Property:ArticleAbstract
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
T
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>Among the many concepts current among Chinese Buddhists, "Buddha-nature" is undoubtedly the most central and the most widely debated. As is well-known, the idea "Buddha-nature" first became popular in China with the translation of the Mahayana ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra'' (hence-forth referred to as ''MNS'') in the early fifth century; since then, a variety of theses have been proposed on several aspects of the subject. These are worth examining not only because of the important role they play in the history and development of Chinese Buddhist thought, but also because they reflect more fundamental doctrinal differences. Once these differences have been clarified, a more comprehensive picture of the various dominant philosophical trends in the field of Chinese Buddhism will appear. This paper will unravel the diverse streams of thought which came to be associated with the Buddha-nature concept during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, i.e., in the first two centuries of the propagation of the Buddha-nature doctrine in China. (Liu, foreword, 1) +
Articles/The Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507-1554) on the Relation between Buddha Nature and Its Adventitious Stains +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Accepting the possibility of enlightenment as a fundamental Buddhist axiom, one has to either explain the causal process of its production, or accept its primordial existence, for example in terms of a buddha nature (''tathāgatagarbha''). The latter also applies, of course, when buddhahood is not taken to be produced from scratch. The way this basic issue is addressed is an ideal touchstone for systematically comparing various masters and their philosophical hermeneutical positions in the complex landscape of Tibetan intellectual history. The diversity of views on buddha nature has its roots in the multilayered structure of the standard Indian treatise on buddha nature, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Depending on whether one follows the
original intent of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras (which can be identified in the earliest layer of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''), or the Yogācāra interpretation of the latter in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', buddha nature can refer to either an already fully developed buddha, or the naturally present potential (''prakṛtisthāgotra'') or natural luminosity of mind, i.e., sentient beings’ ability to become buddhas. While some saw in such positive descriptions of the ultimate only synonyms for the emptiness of mind,[1] or simply teachings of provisional meaning,[2] the Jo nang pas, and many bKa’ brgyud pas and rNying ma pas as well, took them as statements of definitive meaning.[3] Among the latter, i.e., those for whom buddha nature is more than just emptiness, there was disagreement about the relationship between such a positively described
buddha nature and its adventitious stains, which include all ordinary states of mind and the world experienced by the latter.
For my analysis of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s view on the relation between buddha nature and its adventitious stains I have chosen his ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' commentary, the ''rGan po’i rlung sman'',[4] which contains a critical review of ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s (1392-1481) ''rGyud gsum gsang ba''; the ''sKu gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad''; the ''Phyag rgya chen po’i sgros ‘bum'' and Mi bskyod rdo rje’s independent work on ''gzhan stong'', the ''dBu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me''. While these texts have in common that they endorse a robust distinction between buddha nature and the adventitious stains, the respective ''gzhan stong'' ("other empty") views underlying this relationship slightly differ, or are not mentioned in explicit
terms. The homogeneous clear-cut distinction between impure sentient beings and a pure mind, ''dharmadhātu'', or buddha nature is strikingly similar to what we find in the relevant works of the third Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339).5) Even though Rang byung rdo rje does not explicitly mention the word ''gzhan stong'' in his mainly Yogācāra-based presentation of buddha nature, Karma Phrin las pa’s[6] (1456-1539) and Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas’s (1813-1899) description of Rang byung rdo rje as a ''gzhan stong pa''[7] is at least understandable on the grounds that Mi bskyod rdo rje
uses this label for a doctrine similar to Rang byung rdo rje’s.[8] In order to further contextualize Mi bskyod rdo rje’s distinction between buddha nature and adventitious stains I have also consulted relevant passages from his commentaries on the ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' and the ''dGongs gcig''. (Mathes, introductory remarks, 65–67)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#This mainly is the position of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), who claims in his ''Theg chen rgyud bla’i don bsdus pa'', 5b3: "The mental continuum, which has emptiness as its nature, is the [buddha] element (i.e., buddha nature)." (... ''stong pa nyid kyi rang bzhin du gyur pa’i sems kyi rgyud ni khams yin no''). A similar line of thought is followed by the dGe lugs pas, for whom emptiness is what is taught in the doctrine of ''tathāgatagarbha'' (see Seyfort Ruegg 1969, 402).
#This is, for example, the position maintained by Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182-1251) and Bu ston Rin chen ‘grub (1290-1364) (Seyfort Ruegg 1973, 29-33).
#For rNgog Blo ldan shes rab and some dGe lugs pas, too, buddha nature has definitive meaning on the grounds that it is a synonym of emptiness (see Mathes 2008:26-27; and Seyfort Ruegg 1969, 402) .
#This is how the author originally referred to his work, even though it appears in the Collected Works in the less irreverent title ''Sublime Fragrance of the Nectar of Analysis'' (Higgins and Draszczyk 2016, vol. 1, 12).
#I.e., the ''Zab mo nang don'' and its autocommentary, the ''sNying po bstan pa'', the ''Dharmadhātustava'' commentary, and the ''Rang byung rdo rje’i mgur rnams''. See Mathes 2008, 51-75.
#See Karma 'Phrin las pa: "Dris lan yid kyi mun sel zhes bya ba lcags mo’i dris lan bzhugs", 91, 1-4. For the Tibetan text and an English translation, see Mathes 2008, 55 & 441.
#See Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas: ''Shes bya kun khyab mdzod'', vol. 1, 460, 2-13.
#The fact that the relation between buddha nature and its adventitious stains is only occasionally labelled ''gzhan stong'' by Mi bskyod rdo rje is not very telling, since in his ''dBu ma gzhan stong smra ma’i srol'' the main topic is the said relation, and Mi bskyod rdo rje refers to it as ''gzhan stong'' merely in the title.
The Great Perfection (Rdzogs chen) is one of the most important tantric traditions to develop in Tibet, but much of its early history has been obscured by the tradition’s visionary narratives of revelation, concealment, and excavation regarding its core scriptures. In addition, the over-reliance on the rubric “Great Perfection” itself obscures a broad diversity of distinct traditions, each with its own distinct rubric of self-identification and often quite divergent characteristics. This includes at the most general level the Three Series (Sde gsum), Four Cycles (Skor bzhi), Crown Pith (Spyi ti), and Ultra Pith (Yang ti). The present essay utilizes a simple hermeneutic of two trajectories – labeled “pristine” and “funerary,” respectively – to offer a developmental history of these movements in broad strokes from the eighth to fourteenth century. In doing so, it interprets the major variants of the Great Perfection historically in terms of their interrelations via development, influence, and criticism. +
Articles/The Gotra, Ekayāna and Tathāgatagarbha Theories of the Prajñāpāramitā according to Dharmamitra and Abhayākaragupta +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>In the course of his monumental work on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras E. Conze has written: 'It is quite a problem how the Dharma-element which is common to all can be regarded as the source of a variety of "lineages" [''gotra'']'.[1] It has been the endeavour of the present writer in a series of publications starting in 1968 to shed light on this very fundamental and interesting question. An article in the ''Festschrift'' dedicated to the late E. Frauwallner was devoted to the interconnexion between the single, unique and undifferentiated ''dharmadhātu'', the naturally existent spiritual element or germ (''prakṛtisthaṃ gotram'') and the variously conditioned psycho-spiritual categories (''gotra'')[2] recognized by the Buddhist texts as explained by Ārya Vimuktisena (ca. 500 ?) and his successor Bhadanta Vimuktisena in their commentaries on the '''''Abhisamayālaṃkāra''''' (i. 37-39), which they correlate with the topics of the '''''Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā'''''.[3] And shortly afterwards there followed a more detailed study of this question as it relates to the notion of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' or buddha-nature in '''''[[La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra: Études sur ta sotériologie et la gnoséologie du bouddhisme]]''''' (Paris, 1969) and '''''[[Le traité du tathāgatagarbha de Bu ston Rin chen grub]]''''' (Paris, 1973). In the last publications Haribhadra's commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitā were discussed, and the importance of the doctrine of the One Vehicle (''ekayāna''), was taken up at some length not only from the point of view of soteriology but also from that of gnoseology<br> Between the two Vimuktisenas and Haribhadra (fl. c. 750-800) on the one side and the Tibetan exegetes on the other there lived a number of important Indian commentators whose work could be only briefly touched on in the '''''Théorie'''''. Amongst the most important of these later Indian masters of the Prajñāpāramitā are Dharmamitra and Abhayākaragupta, both of whom have been reckoned by Buddhist doxographers as being, for certain systematic reasons, close to the Svātantrika-Mādhyamika school, and Ratnākaraśānti (first half of the 11th century), a Vijñānavādin (of the Alīkākāravāda branch) who appears to have undertaken a harmonization of the Vijñānavāda and the Madhyamaka in the manner of the synthesizing movements especially characteristic of later Buddhist thought in India.<br> One of Ratnākaraśānti's main works on the Prajñāpāramitā—the ''Sārottamā'' (or ''Sāratamā'' ?), a Pañjikā on the '''''Aṣṭasāhasrikā''''', which until recently was known only by its Tibetan version in the Bstan 'gyur—has now been recovered in an incomplete Sanskrit manuscript. Since the promised publication of this text is awaited with keenest interest by students of this literature, his work must be left for another occasion.[4] The present paper will therefore consider the discussions by Dharmamitra and Abhayākaragupta of the relation between the ''gotra'', the ''dharmadhātu'', the ''ekayāna'', and the ''tathāgatagarbha''. (Ruegg, "The ''Gotra'', ''Ekayāna'' and ''Tathāgatagarbha'' Theories of the Prajñāpāramitā," 283–284)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#E. Conze, '''''The Large Sūtra on Perfect Wisdom''''' (London 1961), p. 105 note 2. References hereunder to the folios of Tibetan translations of Indian texts contained in the Bstan 'gyur relate to the Peking edition as reproduced in the Japanese reprint published by the Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute (Tokyo and Kyoto). Prints of other editions of the Bstan 'gyur were unfortunately unavailable during the writing of the present paper.
#On the meanings of the term ''gotra'', and in particular on the two meanings '(spiritual) element, germ, capacity' and '(spiritual) lineage, class, category' which might be described respectively as the intensional and extensional meanings of the word when the ''gotra'' as germ determines the classification of persons possessing it in a ''gotra'' as category, see the present writer's article in ''BSOAS'' 39 (1976) p. 341sq.
#"Ārya and Bhadanta Vimuktisena on the ''gotra''-theory of the Prajñāpāramitā," '''''Beitriige zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens (Festschrift fur Erich Frauwallner)''''', ''WZKSO'' 12-13 (1968/1969), pp. 303–317.<br>4. Ratnākaraśānti's other work on the subject, a commentary on the ''AA'' entitled '''''Śuddhimatī''''', (or: '''''Śuddhamatī''''') will be referred to below.
Articles/The Gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
By the time Tibetans inherited Indian Buddhism, it had already witnessed two major doctrinal developments, namely the notion of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras that all factors of existence (''dharmas'') lack an own-being (emptiness), and the Yogācāra interpretation of this emptiness based on the imagined (''parikalpita''-), dependent (''paratantra''-) and perfect natures (''pariniṣpanna svabhāva'').[2] Closely related to this threefold distinction was the Tathāgatagarbha restriction of emptiness to adventitious stains which cover over an ultimate nature of buddha-qualities. There can be, of course, only one true reality towards which the Buddha awakened, so that exegetes were eventually forced to explain the canonical sources (i.e., Mahāyāna Sūtras) which contain mutually competing models of reality. This set the stage for the well-known hermeneutic strategies of the Tibetan schools. The main issue at stake was whether or not one needs to distinguish two modes of emptiness: being "empty of an own-being (Tib. ''rang stong''), and being "empty of other" (Tib. ''gzhan stong''). (Mathes, preliminary remarks, 187)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#(For the title) This is an enlarged version of my paper read at the 2008 IABS Conference in Atlanta, where it had the title: "Was the Third Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339) a Proponent of Gzhan stong? Some More Material from Rje Bkra shis 'od zer's (15th/16th cent.) ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' Commentary."
#This threefold distinction is related to the three ''niḥsvabhāvatās'' of the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'': the lack of essence in terms of characteristics (''lakṣaṇaniḥsvabhāvatā''), arising (''utpatti-n.'') and the ultimate (''paramārtha-n.''). See Mathes 1996: 161. +
Tibetans use the concept of the “Five Treatises of Maitreya” (''Byams chos sde lnga'') to refer to a group of texts that they attribute to Maitreya through Asaṅga, including the ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' (''Mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan, AA''), the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra'' (''Theg pa chen po’i mdo sde rgyan, MSA''), the ''Madhyāntavibhāga'' (''Dbus dang mtha’ rnam par ’byed pa, MV''), the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhaṅga'' (''Chos dang chos nyid rnam par dbye ba, DDV''), and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV)'', which Tibetans most often refer to as the ''Mahāyāna-Uttaratantra'' (''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma''). Some of the Five Treatises were present at the time of the first dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet (''snga dar''), and some were discovered or brought later to Tibet. The first set comprises the ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'', the ''Sūtrālaṃkāra'', and the ''Madhyāntavibhāga'', while the texts that were later discovered and translated are the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhaṅga''. Although the Five Treatises cover a variety of topics and seem to defend several philosophical positions about these topics, the Tibetan tradition still takes very seriously the idea that they form a unit, and share to some extent a single intent.<br> Modern scholarship on the Five Treatises has so far privileged studying the texts of the Five Treatises individually, not giving much importance to the concept of the Five Treatises per se and its consequences on the interpretation of the texts that form it. In the following pages I argue that, on the contrary, the notion of the Five Treatises and the idea that they form a unit is crucial enough for Tibetan interpreters that we cannot fully understand Tibetan interpretations of those texts without taking this into consideration. If we look at the way Tibetan interpreters define the category and how they form their interpretations around it, we come to the conclusion that a study of Tibetan interpretations of individual treatises cannot represent fully the influence of those texts on Tibetan Buddhist literature and thought<br> In order to establish that claim, having explained the concept of the Five Treatises as a unit and where that unit fits among Tibetan Buddhist scriptures, I will trace its origin and development from the recognition of Maitreya’s authorship of the Treatises to the notion that the Five Treatises form a single work. I will conclude by explaining how the study of the Five Treatises as a whole and of that concept itself allows us to understand things that the study of the texts individually cannot provide. (Turenne, introduction, 215–16)
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō are convinced that ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory and the Yogacara school share a common framework that they call ''dhātu-vāda'' or "locus theory." The word ''dhātu-vāda'' itself is a neologism introduced by Matsumoto[1] and adopted by Hakamaya.[2] They argue that the ''dhātu-vāda'' idea stands in direct contradiction to the authentic Buddhist theory of ''pratītyasamutpāda'' or "dependent origination," which in turn leads them to consider ''tathāgata-garbha'' and Yogacara theories to be non-Buddhist. In their opinion, not only these Indian theories but also the whole of "original enlightenment thought" (''hongaku shisō'') in East Asia fell under the shadow of the ''dhātu-vāda'' idea,[3] with the result that most of its Buddhism is dismissed as not Buddhist at all.[4]
The idea of ''dhātu-vāda'' is thus an integral part of the Critical Buddhism critique and as such merits careful examination in any evaluation of the overall standpoint. Since Matsumoto first found the ''dhātu-vāda'' structure in Indian ''tathāgata-garbha'' and Yogacara literature, we need to begin with a look at the texts in question. My approach here will be purely philological and will limit itself to the theoretical treatises (sastras).
<h5>Notes</h5>
#I do not know exactly when Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō began their critique of ''tathāgata-garbha'' thought and ''hongaku shisō'', but the first time I myself ran across it was in Hakamaya's "Thoughts on the Ideological Background of Social Discrimination."
#A text quoted as the basis for the ''Mahāyāna-saṅgraha'', but not extant.
#''Sutra of Neither Increase Nor Decrease'', T No. 668, 16.466–8.
#I have published an expanded discussion of this topic under the title "'Mushi jirai no kai' no saikō" [A reexamination of ''anādhikāliko-dhātuḥ''] in ''Suguro Shinjō Hakase Koki Kinen Ronbunshū'' [Festschrift for Dr. Suguro Shinjō] (Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1996), 41–59.
The point of zazen, says Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, is to live each moment in complete combustion, like a clean-burning kerosene lamp. In this talk at the Tassajara sesshin in the summer of 1969, the great Zen master explains Dogen’s teaching on practicing within imperfection and warns against the arrogance of the false self. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Anne Burchardi[1]
The present article is a contribution to the discussion on the place of epistemology in Tibetan Buddhism in relation to the doctrine of Mahāmudrā, drawing on a selection of Tibetan sources from the 16th century as well as Bhutanese sources from the 19th century.
While Buddhist epistemology may seem dry and cerebral, it plays a special role as a gateway to Mahāmudrā according to certain masters associated with the ''gzhan stong'' philosophy.[2] For them, not only can direct valid cognition (''mngon sum tshad ma'') in general be linked to the non-conceptual states associated with Mahāmudrā meditation, but the basic epistemological definition of mind as luminous and cognisant (''gsal zhing rig pa'') is a precursor to the pointing-out instructions for recognising the nature of mind. According to some interpretations, it is the direct valid cognition of apperception[3] (''rang rig mngon sum tshad mo''), which experiences this true nature, and the direct yogic valid cognition (''mal 'byor mngon sum tshad ma''), which realises it. (Burchardi, preliminary remarks, 27)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#An early version of this paper was presented at the 15th IABS Conference in Atlanta in 2008 as well as at the Seventh Nordic Tibet Research Conference in Helsinki, 2009. It appeared in the proceedings of the latter which were published as the ''Himalayan Discoveries'' in 2013. It appears here in an amended version with the kind permission of the editors. I would like to thank Lopon Norbu Gyaltsen for his explanations as well as Karl Brunnhölzl, Per Sørensen, Jan-Ulrich Sobisch, Julian Pollock and Yaroslav Komarovski for their comments and improvements to the previous version of this article. I would like to thank Olaf Czaja for his suggestions, which inspired a revision of the translations in the first half of the present version of the paper.
#The connection between direct yogic valid cognition and Mahāmudrā most probably predates the inception of the ''gzhan stong'' movement in Tibet.
#Often translated as reflexive awareness.
With this article I examine Pāli discourse references to luminosity of the mind in the light of their parallels, with a view to discerning early stages in the development of a notion that has had a considerable impact on Buddhist thought and practice. +
Articles/The Mahāparinirvāṇa-Mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine-Review by Lee +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs: <br><br>
Previous Buddhist scholarship has generally regarded the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' as a “side line” or “offshoot” from the “mainstream” group of ''tathāgatagarbha'' scriptural texts, such as the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra''. This view has been also supported by the presumed chronological order between the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' and the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'': The ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'', which is also the putative earliest ''tathāgatagarbha'' text, has been considered to be an earlier text than the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', on the basis of the supposed evidence that the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' refers to the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'' by its title on the one hand and borrows one simile from the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'' on the other. Michael Radich’s book, The ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine'', fundamentally challenges such previous scholarship on the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra''. Employing meticulous analysis of vast range of primary-source materials, Radich convincingly demonstrates that the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' is most likely “our earliest” ''tathāgatagarbha'' text. More importantly, Radich, presents an insightful perspective on the matter of the origin of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine: He argues that the ''tathāgatagarbha''/*''buddhadhātu'' ideas of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' constitutes part of a broader pattern of docetic Buddhology, the idea that the buddhas’ appearance is not the reality of their true nature.<br> The ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine'' consists of two parts. Part I, which is divided into three chapters, mainly concerns chronological issues revolving around the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', thereby arguing that the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' is the earliest ''tathāgatagarbha'' text available to us. In Chapter 1, Radich argues that the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' can be considered a ''tathāgatagarbha'' text proper, by questioning the scholarly presumption that the “Buddha nature” (*''buddhadhātu'') doctrine of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' derives from the center of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrinal discourse. Through a careful comparative analysis of the text common to the four versions of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', Radich shows that the sūtra in fact speaks of ''tathāgatagarbha'' much more than it speaks of *''buddhadhātu'', and that even when it mentions *''buddhadhātu'', it is used in an interchangeable manner with ''tathāgatagarbha''. In this way, Radich undermines the previous scholarly tendency to distinguish the concept of *''buddhadhātu'' from ''tathāgatagarbha'' and to regard the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' as a side-line of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine. (Lee, "Review of ''The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine''," 199–200)
Articles/The Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra and Its Earliest Interpreters in China: Two Prefaces by Tao-lang and Tao-sheng +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>One of the most popular sūtras in China is the ''Ta-pan nieh-pan ching'', the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra'' translated by Dharmakṣema in 421 A.D. Its doctrine of "universal Buddha-nature" has endeared itself to the Orient so much that it became an axiom of sorts, and any challenge to this doctrine would be seen as a challenge against Mahayana itself. To this day, this sūtra, TPNPC for short, is well received by all major Buddhist schools. The Pali canon preserved its version of the teaching of the Buddha at his ''parinirvāṇa'', great extinction, in the ''Dighanikaya''. The Mahayana tradition's redaction is the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra'', of which the Chinese translations alone survive. Prior to Dharmakṣema, Fa-hsien the pilgrim and Buddhabhadra translated a shorter ''Ta-pan ni-yüan ching'' in six chapters. This version was based on an earlier Sanskrit text that corresponds now to the first ten chapters of the forty-chaptered TPNC. The texts were unknown to Kumārajīva (d. 413) the Kuchan translator who produced the authoritative ''Miao-fa lien-hua ching'', the ''Saddharma-puṇḍarīka'' or ''Lotus-sūtra''. When the TPNPC was known to the Chinese, it was almost immediately crowned as the final, ultimate 'positive'—that is affirming the permanence of the Buddha-nature ''qua Dharmakāya qua mahā-nirvāṇa''—teaching of the Buddha. Even the ''Lotus-sūtra'' was placed, both in time and in content, second to it. In the Sui dynasty, however, T'ien-t'ai master Chih'i, establishing the Lotus school, reversed the judgement somewhat.[2] It is in part to uncover the glory that once belonged to the TPNPC that the present essay tries to analyze the initial reception of this ''sūtra''. (Lai, "The ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra'' and Its Earliest Interpreters in China," 99)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#The placement of note #1 in the text is unclear in the original. Nevertheless it reads: On the impact of the TPNPC, see Kenneth Ch'en, ''Buddhism in China'' (Princeton: Princeton University, 1964), pp. 112-129 or Fuse Kōgaku, ''Nehanshū no kenkyū'', I, II (Tokyo, Sōbun, 1942) and Tokiwa Daijō, ''Busshō no kenkyū'' (Tokyo, Meiji, 1944).
#On Chih-i's ''p'an-chiao'', see Leon Hurvitz, "Chih-i," ''Melanges chinois et Bouddhiques'', XII, (Brussells, 1960-62), esp. appendix on ''p'an-chiao''.
Although the textual study of Mahāyāna sūtras has made gradual progress over the past few decades, there are a number of major sutras of considerable importance for an understanding of the development of Mahāyāna doctrinally and socially which still remain rather neglected in the West, such as the ''Tathāgataguhyaka'', the ''Samādhi-rāja'', and the ''Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa''. Of these, the ''Mahāyāna Mahā-parinirvāṇa-sūtra'' (hereafter MPNS), when not casually dismissed as a Hinduizing aberration, until recently has attracted interest almost solely as a source for studies of the so-called “Buddha-nature” or ''tathāgata-garbha'' doctrine. Moreover, the value of such studies has often been compromised by an uncritical, synchronic use of the text, completely ignoring the problems of stratification and interpolation which I shall highlight in this paper.<br> Yet the significance of the MPNS goes well beyond that restricted topic, despite its interest to many. For example, when utilized to the fullest, the available textual materials for the MPNS allow unique insights into the creation, development & transmission of Mahāyāna texts in general. Additionally, I believe that the composition of the main elements of the MPNS can be reliably dated to a narrow period from the middle decades to the end years of the 1st century CE, when read in conjunction with the small group of associated texts (the ''Mahāmegha-sūtra'', ''Mahā-bherī-sūtra'' and the ''Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra''), due to the specific mention in them of the Sātavāhana ruler Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi in conjunction with the timetable of a dire eschatological prophesy. There would also seem to be biographical details of a certain individual who may have been the founder or author of the MPNS “movement”. In sum, this situation seems to be virtually unique among all Mahāyāna sutras and, if properly understood, should have far-reaching ramifications for the study of the early Mahāyāna movements, for the MPNS may now be taken as a fixed reference point for constructing a relative chronology for many other early Mahāyāna sutras, though with the usual caveats concerning interpolated material. (Hodge, introduction, 1)
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>The word ''gotra'' is frequently used in the literature of Mahāyāna Buddhism to denote categories of persons classified according to their psychological, intellectual, and spiritual types. The chief types usually mentioned in this kind of classification are the Auditors making up the ''śrāvaka-gotra'', the Individual Buddhas making up the ''pratyehabuddha-gotra'', and the Bodhisattvas making up the ''bodhisattva-gotra''.[2] In the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'' these three types constitute altogether different ''gotras'', which thus coincide with the three separate Vehicles (''yāna'') as recognized by the Yogācārin/Vijñaptimātratā, school.[3] To these three some sources add the further category of the undetermined (''aniyatagotra''), which is made up of persons not yet definitively attached to one of the three preceding classes; and the non-''gotra'' (''agotra''), that is the category made up of persons who cannot be assigned to any spiritual class.[4] Each of the first three categories is thus comprised of persons capable of achieving a particular kind of maturity and spiritual perfection in accordance with their specific type or class, the Auditor then attaining the Awakening (''bodhi'') characteristic of the Śrāvaka and so on.[5] Especially remarkable in this connexion, and somewhat anomalous as a ''gotra'', is the non-''gotra'', i.e. that category of persons who seem to have been considered, at least by certain Yogācārin authorities, as spiritual ‘outcastes’ lacking the capacity for attaining spiritual perfection or Awakening of any kind; since they therefore achieve neither ''bodhi'' nor ''nirvāṇa'', they represent the same type as the ''icchantikas'' to the extent that the latter also are considered to lack this capacity.[6]<br> The three ''gotras'' mentioned first together with the ''aniyatagotra'' and the ''agotra'' are discussed chiefly in the Śāstras of the Yogācārins[7] and in the commentaries on the ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra''.[8]<br> In addition, the ''gotra'' functions so to speak as a spiritual or psychological 'gene' determining the classification of living beings into the above-mentioned categories, which may be either absolutely or temporarily different according to whether one accepts the theory that the three Vehicles (''yāna'') are ultimately and absolutely separate because they lead to the three quite different kinds of Awakening of the Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva—namely the extreme ''triyāna'' doctrine-or, on the contrary, the theory that the Vehicles are ultimately one because all sentient beings are finally to attain Awakening and buddhahood which are essentially one—in other words the characterized Mādhyamika version of the ''ekayāna'' theory.[9]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#(Note 1 belongs to title): A shortened version of this paper was read before the Indological section of the twenty-ninth International Congress of Orientalists in Paris in July 1973.<br> The following abbreviations are used.<br> ''IBK'' ''Indogaku-Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū''.<br> ''MSA'' ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra'' (ed. Lévi).<br> ''RGV'' ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (Sanskrit text ed. E. H. Johnston).<br> ''RGVV'' ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' (Sanskrit text ed. E. H. Johnston).<br> ''TGS'' ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' (Tibetan translation in the lHa-sa ed. of the bKa'-'gyur).<br>''Théorie'' D. Seyfort Ruegg, ''La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra'' (Publications de l'École Française d'Extreme-Orient, LXX, Paris, 1969).
#''v. Laṅkāvatārasūtra'', ed. Nanjō, 2, pp. 63-6, and the other sources quoted in Ruegg, ''Théorie'', 74 f.
#''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'' 7.15, 24; cf. ''Théorie'', 73-4.
#''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' 2, p. 63.
#''v. Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' 2, pp. 63-5; ''MSABh.'' 3.2.
#''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' 2, pp. 65-6; ''MSABh''. 3.11: ''aparinirvāṇadharmaka''. There are two categories of persons not attaining ''nirvāṇa'', those who do not attain it for a certain length of time (''tatkālāparinirvāṇadharman'') and those who never do so (''atyantāparinirvāṇadharman''). The theory that some persons are destined never to attain ''nirvāṇa'' and buddhahood is considered characteristic of the Yogācārin school, which does not admit the doctrine of universal buddhahood implied by the usual interpretation of the ''ekayāna'' theory (see ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'' 7.24) and the theory of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' present in all sentient beings. (''MSA'' 9.37 does not, it seems, refer to the fully developed ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory which is based on three factors—the irradiation of the ''dharmakāya'', the non-differentiation of the ''tathatā'', and the presence of the ''gotra'' [see ''RGV'' 1.27 f.]—and concerns only the non-differentiation of the ''tathatā'', and the ''tathāgatatva'', which all beings possess as their embryonic essence. Cf. below, n. 50.)<br> The ''agotra'' doctrine to the extent that it assumes a class of spiritual 'outcastes' being evidently incompatible with the ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory, the question arises as to the significance of the allusion to persons without a ''gotra'' in ''RGV'' 1.41. The reference there seems to be to a hypothetical case (opposed to the author's own view expressed before in ''RGV'' 1.40-41c), which is not, however, admitted by the author; and the revised reading of ''pāda'' 1.41d ''agotrāṇāṃ na tad yataḥ'' (cf. L. Schmithausen, ''WZKS'', xv, 1971, 145) 'since this is not so for those without ''gotra'' ' makes this interpretation easier (see p. 346). Indeed, according to ''RGVV'' 1.41, any allusion to an ''icchantika'' who does not attain ''nirvāṇa'' is to be interpreted as referring to a certain interval of time (''kālāntarābhiprāya'') only, and not to a permanent incapacity. On the ''icchantika'' cf. D. S. Ruegg, ''Le traité du tathāgatagarbha de Bu ston Rin chen grub'', Paris, 1973, p. 12, n. 1. The ''aparinirvāṇagotra'' is also mentioned in ''RGVV'' 1.32-3, 1.38, and 1.41, and the ''aparinirvāṇadharman'' in 1.41.
#cf. ''MSA'', ch. 3; ''Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya'' and º''ṭīkā'', 2.1, 4.15-16.
#cf. ''Théorie'', 123 f.
#''v. Théorie'', 177 f.; ''MSA'' 11.53-9; ''Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā'' 3.1a, 22. On the equivalence of ''nirvāṇa'' and buddhahood, see ''RGV'' 1.87.
In this article Joseph Goldstein, a very experienced and influential Insight meditation teacher, explores his confusion about the apparent difference of opinion between different schools of Theravada Buddhism, Korean Ch’an and Dzogchen on the status of consciousness / awareness. His own tradition teaches consciousness is something transitory whilst Ch’an and Dzogchen believe awareness – pure awareness, rigpa, is the uncreated, unconditioned Buddha Nature, Tathagatagarbha. How can they both be right? ([https://bath-bristol-mindfulness-courses.co.uk/the-nivana-debate-joseph-goldstein-extract/ Source Accessed March 6, 2020]) +
Articles/The Original Ratnagotravibhāga and Its Yogāçāra Interpretation as Possible Indian Precedents of Gzhan stong ("Empti-ness of Other") +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In his pioneering study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (RGV) TAKASAKI Jikido showed that the standard Indian treatise on ''tathāgatagarbha'' consists of different layers and reduced it to what he considered to be the original ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' by excluding later strands of the text. Schmithausen continued this "textual archaeology," which left us with an original text of fifteen verses only. While these ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' verses (which in the following I shall refer to as "the original" version) support the idea of an already fully developed "buddha-element" ''(buddhadhātu}'' in sentient beings, the final (standard) version of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and its ''vyākhyā'' exhibit a systematic Yogāçāra interpretation of the original ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory. The original and final ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' represent the prototypes of at least two different ''gzhan stong'' interpretations, which mainly differ in whether they restrict or not the basis of emptiness to an unchanging perfect nature. (Mathes, "The Original ''Ratnagotravibhāga''," 119)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#TAKASAKI Jikido, ''A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism'', Rome Oriental Series, vol. 33 (Rome: Istituto Italiano per ii Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966), pp. 10–19.
#Lambert Schmithausen, "Philologische Bemerkungen zum ''Ratnagotravibhāga''," Wiener Zeitschriftfur die Kunde Sudasiens 15 (1971), pp. 123-177, see pp. 123-130.
#Used interchangeably with the term ''tathāgatagarbha'' in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and its ''vyākhyā''. +
Contrary to certain currents of widespread opinion both among Eastern and Western scholars, there are two fundamentally different views of the nature of man, the mind and the spiritual path within the Buddhist tradition, each of which has equal claim to orthodoxy.<br>
In this paper, which is exploratory in nature, I shall briefly outline these two views and then ask the question of what the psychological or social effects of holding one or other of these views might be. The views I have in mind are expressed in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as the view of self-emptiness and the view of other-emptiness (''rangstong'' and ''gzhan-stong''). (Hookham, "The Practical Implications of the Doctrine of Buddha-nature," 149) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In the present chapter I will discuss how the seventh Karma pa, Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454-1506), connects ''rang rig'',[1] in the sense of ''tshad ma'i 'bras bu'' (San: ''pramāṇaphala''),[2] with tathāgatagarbha in his major work, the ''Rig gzhung rgya mtsho''.[3] 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."[4] 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.[5]
The seventh Karma pa also influenced the great Sa skya scholar Shakya 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, Shakya mchog Idan is described as "the most influential advocate of the ''gzhan stong'' in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries."[6] 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,[7] distinct from Dol po pa's position.[8] 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,[9] while Shakya mchog ldan's writings have played an important role in the 'Brug pa Bka' rgyud ''bshad grwa'' tradition of Bhutan.[10]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Skt. ''svasaṃvitti'', or ''svasaṃvedanā'', and variously translated as "self-cognition," "apperception," and "reflexive awareness."
#See Dreyfus and Lindtner 1989 for an important analysis of Dignāga's and Dharmakīrti's presentations of ''pramāṇa'' and ''pramāṇaphala''.
#The full title is ''Tshad ma legs par bshad pa thams cad kyi chu bo yongs su du ba rigs pa'i gzhung lugs kyi rgya mtsho''.
#Trans. Steams 1999: 76. The "Seventh Lord" here is the seventh Karma pa and "Zi lung pa" refers to Shakya mchog ldan (1428-1507). The Tibetan original (from Si tu's ''Chos kyi 'byung gnas Ta'i si tur 'bod pa karma bstan pa'i nyin byed kyi rang tshul drangs par brjod pa dri bral shel gyi me long'', in ''Autobiography and Diaries of Si tu Paṇ chen'': 267) is given in Stearns 1999, p. 214, note 129, as follows: ''bdag gis ni gzhan stong rang la' ang bzhed tshul cung zad mi 'dra ba 'ga' re yod pa'i nang nas / dol po'i bzhed pa las thal rang gnyis po 'ang rig [sic!] tshogs kyi dgongs pa rma med du 'dod pa ni khyad par dang / rje bdun pa dang zi lung pa'i bzhad pa dang ches nye ba zhig 'dod pa yin no''.
#Smith 2000: 250.
#Stearns 1999: 60-61.
#See Mathes 2004 for a comparison of Shākya mchog Idan and Dol po pa's views. For different kinds of ''gzhan stong'' see Burchardi 2007.
#See Kapstein 1992 and 2000a for valuable information about Dol po pa and his work. See Stearns 1999 for a history of Dol po pa's life and a translation of his text the ''Bka' bsdu bzhi pa''. See Hopkins 2006 for a translation of his definitive treatise on tathāgatagarbha and ''gzhan stong'', the ''Ri chos nge don rgya mtsho''.
#Personal communication from Thrangu Rinpoche, 2007.
#See Burchardi 2008.
Buddha Nature, or tathagatagarbha in Sanskrit, is a core element of Buddhist philosophical discourse and doctrinal debate. Who or what possesses Buddha Nature, how it manifests itself, and what role it plays in Buddhist soteriology have been sustained questions in actual Buddhist practices and in the works of Buddhologists from ancient times to the present. Based on the author’s textual interpretation, this paper attempts to present a threefold argument: Buddha Nature is not separate from its alleged opposite, sentience; it is not a tangible substance but a state of being whose felt meaning is only metaphorically conveyed; and finally it is a heuristic device or a means of provoking a Buddhist or anyone who takes interest in Buddhism, to visualize the inner complexity of his or her sentient mode of being. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The well-known motto of Ch'an Buddhism is that "perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha." The "true self" signifies the Buddha nature inherent in all sentient beings. The discovering of the "true self" has become the single most important pursuit of the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism teaches that ultimately no substantial self (i.e., 'anatman') can be found, since the self is nothing but the union of the five aggregates. Modern Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been intrigued by the inconsistency that one single tradition teaches both that there is no self on the one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to discover the true self, on the other hand.
The big questions concerning these two contradictory doctrines include:
* How did they develop during the course of Buddhist history?
* How can they be reconciled?
* Are these two ideas actually as contradicting as they appear to be?
* Is the concept of the Buddha nature an outcome of the influence of other Indian religious thought upon Buddhism?
It is out of the scope of this short paper to answer all these questions. Therefore, this paper will deal with the antecedent and synonymous concept of the Buddha nature, that is, 'tathagata- garbha' ('ju lai tsang'). Specifically, this paper will examine the meaning and significance of the 'tathagatagarbha' (Buddha nature) based on three 'tathagatagarbha' texts and argue that the 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self ('atman'); rather, it is a positive language and expression of 'sunyata' (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In other words, the intention of the teaching of 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.
Read more [https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha191.htm here] +
