Fourth, one question that recurs when dealing with the Tathāgatagarbha theory is why emptiness, purity, or "substratum-less-ness" of rocks or vegetables cannot qualify to be tathāgatagarbha and why rocks and vegetables cannot become buddhas. There may be several explanations why the Tibetan tradition, to my knowledge, never came to accept that inanimate entities (such as rocks) and vegetative entities (such as plants) can become buddhas. I can think of three possible explanations. (a) They followed the Indian tradition, and as far as I am concerned, Indian Buddhism did not propose that entities such as rocks and vegetables can become buddhas. (b) Following the Tibetan (and certainly also Indian) Buddhist understanding of the trans/ultra-phenomenal reality (e.g. ''tathatā'', ''śūnyatā'', ''dharmatā'', and ''tathāgatagarbha''), it makes no sense whatsoever to speak as if there were multiple and separate ''śūnyatā''s or ''tathāgatagarbha''s, for example, one confined to a piece of carrot and one to a rabbit. From the perspective of ''dharmatā'', there is only one trans/ultra-phenomenal reality, although one does speak of, for example, sixteen kinds of ''śūnyatā'' merely on the basis of ''dhamas''/''dharmins''. This ''dharma'' / ''dharmin''-based distinction of the various kinds of ''dharmatā'' is said to be true also in the case of the difference between the non-essentiality of persons (''pudgalanairātmya'': ''gang zag gi bdag med pa'') and non-essentiality of phenomena (''dharmanairātmya'': ''chos kyi bdag med pa''). In other words, there is one ''dharmatā'' that underlies all ''pudgala''s (e.g. rabbit) and ''dharma''s (e.g. carrot), and whoever gains deep meditative insight into the ''dharmatā'' would become awakened. Theoretically, if a piece of rock or a piece of carrot were able to gain deep meditative insight into the ''dharmatā'', they would become a buddha, but the Tibetan tradition (following the Indian one) did not accept the sentience of entities such as rocks and carrots, and hence for them it is ridiculous to speak of rocks or carrots becoming buddhas. (c) It appears that one of the reasons why it makes no sense to talk of the possibility of inanimate or insentient entities becoming buddhas is that the Tibetan tradition, no matter which school, seems to take one of the two kinds of Buddhist idealism as a point of departure, namely, what may be called the "idealism according to which there is no other creator (i.e. other than one’s mind)" (''byed pa po gzhan med pa’i sems tsam'') and "idealism according to which there is no external entities" (''phyi don med pa’i sems tsam''). Various scholars and systems may disagree about the ontological status of the mind. That is, for some, what underlies the mind as its true reality is śūnyatā, and for others what underlies the mind as its true reality is the innate gnosis. But all would agree that the principle point of departure is the mind.
#See, for example, the *''Guhyagarbhatantra'' (Wangchuk 2007, 213, n. 72): ''rtsa ba med pa’i sems nyid ni // chos rnams kun gyi rtsa ba yin''//.
S
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>With in the history of Buddhism in East Asia the world of nature gained and retained a high position —something seen as having inherent religious value. This two-part essay reviews aspects of the history of this upward valuation of nature in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism and analyzes the interpretative shifts and changes made necessary by this impulse toward the attribution of increasingly great religious significance to nature. The development is carried as far as the twelfth century in Japan and the poetry of the Buddhist monk Saigyō (1118- 90), poetry which not only itself moved the valorization of nature beyond the point where earlier writers had brought it, but also, since as poetry it gained a position in the public mind and a place in the popular imagination of the Japanese people, historically "fixed" a lasting nexus between Buddhism and nature in the popular consciousness of the Japanese people. Saigyō, therefore, is of great significance in the history of Japanese religion, a fact that has always been implicitly recognized in the Japanese regard for him as Japan's greatest "medieval Buddhist nature poet." His poetry is important not only as literature but also as a document in the history of Japanese religion.<br> Although in what follows I am more interested in an analysis of Saigyō's verse—in relationship to the Buddhist view of nature—than in details of his life, it is of importance to note here that Saigyō, whose name before he became a monk was Satō Norikiyo, saw his Buddhist vocation as something to be carried out in the mountains rather than in temples and monasteries. Before becoming a monk he had been a military guard in the service of Emperor Toba and a member of an elite corps of palace guards known as the ''Hokumen no Bushi'' or "North-facing warriors." But at age twenty-three he relinquished his career in court and became a Buddhist monk . He was at first loosely attached to Shingon and Tendai temples in the vicinity of Heian-kyō or Kyoto and seems to have retained a lifelong attachment to the memory of Kūkai (774-835), the Japanese founder of the Shingon school. But Saigyō's forte lay in his composition of ''waka'' or thirty-one-syllable verse and it is in the context of his writing of these verses that we gain an understanding of his vision of nature, Buddhism, and the correlation of these two. For Saigyō the world of nature was the primary world of Buddhist values, and it is this that I wish to investigate in what follows. (LaFleur, "Saigyō and the Buddhist Value of Nature," 93–94)
The present paper aims to clarify work-titles of writings of Sajjana and his son Mahājana, the 11th and 12th century lay Buddhists of Kashmir; especially Sajjana is sometimes regarded as a crucial individual for Yogācāra exegesis tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Although, until recently, their writings had not been known except for works available in Tibetan canon, further works that are not included in Tibetan canon have gradually been found in a Sanskrit manuscript, which we call here Sajjana-Mahājana codex. As for Sajjana, in addition to his Putralekha, that is, an epistile addressed to his son Mahājana (only in Tib.), two further works, i.e., Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa and Sūtrālaṃkārapiṇḍārtha, have been available (both only in Skt.). With regard to Mahājana, (1) Sūtrālaṃkārādhikārasaṅgati (only in Skt.) has become newly available found in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex, in addition to (2) his Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya commentary (only in Tib.). In (2), Mahājana refers to two of his own writings, i.e., (3) ’Brel pa grub pa chung ngu’i yongs su shes pa and (4) rNam par nges pa’i yongs su shes pa. We can identify (3) as the Pratibandhasiddhiparicaya which is available only as a Sanskrit fragment in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. On the baisis of this identification, we can assume the Sanskrit title of (4) as *Viniścayaparicaya (yet to be found). Accordingly, the Sanskrit title of (1) can be known as Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayaparicaya as attested in the Peking Tanjur (Derge's reading -arthaparijñāna does not seem to reflect the original). Furthermore, there are two other works with the word paricaya in their titles, i.e., Sūtrālaṃkāraparicaya and *Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya, included in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. Although their colophons that refer to the author's name are yet to be found, these two are most prabably Mahājana's compositions as this particular title paricaya and this particular situation (being included in the same codex) suggests. +
Articles/Sanskrit Manuscripts and Photographs of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Giuseppe Tucci’s Collection +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
During his scientific expeditions to India, Nepal, Tibet and Pakistan in the nineteen thirties, forties and fifties, Giuseppe Tucci (1894-1984) had the opportunity of photographing, and in many cases of having someone copy, several important Buddhist works.[1] Subsequently, most of the manuscripts that he photographed or copied entered the collections in Nepalese, Chinese and Pakistani libraries, but others were lost. At present Tucci’s reproductions of some of these manuscripts are the only documentation at our disposal.<br> The study and cataloguing of the photographs and manuscripts now held in Rome in the Library of the Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO) was begun in 1997 (officially on 12th June 1998) by Claudio Cicuzza and myself. The first results of our work have been published as an appendix to the first version of this paper published in Warsaw in 2000. At that time the scanning of the negatives was still underway, so our list was highly provisional, based mainly on the short titles written on the envelopes of the negatives and on the photographs already printed.<br> During the last few years, not only it has been possible to correct this list here and there, sometimes with the help of other scholars, as we shall see below, but also to find further manuscripts and photographs of Sanskrit manuscripts that belonged to the Italian scholar –in the IsIAO Library, in the Museo Nazionale d’Arte Orientale ‘Giuseppe Tucci’ (MNAOr) and in a small but important private collection near Rome–and eventually to gather more information regarding the history of Tucci’s expeditions and of the formation of his collection.[2] (Sferra, introduction, 15)
[https://archive.org/details/sanskrittextsfromgiuseppetuccicollectionfrancescosferrapart1seeotherbooks_664_J/page/n5/mode/2up Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Certainly Tucci did not photograph the MSS personally, for he declares his complete unfamiliarity with any kind of device, including the camera (“[F]ra me e quale che sia macchina, anche la macchina fotografica, resta un’assoluta incapacità di intesa”, 1996b: 17). Among his companions on the expeditions there was always a person responsible for the photographic reproductions.
#This aspect of Tucci’s work has been studied by Oscar Nalesini; see below, pp. 79-112.
No abstract given. These are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
During my last journey to Tibet in 1929–30, I was able to collect a mass of Tibetan works, either originally translated from Sanskrit or Indian Vernaculars, or original works composed by Tibetan scholars themselves. Though I had heard numerous rumours about the existence of Sanskrit Palm-leaf MSS, but after search I found them unfounded. After several trials I drew the conclusion, that there was hardly much of a possibility of getting Palm-leaf MSS. in Tibet. But on my return, while studying the materials thus collected there for my little monograph in Hindi entitled "A Short History of Buddhism in Tibet" (Devanagari not available)), I felt convinced about the existence of them, at least a hundred in number.<br> Last time, after my return from Tibet, I felt it necessary to restore some of the great works of the Buddhist logicians, from Tibetan to Sanskrit. In fact I was restoring the Pramāṇa-Vārtika of Dharmakīrti, when a friend of mine wrote to me that the work in original Sanskrit was discovered by the Royal Preceptor Paṇḍita Hemarāja Sarman of Nepal, whose knowledge of Sanskrit is encyclopaedic and love for it, proverbial; so I gave up the tasks and thought it prudent to see first those Sanskrit MSS. which were still preserved in Tibet, before taking any restoration work, lest it might prove an useless labour after the discovery of the original MSS. One thing that prompted me to under take the second tour of Tibet was to search for those ancient Palm-leaf MSS. originally taken from India. I remained on Tibetan soil from April 4, till November 10, 1934—about six and a half months<br> Though the import of palm-leaf MSS. begins from the middle of the seventh century during the reign of the Emperor Srong-btsan-sgam-po (630–693 A.D.) their number was very few. Intense activity in the field of translation is witnessed during four centuries, viz., from the middle of the ninth century to the middle of the thirteenth century. During this period many thousands of palm-leaf MSS. were taken to Tibet, and in the normal course, they ought to be found there. But we know that great monasteries of Bsam-yas and Tho-gling (near Mansarowar) were destroyed by fire, in which many precious collections were burnt. Though the monastery of Sa-skya, where many hundreds of Sanskrit books were translated into Tibetan, was never destroyed after its ascendance, yet, later hierarchs did not care for these MSS. which had no meaning for them; and, they allowed the scholars of their sect to take the MSS. away to their monasteries. In fact, the MSS. which are found in the monasteries of Sha-lu and Ngor, originally belonged to Sa-skya. There are two other causes which are responsible for the disappearance of the MSS. The devout people consider it a great meritorious deed to enshrine the palm-leaf MSS. inside a stūpa or image. In this way hundreds of books are now beyond our reach. I heard at Sa-skya that a palm-leaf MS. copy of Dharmakīrti's great work Pramāṇa-vārtika is enshrined inside an image of him, kept in one of the chapels of the Lha-khang-chen-mo of Sa-skya. A few years back, an old stucco image in Bsam-yas had fallen down and inside it many such MSS. were found. The image was reconstructed and MSS. were put back into it again. The other practice is more atrocious. In some of these monasteries Lamas cut the MSS. in pieces and offer them to those pilgrims who bring rich presents. These small pieces are said to possess the miraculous power of healing all kinds of diseases when a drop of water in which the piece has been dipped is administered to the patient.<br> After reaching Lhasa on the 19th May, 1934, I began to search for MSS. The first MS. I saw was a commentary (Devanagari not available) on the Śiśupāla-badham of Māgha by Bhavadatta, along with a few pages of a grammatical work. These MSS. were afterwards purchased and now they are preserved in Patna Museum. Next to that, a Palm-leaf M.S. of a commentary on Abhisamayālaṅkāra by Buddhaśrījñāna (a co-student of the Ācārya Haribhadra, the famous commentator of several philosophical treatises, and a disciple of the Ācārya Śāntarakṣita) was brought to me. Its size is 12<sup>3/4"</sup>X 2" and contains 27 leaves. The owner was reluctant to disclose his name, but he allowed it to be photographed. I saw a copy of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñā-Pāramitā with a Nepalese merchant, written in Rañjana character, and more than a hundred pages of the Śatasāhasrikā Prajñā-Pāramitā, the latter being the property of the heirs of the late Tergi-Thai-Je. Though they· were of no great importance, yet they encouraged me to further pursuit. l was very much helped by the enlightened Sä-ku-śo of the feudal house of Zur-kang, whose. mother is the direct descendant of Srong-btsan-sgam-po (630–693 A.D.), the first emperor and maker of Tibet. One day, the second (brother) Sä-ku-śo of Zur-khang brought the news, that they have got some palm-leaf MSS. in the library of Kun-bde-gling monastery, which were recently discovered while they were preparing a catalogue of the books. On the 18th June, he took me to that monastery which is not far from the famous POTALA PALACE. Only two MSS. were shown, and my joy knew no bounds when I found one of them to be a commentary on the Vādanyāya of Dharmakīrti by Ācārya Śāntarakṣita, the famous author of the Tatvasaṅgraha. I found it difficult to persuade the authorities to allow me to take a photograph of the work; and I was advised to see the Ka-Ion Lama, one of the four Ministers of the Tibetan Government. When he heard of my mission, he appreciated it very much, and at once sent for the officer-in-charge. He ordered that I should be allowed to take photographs of any MS. I thought useful. Ka-lon Lama also told me, that he would issue a general permit from the Cabinet to get help from all local authorities as well as private individuals. After the death of Dalai Lama, he was the most influential man in Tibet, but he also died a few days afterwards, which is an irreparable loss to Tibet.<br> I had heard from Re-ḍing-rin-po-che, the Regent King of Tibet, that his monastery possesses a half-bumt palm-leaf MS. which originally belonged to the collection of books which the Ācārya Dīpaṅkara Śrījñāna (982–1054 A.D.) brought with him from India. I was very keen to see that MS. and the Regent gave me a letter to the officer-in-charge of his monastery, but owing to a serious omission in the letter, the officer could not show it to me. I was informed that it was a half-burnt copy of the Prajñā-pāramitā.<br> After my return from Re-ḍing, I intended to visit Lho-kha Province, where in the monasteries of Bsamyas and Smin-ḍo-gling I heard about the existence of some MSS. About Bsam-yas, I was told that it has got two or three palm-leaf MSS. which are in the custody of the local magistrate (Dzong), and it is not possible to see them without a special permission of the Cabinet. The Chief Lama of Smin-ḍo-gling, who is also one of the heads of Ñig-ma-pa sect, told me that his monastery possessed four MSS. He was very eager to take me to his monastery which is only two days' journey from Lhasa. But as I had spent more than a month in the hope of getting the letter from the Cabinet, there was little time left at my· disposal. Moreover, I heard that those four MSS. are duplicate copies of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, and Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka(?). In Lho-kha, some of the monasteries belonging to Sa-skya sect may possess palm-leaf MSS., but their number will not be considerable.<br> Information received from reliable sources disclosed the possibility of the existence of many MSS. in the monasteries of Tsang. Finding that there would still be much delay in getting the permit from the Cabinet, and as winter was approaching, I left for Tsang. I visited some of the ancient monasteries. of that province. In the monasteries of Spos-khang-tshog-pa (one day's journey from Gyan-tse), Sha-lu (a few hour's journey from Shi-ga-rtse on Gyantse side), Ngor (one day's journey from Shi-ga-rtse) and Sa-skya, I saw some of the MSS. which are described in the following pages. The list of the MSS. in Sha-Lu monastery is not complete. I was told that there are still some palm-leaf MSS. in the heap of Tibetan MSS. which are stored in a big room there and many more hands are required to sort them out than what they possessed at that time.<br> The people, who had seen them with their own eyes, told me that Ña-rig-ri-phug monastery (about half a day's journey from Shi-ga-rtse) possesses two palm-leaf MSS. At Ngor I met a Lama of the Thub-rtan-rnam-rgyal monastery of Rta-nag (two days' journey from Shi-ga-rtse) who told me that his monastery possesses two palm-leaf MSS. The contents of these four MSS. are not known.<br> If a search is properly made, we can discover some more MSS. in the province of Tsang, A few monasteries of the Kham province (eastern Tibet) are also said to possess some. (Sāṅkṛtyāyana, preliminary remarks, 21–26)<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282236/page/n37/mode/2up Read more here . . .]
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The present paper provides newly available Sanskrit fragments (11½ verses) from the
''Triśaraṇasaptati'' attributed to Candrakīrti.[2] These verses are found in the Sanskrit manuscript of Abhayākaraguptaʼs ''Munimatālaṃkāra''.[3]
The ''Triśaraṇasaptati'' is a small versified work consisting 68 ''ślokas'', the full text of which is preserved only in Tibetan translation. We find two versions (i.e. recensions) of the ''Triśaraṇasaptati'' in all the Tanjurs. The two versions are almost the same, having been translated by the same translation team (Atiśa and Rin chen bzang po).
Sorensen translated the Tibetan text into English and added to them six verses (12, 13, 33, 45, 46, and 47) in Sanskrit traced in the form of quotations in other works. Sorensenʼs English translation is for the most part faithful to the Tibetan text. The Tibetan translation itself, when compared with the Sanskrit original, is seen on occasion to be imprecise (see below, "Philological Remarks").
Other quotations from the ''Triśaraṇasaptati'' have been found in two passages in the
''Munimatālaṃkāra'': Passage A (Skt. Ms. 7v1-4; Tib. D 82a7-b3; verses 1, 34, 51, 54, 55, 67) in ''Munimatālaṃkāra'' chapter 1 (the Bodhicittāloka chapter)[4] and Passage B (Skt. 132r1-3; Tib. D 219a5-b1; 7-9ab, 22-23) in chapter 3 (the ''Aṣṭābhisamayāloka'' chapter). When we collate these 11½ verses with the 6 verses independently collected by Sorensen, the total number becomes 17½, which is about 26% of the
whole text of the ''Triśaraṇasaptati''. (Kano and Xuezhu, premilinary remarks, 4) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
This was my fourth journey to Tibet. We left Kalimpong on the 4th May, 1938. At the beginning our party consisted of three members ''viz''. the Tibetan Scholar Geshe Gendun Chhomphel, the photo-artist Mr. Fany Mockerjee and myself. Afterwards our number was increased to five when Pandit Abhay Singh Parera and Mr. Kanwal Krishna, an assistant to Mr. Mockerjee joined our party. This time we were fortunate enough to get the wholehearted support from the Tibetan Government through the help of Reding-Chhang, the young regent, who has great love for Tibetan learning and its art. We were provided not only with three ponies and three pack-animals free of charge for our conveyance, but we were also given special letters of introduction to the local Government officials and the heads of the monasteries where the precious manuscripts are kept. The Tibetan Government was ready to extend the field of our research to the country surrounding Lhasa and Samye where there was some possibility of finding new Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts, but unfortunately, all our time was spent in taking photographs of the MSS. in the monasteries of Ṣhalu, Pökhang, Ngor and Sa-skya, and the winter was close. So we could not avail of the generous offer.<br> We were also helped by the Political Officer of Sikkim—Mr. Gould and the British Trade Agent Mr. Richardson. Both the gentlemen were ever ready to give useful advice and needful facilities for the work of our party.<br> We reached Ṣhalu on the 27th May. Our old friend Risur Lama was present, and so it was not difficult to begin our work without delay. In my last journey, though I searched this monastery twice, the search was not thorough. So I wanted to make a fresh attempt in order to discover some new MSS. Our trouble was rewarded by the fresh discovery of a complete set of the twelve works on Buddhist Logic by the great logician Jñāna Śrī and two chapters of ''Yôgāchārabhūmi'' viz., ''Śrāvakabhūmi'' and ''Pratyekabuddhabhūmi''. Besides these two important volumes, I found six more volumes which are mentioned in my catalogue here. It took more than a fortnight to finish the work at Ṣhalu. Last time we took Photographs of some of these MSS., but we had failed to get good result. This time we were very particular about this matter, since failure of even one leaf was enough to spoil the utility of the whole treatise.<br> In my second trip to Tibet, I visited the monastery of Pökhang where I saw three bundles of Sanskrit MSS. in which I noticed an important work by the great poet Aśvaghôṣa. My visit was so brief that I could not go through the whole work. Last time, I tried my best to visit Pökhang, but I could not go. This time I reached Pökhang on the 27th June. When the three volumes were brought, I found that one was ''Tridaṇḍamālā'' by Aśvaghôsha with a separate work named ''Parikathā'' by a later author. They are not poetical works, but their importance is great, since they deal with the art of eloquence. In fact, they are practical lessons to the students of those days who wanted to become good speakers. The first work by Aśvaghôṣa is rather more primitive, but the later work is far advanced, which shows that since the time of Aśvaghôṣa (1st century A.C.) up to the 8th century when probably this second work was composed the art of public speech was greatly developed. The monastery of Pökhang was established sometime towards the end of the 13th century when the Indian teacher Vajrapāṇi or Gyagar Chhagna as he is known to the Tibetan, visited Tibet. The monastery has got some important relics among which we may specially mention the Chīvaras (monk's garb), alms-bowl, a pair of shoes, all belonging to Śākyaśrībhadra, the last hierarch of the Buddhist church in India and the Head of the Vikramaśilā monastery, who went to Tibet in 1203 after the destruction of the Buddhist institutions in India. The monastery has got about one hundred and five paintings in so-called Tibetan banners which were executed by a famous artist of the time (Stag-rtse-mkhas-pa) Rab-bratan-Kun-bsang under the patronage of king Kun-dzang-rabtan of the 15th century. There is also one small plaster-cast statue of Śākyaśrī which was moulded by (Dbus-kyi--rgya-ma-rin-chen-rgang Rza-mkhan) Bkra-sis-ḥod-ḥvar possibly during the life-time of the Indian teacher.<br> After staying for a few weeks at Shigartse we went to Ngor on the 31st July. The monastery of Ngor is one of the three monasteries in Tibet which have got the largest collection of Sanskrit MSS. In subject-matter the collection of this monastery is more important. We did not give previous information of our arrival. We feared that the chief custodian may play a trick by absenting himself as his predecessors did last time. During the months of June, July and August the climate is agreeable since cold is not intense, but at the same time, the rain which is rare and the clouds which are always there in the sky obstruct the work of taking photographs. It took sixteen days to finish our work.<br> Narthang is not very far from the monastery of Ngor. Though there was no possibility of finding any Sanskrit MS. in this ancient monastery which is famous for its wooden block-prints of Kanjur and Tanjur, it has got some very old paintings which were imported to Tibet from Nepal or were executed under the direction of Indian or Nepali master-artists. The work seems to belong to the 13th century<br> From Narthang we proceeded to Śākya where we reached on the 1st September. We were welcomed by the present Śākya-hierarch, the Lama of Phunchhog palace, our old friend and patron who greatly helped me in my previous journey. We went to Chhag-pe-lha-Khang, the Manuscript-library, to make a further search for fresh MSS. This time we made a more thorough search, but we could not get any new MS. We took the photographs of some important MSS. which I discovered in my previous journey. We could not finish our work before the 15th September. The temperature was going down and there was the less possibility of continuing our work in Tibet, but we had great desire to visit some of the important monasteries in the vicinity of Lhasa and Samye, since I knew that it was a rare opportunity for our search in which we had the full cooperation and help of the Tibetan Government. We were still undecided when we left śākya, but after crossing the second pass of Dobta, we met a band of robbers who were camping not very far from the route. Fortunately, at first they did not notice the importance of our caravan. We halted in the next village. We did not know that there was any danger ahead. We met a few donkey-men who were coming from the opposite direction. They informed that about a dozen of robbers were encamping on the road two miles ahead. Our pack-animals left us hours before. We thought that our animals were going to fall in their hands. We hurried. The robbers had no clear idea about our party. They put a few simple questions to us, but did not try to harm us. Afterwards we were informed by our men that the robbers enquired about us and they were told that the things belonged to the hierarch of śākya who was coming behind. Thus both we and our things were saved. We reached the next village, and when the pack-animals were returning to their home, our men saw the same robbers encamping on the other bank of a river about a mile from the village in which we were staying. Fearing that they might not be robbed of their animals, they came back in the village. We learnt that it was the same band of robbers whom we met the previous day. Now they had full information about our identity and of our numeral and armed strength. So they were earnest in their pursuit. All night not only ourselves, but the whole village was in fear of their attack. The dogs were unchained, and we were ready with our revolvers. Nothing, however, happened. The same night we decided to reach the Indian Frontier as soon as possible, since the road before us was more wild with scanty human habitation. We entered Tibet on the 9th May and left for India on the 25th September. Thus we spent in Tibet about four and a half months in which we took about fourteen hundred photographs of Sanskrit MSS. and important objects of art. (Sāṅkṛtyāyana, preliminary remarks, 137–42)<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.280582/page/n377/mode/2up Read more here . . .]
When on the 16th February, 1936, I left for Tibet, I was still very weak after having suffered from a severe attack of typhoid and my friends' advice was against undertaking such an arduous journey. But on the last occasion I was not able to copy the last chapter of the Pramāṇa-vārttika-Bhāṣya by Prajñākaragupta which had the original Kārikās. The Pramāṇa-vārttika-text was already in the press. Though the missing portions of the other three chapters I had restored from Tibetan into Sanskrit, the missing part of the fourth chapter I did not like to restore as the original was available. I reached Nepal on the 18th February. There was ample time to recoup my health since generally the Tibetan passes are open by the end of April.<br> I left Katmandu on the 15th April. My pecuniary resources were very meagre consisting of a hundred rupees in all, plus 4 dozen film packs, two cameras, and some provisions. But I had resolved to copy as much as I could. I took my old traversed road to Nenam, the seat of the frontier Tibetan Magistrate, which I reached on the 23rd April. One of the two magistrates recently had been to Nepal where he saw me. There is a strict order to officials on the frontiers not to allow any Indian to pass in, but in my case the two magistrates had to make special concessions, as they knew my object and that I am known to many big officials and noblemen in Lhasa, having twice visited that sacred city.<br> I departed from Nenam on the 27th and after crossing Thong-la and other passes, reached Sa-skya on the 6th May. Early in the morning, streams were still frozen when I entered that sacred seat of the famous Buddhist teachers who, in the past, did splendid work for Buddhistic studies, translations of scriptures and even for the spread of Buddhism in the far-off Mongolia. Like other parts of Tibet, this locality is also devoid of vegetation. A few poplars and willows in palace gardens have had just a few buds on their branches and there was yet no green foliage to be seen. My former host Kusho Do-ni-chhen-po greeted me with a broad smile when he saw me.<br> Now the first task before me was to copy the last chapter of the Pramāṇa-Vārttika-Bhāṣya. At that time I thought I would have to stay for a fortnight. l had least suspicion that Sa-skya will take about three months to finish my work there. The same day I visited the Phun-chhog and Dol-ma palaces, the heads of which ascend the throne of Sa-skya hierarchy alternately. I was sorry to find that the Lama of Dol-ma Palace who was the last hierarch and had greatly helped me when last time I visited Sa-skya, was no more. His two sons and their kind-hearted mother welcomed me with open hearts and showed great sympathy for my work like the late Lama. The childlike simplicity of the head of Phun-chhog Palace who is to succeed to the throne, is unforgettable. Since last time whenever I visited him he tried his best to make me quite at home. He has a very inquisitive mind. He asked so many questions about my last journey to Japan, and Buddhism, and then ships, railways, aeroplanes, radios, and what not. The Sa-skya hierarchy is not only the head of one of the four most important Buddhist sects, but they have got a big state in which they enjoy the right to rule.<br> On the 8th, the MS. was brought and I began to copy it. It took 11 days to finish the chapter containing more than 5000 ślokas. In five days more I compared the portion of the third chapter which was published in the JBORS. vol. XXI, Pt. II and also the new copy. On the 25th, I went to the two palaces to bid good-bye to them. The hierarch-designate told me in so many words that there must be more Sanskrit palm-leaf MSS. in Sa-skya. But the Sa-skya monastery is not a small temple. There can reside more than 4000 monks in its dormitories and chapels. There are many big cathedrals. Many of them have got several thousand volumes of Kan-jur, Tan-jur and other MSS. In such a jungle of books even for dozens of men, it is difficult to hunt for any particular book in a few days.<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.280581/page/n9/mode/2up Read more here . . .]
An interview with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche that turned into a Mahamudra teaching on the spot. +
Framed as a consideration of the other contributions to the present volume of the ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', this essay attempts to scout and characterize several of the interrelated doctrines and issues that come into play in thinking philosophically about the doctrine of ''svasaṃvitti'', particularly as that was elaborated by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. Among the issues thus considered are the question of how ''mānasapratyakṣa'' (which is akin to ''manovijñāna'') might relate to ''svasaṃvitti''; how those related doctrines might be brought to bear with respect to some problems addressed with reference to the further doctrine (also closely related to ''svasaṃvitti'') concerning ''pramāṇaphala''; and the distinctiveness of Dharmakīrti’s ''sahopalambhaniyama'' argument for ''svasaṃvitti''. A question recurrently considered throughout the essay has to do with whether (following Akeel Bilgrami) ''svasaṃvitti'' reflects a ''perceptual'' or a ''constitutive'' understanding of self-awareness. +
The concept of "self-awareness" (''svasaṃvedana'') enters Buddhist epistemological discourse in the ''Pramāṇasamuccaya'' and -''vṛtti'' by Dignāga (ca. 480–540), the founder of the Buddhist logico-epistemological tradition. Though some of the key passages have already been dealt with in various publications, no attempt has been made to comprehensively examine all of them as a whole. A close reading is here proposed to make up for this deficit. In connection with a particularly difficult passage (PS(V) 1.8cd-10) that presents the means of valid cognition and its result (''pramāṇa''/''pramāṇaphala''), a new interpretation is suggested, inspired by the commentary of Jinendrabuddhi. This interpretation highlights an aspect of self-awareness that has hitherto not been claimed for Dignāga: self-awareness offers essentially subjective access to one’s own mental states and factors. +
Articles/Shakya Chokden's Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga: "Contemplative" or "Dialectical"? +
This reconciliation of the dialectical and contemplative approaches to the buddha-essence is related to and closely resembles Shakchok’s reconciliation of the two approaches to ultimate reality advocated respectively by Niḥsvabhāvavāda (''ngo bo nyid med par smra ba'', “Proponents of Entitylessness”) system of Madhyamaka and Alīkākāravāda (''rnam rdzun pa'', “False Aspectarians”) system of Yogācāra. These approaches in turn are connected respectively to the explicit teachings (''dngos bstan'') of the second dharmacakra (''chos ’khor'', “Wheel of Dharma”) and the definitive teachings (''nges don'', ''nītārtha'') of the third dharmacakra that he also presents in a reconciliatory manner. In the same way as the teachings of the last two dharmacakras, as well as the Niḥsvabhāvavāda and Alīkākāravāda systems that derive from them, come to the same point, the dialectical and contemplative traditions also come to the same point. This point is the above-mentioned naturally pure primordial mind luminous by nature, the ultimate reality. In Shakchok’s opinion, application of non-affirming negations is a powerful tool for accessing direct realization of that reality, while its identification as primordial mind (''ye shes'', ''jñāna'') is important for maintaining that realization and turning it into the basis of unfolding positive qualities on the path to buddhahood. When in the passage above Shakchok says that the two traditions are not contradictory, and when he reconciles the two last dharmacakras together with Alīkākāravāda and Niḥsvabhāvavāda, he is not arguing that their words are non-contradictory. They obviously are! Nevertheless, those systems ''are'' non-contradictory in terms of complementing each other in getting access to and maintaining realization of the ultimate reality of primordial mind. (Source: [https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/115/ DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln]) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>The field of Ch'an studies has seen some very lively disputes over the course of the twentieth century, but there has been general agreement on the proposition that the doctrine of sudden enlightenment represents the highest expression of the doctrinal mainstream of early Chinese Ch’an Buddhism. Although there is some quibbling regarding details and specific interpretations, scholars working in this field often describe the history of the doctrine of sudden enlightenment within Ch’an in terms of three subjects: (1) Hui-neng’s doctrine of sudden enlightenment as shown in his "mind verse" (''hsin-chieh'') in the ''Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch'' (''Liu-tsu t'an-ching''); (2) Shen-hui’s campaign in opposition to the gradual teaching of the Northern school and in support of the public recognition of Hui-neng as sixth patriarch; and (3) the continuation of the spirit of Hui-neng in the teachings and religious practice of Ma-tsu, Shih-t'ou, and the later Ch’an tradition <br> Research done in recent years has shown that the traditional interpretations of these three subjects are all substantially incorrect, although the implications of these findings have not yet been fully realized. The history of early Ch'an is in the process o f being thoroughly rewritten, but it is already clear that the doctrine of sudden enlightenment and the dispute between the sudden and gradual teachings should no longer be used as yardsticks by which the religious message of Ch'an and its widespread acceptance in T'ang dynasty China are understood. (McRae, "Shen-hui and the Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment in Early Ch'an Buddhism," 227) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
"Buddha-nature" (Japanese, ''Bussho'') has been regarded in the Sōtō sect as one of the three central fascicles of the ''Shōbōgenzō'', together with ''Genjōkōan'' and ''Bendōwa''. Dōgen delivered it the tenth month of 1241 to the followers gathered around him at the Kōshō-ji south of Kyoto. The work as we now have it, however, is a considerably revised form of that original text. Although neither the original or revised manuscript exists in Dōgen's holograph, a copy by his disciple Ejō (1198-1280), including Dōgen's later revisions, is preserved in the Eihei-ji. In most editions, ''Shōbōgenzō Buddha-nature'' is the third fascicle in the collection, following ''Genjōkōan'' and ''Makahannya-haramitsu''.<br> The idea that sentient beings all possess the Buddha-nature and the possibility of attaining Buddhahood is central to most of the schools of the Mahayana. Yet Dōgen's treatment, reflecting his own unique Zen standpoint, can be said to be apart from all the rest. Strictly adhering to a nondualistic interpretation, he comments on passages from Zen and other Buddhist writings that have some bearing on this theme. What is most striking about this commentary is the manner in which it gives clear priority to religious meaning over normal grammatical syntax. In more than a few cases Dōgen chooses to read these passages in ways which are dubious, and sometimes even impossible, from a grammatical point of view. But he does it for a definite purpose. It focuses attention on what he feels to be inadequacies in the traditional ways the texts are read, and at the same time it clearly sets forth his own understanding and rectification of those inadequacies based on his religious awakening.<br> For example, at the very beginning of the work he quotes a passage from the ''Nirvana Sutra'' ("Northern" version) well-known to all Buddhists: "All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha-nature". This is the general Mahayana statement, which is emphasized in particular in the ''Nirvana Sutra''. Dōgen goes beyond it, by reading the passage as, "All sentient beings-whole being is the Buddha-nature." This he does by reading the characters ''shitsuu'' normally "without exception have,'' as "whole being'' (he is aided by the fact that the character ''u'' means both "to be," or "being," and "to have"). This changes the traditional emphasis of sentient beings having a Buddha-nature, to stress a standpoint more in keeping with the basic nondualistic Mahayana position: whole being is the Buddha-nature, in which "whole being" means not only sentient beings but all beings. This avoids the duality of subject (sentient beings) and object (the Buddha-nature possessed by them), the duality which regards the Buddha-nature as a potentiality to be actualized in the future, and the duality of means and end, where practice is taken as a means and realization of Buddha-nature the end. Dōgen's reading "whole being is the Buddha-nature" thus indicates the nondualistic oneness of the realizer (whole being) and the realized (Buddha-nature), the simultaneity of Buddha-nature and enlightenment (Buddha), and the identity of practice and attainment. It is the key to his understanding of the Buddha-nature as it is developed in various aspects throughout the rest of the work*<br> ''Buddha-nature'' is the eighth fascicle to appear in this series of translations from Dōgen's ''Shōbōgenzō'' which began in May 1971 with ''Bendōwa''. As in the past, we have provided rather extensive footnotes. Their aim is to provide the English language reader a means of better arriving at some understanding of this extremely difficult work, much of which would be incomprehensible without them. We of course do not pretend that they are in any way definitive. They could not be, given the profoundly complicated and suggestive nature of the text. We have attempted, however, to have them exemplify a consistent view of the work as a whole. The edition followed is that of Õkubo Dōshū: ''Shōbōgenzō'' (Tokyo: Chikuma, 1971), pp. 14–35. We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Nishitani Keiji for his valuable suggestions.<br> ''N.B.'' In the text, Dōgen quotes passages from Zen and other Buddhist writings at the heads of the various sections. In order to make clear both the way they are normally read and Dōgen's own sometimes peculiar interpretative reading, we have translated them according to the normal reading when the italicized quotation first appears ''en bloc'' at the beginning of the sections; then, when Dōgen's different reading makes it necessary, we have generally retranslated the same words as close to his meaning as the English will allow in the following phrase by phrase discussion of the quotation. When this is done the discrepancy between the two renderings is detailed in the footnotes. (Waddell and Abe, introduction, 94–96)
<h5>Notes</h5>
* See Abe Masao, "Dōgen on Buddha-nature," ''Eastern Buddhist'', IV, I.
This is the second part of Waddell and Abe's translation of Dōgen's ''Shōbōgenzō Busshō'' ("Buddha-nature"). Part 1 appears in ''The Eastern Buddhist'' vol. 8, no. 2 (1975); Part 3 appears in vol. 9, no. 2 (1976). For the authors' complete introductory remarks, see [[Shōbōgenzō Buddha-Nature: Part 1]]. +
This is the final part of a translation of Dōgen's ''Shōbōgenzō Busshō'' ("Buddha-nature") by Norman Waddell and Masao Abe. Parts 1 and 2 appeared in ''The Eastern Buddhist'' vols, 8, no. 2 (1975) and 9, no. 1 (1976). For the translators' complete introductory remarks, see [[Shōbōgenzō Buddha-Nature: Part 1]] +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The universality of Buddha-nature is a doctrine accepted by all Chinese schools of Buddhism. The Wei-shih(a) (Fa-hsiang(b), Vijñaptimātratā) school of Hsuantsang(c), for reviving the notion that the ''icchantika'' is ''agotra'', devoid of this seed of enlightenment, had been summarily dismissed as "Hīnayānist" for that reason. The idea of "the enlightenability of the ''icchantika''" is associated with the later named "Nirvana School," a group of scholars in the Southern Dynasties (420-589) that chose to specialize on the ''Nirvāṇa Sūtra'', the Mahayana scripture narrating the last day and teaching of Śākyamuni on earth. The person credited with discovering this doctrine, before even the full ''sūtra'' was available to vindicate his stand, is Chu Tao-sheng(d) (375?-434), perhaps better known for his stand on "sudden enlightenment." The school as such flourished best in the Liang dynasty (502-557); but because it was then aligned with scholarship focusing on the ''Ch'eng-shih-lun''(e) (''Satyasiddhi''? ) by Harivarman, it came under criticism when the latter was denounced as Hinayanist in the Sui dynasty. It is usually said that the T`ien-t'ai(f) school, based on the ''Lotus Sūtra'', superseded the Nirvāṇa school by incorporating many of its ideas, while the Ch'eng-shih school suffered irredeemably under the attack of Chi-tsang(g) of the San-lun(h) (Three Treatise or Madhyamika) school at the same time. Henceforth, the Nirvāṇa school faded away while its old association with the Ch'eng-shih tradition was judged an unnecessary mistake.(1) This article will introduce three moments from the history of this Nirvāṇa school, showing the main trends of development and, somewhat contrary to traditional opinion, justifying the necessity for the detour into Harivarmans scholarship. Emphasis will also be put on the interaction between Buddhist reflections and the native traditions. (Lai, introductory remarks, 135)
No translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga seems to have existed in Tibet before the 11th century, inasmuch as no catalogue of the imperial period (the 9th century) shows any record of one. Although only a single Tibetan translation is extant (that of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab [1069-1109] and Sajjana), ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481) reports that up to his time six translations had already been made. In the present paper, I will examine what can be learned about the six translations, those of: (1) Atiśa and Nag tsho Tshul khrims rgyal ba, (2) rNgog Blo ldan shes rab and Sajjana (late 11th cent.), (3) Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, (4) Mar pa Do pa Chos kyi dbang phyug (1042–1136), (5) Jo nang Lo tsā ba Blo gros dpal (1299–1353 or 1300–1364), and (6) Yar klungs Lo tsā ba. +
In this paper, I shall discuss the titles of Sthiramati's works available in Sanskrit: ''Tattvārthā Abhidharmakośaṭīkā'', ''Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā'', and ''Abhidharmasamuccaya''. I will first clarify the meaning of the title of the ''Tattvārthā'', and then reconsider the titles of the ''Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā'' and ''Abhidharmasamuccaya'', reexamining their colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts. Additionally , I will discuss the Sanskrit title of Sthiramati's ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra'' commentary. Finally, I will examine the reliability of titles found in colophons. +
