Property:Description
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
A
Tsongkhapa’s ''A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages'' (1419) is a comprehensive presentation of the highest yoga class of Buddhist tantra, especially the key practices—the so-called five stages (''pancakrama'')—of the advanced phase of Guhyasamāja tantra. Beginning with a thorough examination of the Indian sources, Tsongkhapa draws particularly from the writings of Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakīrti, and Nāropā to develop a definitive understanding of the Vajrayana completion stage. Whereas in the generation stage, meditators visualize the Buddha in the form of the deity residing in a mandala palace, in the completion stage discussed in the present volume, meditators transcend ordinary consciousness and actualize the state of a buddha themselves. Among other things, Tsongkhapa’s work covers the subtle human physiology of channels and winds along with the process of dying, the bardo, and rebirth. This definitive statement on Guhyasamāja tantra profoundly affected the course of Buddhist practice in Tibet. (Source: [https://wisdomexperience.org/content-author/gavin-kilty/ Wisdom Experience]) +
Articles/A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection +
In the summer of 2007 I had the opportunity to participate in Francesco Sferra’s course on Kamalaśīla’s First ''Bhāvanākrama'' at the University of Hamburg. For his lectures Sferra kindly provided us with digital images of Tucci’s photographs of the Sanskrit manuscript of this text. The 27 extant folios of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' (fols. 2–28), which were used by Tucci for the ''editio princeps'' of the text,<sup>1</sup> have been photographed in three successive multi-folio images together with nine extra folios that appear in two photos only, namely those labelled MT 41 II/01 and MT 42 II/02. My attention was caught by these folios since while the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript is written in Magadhi script, these nine folios are written in Śāradā script — a rather rare phenomenon among the corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in Tibet. They and the rest of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript were originally preserved at Zwa lu Ri phug.<sup>2</sup> The manuscripts preserved there were probably taken to Beijing (The Cultural Palace of Nationalities) in the 1960s, but were returned to Lhasa sometime after 1990 (first to Nor bu gliṅ ka and then to the Tibetan Museum).<sup>3</sup><br>
Of the nine folios, Tucci photographed both sides of seven of them, while he photographed only one side of the remaining two (here labelled 7.2 and 9.2). The two sides not filmed were probably blank or contained title pages (unfortunately, Tucci did not photograph title pages). Some images are out of focus and barely legible, and thus a complete diplomatic transcription is almost impossible. If Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana photographed the same folios, this would be very helpful in deciphering them; however, I have yet to find evidence that he did. Therefore, I have only been able to go through the folios haltingly, and so identify a limited number of them. (Kano, introductory remarks, 381–82)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#The reproduction of these folios will appear together with a new critical edition of the Sanskrit text, a new edition of the Tibetan translation and an annotated English translation in a new issue of Manuscripta Buddhica which is being prepared by Francesco Sferra and Iain Sinclair.
#It should be noted that in the introduction of the ''editio princeps'' of the First ''Bhāvanākrama'', Tucci states: "The manuscript is preserved in the monastery of sPos k’aṅ on a side valley to the right of the Myań c’u, between Gyantse and Shigatse" (Tucci 1956: 6-7). However, this information is most probably wrong for the following reasons: ''a)'' the same manuscript was most likely seen by Sāṅkṛtyāyana in Źwa lu Ri phug in 1936 (1937: 39); ''b)'' the envelope itself containing the negatives of Tucci’s photographs are labelled "Zha lu" (see above, p. 46); ''c)'' in Źwa lu Ri phug there were other manuscripts in Śāradā script, in particular a manuscript containing Sajjana’s ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa'', which might be connected with the ''Sūtrālaḿkārapiṇḍārtha'' reproduced together with the first ''Bhavanākrama''.
#Cf. Steinkellner 2004.
A Prolegomena to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha Theory: The Role of Women in Buddhism +
The ''Śrīmālādevī siṁhanāda sūtra'' (''ŚDS'') (''The Treatise on the Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā'') is a Mahāyāna text no longer extant in Sanskrit but preserved in both the Chinese and Tibetan Tripiṭakas. This text is a unique development within the Buddhist tradition because of its egalitarian view concerning women, portraying, on the one band, the dignity and wisdom of a laywoman and her concern for all beings, and on the other, the role of woman as a philosopher and teacher. Doctrinally, the major emphasis is upon the Tathāgatagarbha and Ekayāna.<br> Because of the number of citations and references which are retained in Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' seems to have been widely circulated throughout India. This text is
quoted in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'' (''The Supreme Exposition of Mahāyāna: A Commentary on the Jewel Lineage'')[1] and the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' (''A Compendium on Instruction'')[2] with allusions made in the ''Laṅkāvatāra sūtra''[3] and the ''Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra'' (''The Ornament of the Mahāyāna sūtras'').[4] The ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun'' (''Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi'') by Hsüan-tsang also quotes from the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' but does not identify the ''sūtra'' by name.[5]<br> According to the ''Sung kao seng chuan''[6] Bodhiruci used a Sanskrit text of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' for reference in translating the text into Chinese. From the above evidence, it may be concluded that a Sanskrit original of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' did exist and that this text was part of the Indian Buddhist tradition.<br>
The classical Chinese text is extant in two recensions:<br>
1) ''Sheng-man shih-tzu-hou i-ch'eng ta-fang-pien fang-kuang ching'' (1 ch.) (T.v.12, no. 353, pp. 217-223), translated by Guṇabhadra (394-468) in 435.<br>
2) ''Sheng-man-fu-jen hui'' which is the forty-eighth assembly in the Ratnakūṭa anthology (''Ta-pao chi ching'') (T.v.11, no. 310, pp. 672-678), translated by Bodhiruci[7] (572-727) of T'ang between 706 and 713.<br> Because Guṇabhadra's translation is almost three hundred years older than Bodhiruci's, it has been chosen as the basic text in order to trace the development of Tathāgatagarbha thought in its original form. Bodhiruci's translation is used when Guṇabhadra's translation is ambiguous and when differences in interpretation are indicated.<br> The Tibetan recension, ''Hphags-pa lha-mo dpal-phreṅ gi seṅ-geḥi sgra shes-bya-ba theg-pa chen-poḥi mdo'' (Tōhoku no. 92, Bkaḥ-ḥgyur), which is part of the Ratnakūṭa anthology, will not be used. When significant differences between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions occur, the Tibetan text will be noted also.[8]<br> The commentaries which are extant are few and only in Chinese and Japanese. There are no Tibetan commentaries now extant, which discuss only the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[9] According to the ''Kao seng chuan'',[10] immediately after the translation of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' many commentaries were composed by monks who had studied and memorized the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''. These texts, now lost, were dated between the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. According to Chi-tsang's ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'', monks studied and composed commentaries on the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' from the North-South dynastic periods through the Sui (i.e. from approximately 440-618 A.D.).<br> The major commentaries[11] extant in Chinese are:<br>1) ''Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching'' (T.v.85, no. 2763) - Although the commentator is unknown, this text was probably the composition of a noble woman of Northern Wei, attested to by the calligraphy and literary style of the Tun-huang manuscript. Completed before 500 A.D., it is the oldest extant commentary on the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[12] Only Chapter 5, "Ekayāna" is discussed.<br>2) ''Sheng-man ching i-chi'' (2 ch.) (''Dainihon zokuzōkyō'', v.1, no. 30-1) by Hui-yüan, (523-692) of Sui - Only the first half of the text is extant, corresponding to the first four chapters of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.<br>3) ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'', (3 ch.) (T.v.37, no. 1744) by Chi-tsang (549-623) of Sui.<br>4) ''Sheng-man ching shu-chi'', (2 ch.) (''Dainihon zokuzōkyō'' v.1, no. 30-4) by K'uei-chi (632-682) of T'ang.<br>5) ''Sheng-man ching su-i ssu-ch'ao'', (6 ch.) (''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Ming-k'ung[13] of T'ang in 772.<br> The major commentaries extant in Japanese are:<br>1) ''Shōmagyō gisho'' (1 ch.) (T.v.56, no. 2184) attributed to Prince Shōtoku (573-621) but probably the composition of a North Chinese Buddhist scholar.[14]<br>2) ''Shōmangyō shosho genki'', (18 ch.) (''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Gyōnen (1240-1321). First five chüan are missing. The extant text begins with the chapter "The Ten Ordination Vows".<br>3) ''Shōman-shishikugyō kenshūshō'' (3 ch.) (''Nihon daizōkyō'', v. 5; ''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Fūjaku (1707-1781)<br> The ''Sheng-man ching pao k'u'' and the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' are the two primary commentaries upon which the present study's interpretation of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is based. These two commentaries have been selected because the former, written by a San-lun master, interprets Tathāgatagarbha from a Mādhyamikan perspective whereas the latter is representative of the North Chinese scholars' interpretation and frequently overshadows the sūtra itself in popularity, particularly in Japan. The ''Sheng-man ching i-chi'' and the ''Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching'' are used as references in analyzing Chapters 4 and 5, "The Acceptance of the true Dharma" and the "One Vehicle" respectively of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.<br> In Chapter One, a historical analysis will be attempted, suggesting the place and time of composition on the basis of external and internal evidence now available. In Chapter Two, the evolution of the Tathāgatagarbha will be outlined, based upon the first two Tathāgatagarbhan texts, the ''Tathāgatagarbha sūtra'' and the ''Pu tseng pu chien ching'', which predate the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[15]<br> In Chapter Three the characteristic format of the
''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is summarized in relation to the ''Tathāgatagarbha sūtra'' and the ''Pu tseng pu chien''. In Chapter Four the Tathāgatagarbha as presented in the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is analyzed with relation to the text as a whole, and in Chapter Five the annotated translation of the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra'' is presented with notations of key differences between the two Chinese recensions and with references made to the two commentaries, ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'' and ''Shōmangyō gisho'', and to the Sanskrit fragments noted above.<br> Appendix I is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a methodology of Buddhist studies which would provide a foundation for the skills needed for a critical analysis and interpretation of Buddhist phenomena. Appendix II is an annotated bibliography for studying the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra''. Appendix I is admittedly limited and will provide only the most general outline of the requisite methodological procedure in analyzing a Buddhist text. (Paul, introduction, 1–6)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#There are two English translations of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'': E. E. Obemiller, ''The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism'' (Rome: ''Acta Orientalia'', 1932), (Shanghai reprint: 1940) and Jikido Takasaki, ''A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism'' (Rome: Series Orientale Rome XXIII, 1966). The Sanskrit text of the ''Ratnagotra-vibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'', ed., by E. R. Johnston (Patna: Bihar Society, 1950) cites the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' on pp. 3, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 50, 55, 56, 59, 72, 73, 74, 76, and 79. A portion of these Sanskrit fragments have been noted below, in the translation, wherever differences or ambiguities in the Chinese recensions occur.
#Cf. ''Çikshāsamuccaya (A Compendium on Buddhist Teaching'', ed. by Cecil Bendall (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, (1897-1902), vol. I of ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'', reprinted by ''Indo-Iranian Journal'' (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957), pp. 42 and 43.
#Cf. ''Laṅkāvatāra sūtra'', ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio, (Second edition, Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1956), p. 222 line 19 and p. 223 line 4.
#Cf. ''Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra'', ed. by Sylvain Lévi (Paris: 1907), (Shanghai reprint : 1940), Tome 1 (XI, 59), p. 70. The cited passage, attributed to the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'', could not be found in either Chinese recension. Lévi also was unable to find the passage but does allude to the citation as being in the ''Çikshāsamuccaya'', ed. by Cecil Bendall, op. cit., but these two citations are not of the same passage.
#The following citations are quoted in the ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun'', translated by Hsüan-tsang (T.v.31, no. 1585, p. 1-60): (The remainder of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.)
#(The first part of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.) In the second year of T'ang emperor Chung-tsung in the reign of Shen-lung (706) he (Bodhiruci) returned to the capital (Loyang) to Chao ch'ung-fu temple to translate the ''Mahāratnakūṭa'' anthology. This anthology bad forty-nine old and new assemblies, totaling 120 ch., which were finished in the fourth month, eighth day of the second year of Hsun-t'ien (713). In the translation hall, the monks Ssu-chung and the Indian director Iśara (?) translated the Sanskrit: while the Indian monks Prajñāgupta (?) and Dharma were consulted concerning the Sanskrit meaning." (T.v.50, no. 2061, p. 720b)<br>The ''Sung kao seng chuan'', 30 ch., was compiled by Chih-lun and Tsang-ning of the Sung dynasty during the period from the beginning of the T'ang dynasty until 967 according to Ui Hakuju, ''Bukkyō jiten'' (''A Buddhist Dictionary''), (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1971), p. 654 and until 988 according to Nakamura Hajime, ''Shin-bukkyō jiten'' (''The New Buddhist Dictionary''), (Tokyo: Seishin shobō, 1972), p. 329.
#According to the ''Sung kao seng chuan'', op. cit., (p. 720c) Bodhiruci died in the fifteenth year of K'ai-yuan (727) of T'ang at the age of 156.
#The differences noted between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions are based upon the ''Shōmangyō hōgatsu dōji shomongyō'' (Kyoto: Kōkyō shoin, 1940) by Tsukinowa Kenryū.
#Tibetan commentaries on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' do interpret the passages which cite the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''. These are not discussed within the present study.
#''Kokuyaku-issaikyō hōshaku-bu shichi'', Ono Masao (gen. ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1958), p. 84 lists the monks who attempted to write commentaries now lost. The ''Kao seng chuan'', compiled by Hui-chao of the Liang dynasty, is the record of approximately 253 eminent monks from 67 A.D. through 519 A.D. Cf. Ui, ''Shin-bukkyō jiten'', op. cit., p. 303.
#For a complete listing of all commentaries in both Chinese and Japanese, extant and no longer extant, see below - Appendix II, Annotated Bibliography.
#Fujieda Akira, "Hokucho ni okeru ''Shōmangyō no tenshō''" in ''Tōhō gakuhō'', v.XL, 1973, p. 334. (Journal of the Institute of Humanities) (Jimbun Kagaku kenkyūsho) (Kyoto University).
#According to the ''Bussho kaisetsu daijiten'', Ono Masao {gen.ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1966), vol. V, p. 350, this text was composed by both Prince Shōtoku and Ming-k'ung.
#Prince Shōtoku most probably did not compose the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' since many of the texts which the ''Gisho'' cites were not known to Prince Shōtoku but were introduced to Japan at a much later date. For the transmission of the Chinese commentaries on the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra'', see "Hokucho ni okeru ''Shōmangyō''", op. cit. For the "original" Gisho, composed by a Chinese scholar of the North-South dynastic period, residing in North China, see "Shōman gisho hongi" in ''Shōtoku taishi kenkyū'', v. 5 (Osaka: Shitennoji Joshi Daigaku, 1973) by Koizumi Enjun in which the original Chinese commentary is edited and later almost entirely copied in the ''Shōmangyō gisho''.<br> The research on these commentaries at the time of this writing has been undertaken by members of the Jimbun Kagaku kenkyusho who are affiliated with Kyoto University. From analyzing the Tun-huang manuscripts, two very similar hypotheses have been developed: a) The Gisho itself was written by a Chinese scholar, or b) The original for the ''Shōmangyō gisho'', viz. ''Shōman gisho hongi'' (or, ''Sheng-man i-su ben-i''), was composed by a Northern Chinese scholar and later almost entirely interpolated into the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' by Prince Shōtoku or one of his followers.
#The analysis of Tathāgatagarbha was undertaken in consultation with Professors Yuichi Kajiyama, Chairman of Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University, and Gadjin Nagao, Professor Emeritus in Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University.
Articles/A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan +
Ching Keng’s paper challenges the prevalent assumption that the ''Awakening of Faith'' was composed under the influence of the Dilun School. Keng aims to show that in the representative works of Huiyuan, arguably the most important Dilun master, we do not find the essential doctrinal feature of the ''Awakening of Faith'', namely, the compromise or even the total obliteration of the distinction between unconditioned (''asaṃskṛta'') and conditioned (''saṃskṛta'') dharmas. Keng observes that almost all available studies of Huiyuan focus on a small piece entitled "Bashi yi" (八識義, "On the Meaning of the Eight Consciousnesses"), which shows strong influence from the "Awakening of Faith"; but that other works of Huiyuan outline a very different conceptual scheme. Taking these other works as representing Huiyuan's earlier thought, and therefore Dilun thought, Keng argues that the hallmark of Huiyuan's thought is a dualist scheme, in which the inherently pure aspect is unambiguously unconditioned, with no blending with conditioned dharmas; this inherently pure aspect can adjust to falsity (''suiwang'' 隨妄) and give rise to misconception, but without compromising its unconditioned nature. Upon this basis, Keng contends that the compromise between unconditioned and conditioned in the ''Awakening of Faith'' should be regarded as an innovation, rather than a direct outgrowth from Dilun thought. An important broader implication of Keng's argument is that Huiyuan’s thought, Dilun thought, and even the thought of the ''Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra'' has been anachronistically misinterpreted through the later, typically Chinese lens of the ''Awakening of Faith''. This suggests the sobering possibility that typically "sinitic" (or even "sinified") developments became so pervasive in the later East Asian tradition that their stamp may still lie heavy upon parts of modern Buddhology itself, and that we might therefore overlook both evidence and products of "sinifying" processes, and even the actual features of Indic materials. (Radich and Lin, introduction to ''A Distant Mirror'', 25–26)
'''Abstract'''
This study is an examination of Master Yinshun's hermeneutics. It focuses especially on his interpretation of the Buddhist concept known as the ''tathagatagarbha'', which refers to the idea that all sentient beings intrinsically possess the "womb of the Buddha." In some explanations of this teaching, the ''tathāgatagarbha'' is symbolic of the practitioner's potential for attaining enlightenment. In others, it functions as a synonym for the Ultimate and becomes the eternalistic substrate for all of existence. It is this latter view to which Yinshun takes exception, seeing it as antithetical to the doctrine of emptiness which espouses the notion that all things, including ideas, material objects, and living beings, lack a permanent and independent nature and thus cannot possess an unchanging, eternalistic form.<br> I focus particularly on Yinshun's text ''A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha'', for it serves as a concise statement of his interpretation of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' and its relationship to emptiness. In this text, Yinshun continually asserts the doctrine of emptiness as the definitive expression of Buddhist truth and relegates the ''tathāgatagarbha'' to the category of expedient means. He does this by examining the development of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' emphasizing particularly its evolution within pre-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna textual sources said to have had their genesis in India such as the ''Āgamas'', the ''Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras'' and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. For Yinshun, to regard the ''tathāgatagarbha'' as the ultimate truth rather than as an expedient means can only result in misguided practice and confusion about how to attain enlightenment.<br> I conclude by asking a number of general questions about Yinshun's thought and its relationship to the early to mid-twentieth century intellectual milieu in China. I also inquire about how Yinshun's ideas have contributed to the development of contemporary Chinese Buddhist movements flourishing in Taiwan today. (Source: [https://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-master-yinshuns-hermeneutics-an-interpretation-of-the-tathagatagarbha-doctrine/oclc/1118674801&referer=brief_results Worldcat Library Materials Online])
'''Abstract'''
Through a close examination on three Sanskrit compounds — i.e., tathāgatanairātmyagarbha, tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāvas tathāgatagarbhahṛdayam — in the ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'', this thesis will demonstrate how the tathāgatagarbha thought in the ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' is significantly enriched by Yogācāric influence.<br> First, in regard to tathāgata-nairātmya-garbha, a doctrinal review of the term "nairātmya" is necessary, because its definition differs according to different traditions. In primitive Buddhism, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "anātman" (non-existence of a substantial self), which indicates that in the realm of suffering and the impermanence of life phenomena that arise according to the principle of co-dependent
origination/ pratītyasamutpāda, no eternal and dependent ātman can be found. According to
the Madhyamaka School, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "niḥsvabhāva" (no
intrinsic-nature) which implies that all beings, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are all devoid of an ever-abiding intrinsic nature. For the Yogācāra School, the reality of nairātmya is said to be grasped under the principle of mind-only. That is to say, the imagined self /kalpitātman that is the presentation of mind is unreal, while the indescribable self/ anabhilāpyātman that is the genuine mind itself is real. Finally, it can be said that the tathāgata-nairātmya-garbha in ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' accords well with the Yogācāra teaching. In other words, it is the Yogācāric sense of nairātmya that sheds an influence upon the tathāgatagarbha doctrine.<br> Secondly, in regard to tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna, a doctrinal development is promoted owing to the identification of tathāgatagarbha with ālayavijñāna, which according to the Yogācāra School is also named "sarvabīljavijñāna" (cognition as the seed of everything). This latter synonym references its function of bringing forth all beings just as a giant tree originates from a seed. As a result of its identification with the ālayavijñāna, the tathāgatagarbha is said to be endowed with the function of bringing forth all forms of existence and thus becomes the "producing cause" of all. This interpretation is not seen in earlier scriptures wherein the tathāgatagarbha is described simply as a static substance supporting all beings.<br> Thirdly, in regard to pariniṣpannasvabhāvastathāgata-garbhahṛdayam, the implication of the tathāgatagarbha was expanded substantially by declaring that pariniṣpannasvabhāva is the very essence of tathāgatagarbha. The term "pariniṣpannasvabhāva" according to some important Yogācāra texts is defined as tathatā (ultimate realm of suchness). The combining of pariniṣpannasvabhāva with tathāgatagarbha that had formerly focused on the subjective potential of realizing wisdom, shifts the doctrinal emphasis toward the objective realm of realized perfection.<br> This thesis reveals that, having assimilated the Yogācāric doctrine of dharmanairātmya, ālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāva, the tathāgatagarbha thinking in ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' presents the comprehensive and distinctive features in comparison to the scriptures that preceded it.
Jikido Takasaki's seminal work on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' includes a critical introduction, a synopsis of the text, a translation from the original Sanskrit text in comparison with its Tibetan and Chinese versions, critical notes, appendixes, and indexes. The work is split into two parts. The first consists of a critical and detailed study on the structure of the text and the position of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in Mahāyāna Buddhism, and the second consists of a translation of the Sanskrit text into English. +
Articles/A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism-Review by de Jong +
For several reasons the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' deserves our attention. It is the only text on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' which has been preserved in Sanskrit. There are many problems connected with its place in the history of Mahāyāna philosophy and with its authorship. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to Maitreya and the prose commentary to Asaṅga. This text is held in high regard as one of the five treatises composed by Maitreya. However, the Chinese tradition attributes the whole work to Sāramati. This tradition is mentioned by Yüan-ts'e (613-696) in his commentary on the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra''[1] and by Fa-tsang (643-712) in his commentary on the ''Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra''[2]. Probably the earliest reference to Sāramati as author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is to be found in Chih-i's ''Mo-ho chih-kuan'' (''Taishō'', Vol. XLVI, Nr. 1911, p. 31b18-26) which has been dictated by him in 594 (cf. p. 125 of Tsukinowa's article mentioned in note 8). The identity of Sāramati raises many problems. Some scholars have identified him with Sthiramati,[3] others have distinguished two Sāramati's.[4] There are also many obscurities in the Chinese traditions concerning the translator of the Chinese version. Chinese catalogues mention two translations, one by Ratnamati and the other by Bodhiruci.<br> In 1931 E. Obermiller published a translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan: "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation", ''Acta Orientalia'', Vol. IX, Part II.III, pp. 81-306.[5] His interpretation of the text is based upon a commentary by Tsoṅ-kha-pa's pupil and successor rGyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen (1364–1432)[6] The Sanskrit text has been edited by E. H. Johnston and published by T. Chowdhury: ''The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' (Patna, 1950). This edition is based upon two manuscripts found in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṁkṛtyāyana. The edition of the Sanskrit text has given a new impulse to the study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Several passages of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have been translated by E. Conze (''Buddhist Texts through the Ages'', Oxford, 1954, pp. 130-131, 181-184 and 216-217). In ''Die Philosophie des Buddhismus'' (Berlin, 1956, pp. 255-264) E. Frauwallner has given a summary of the ideas contained in this text and a translation of several verses.[7] In 1959 Ui Hakuju published a detailed study on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (''Hōshōron Kenkyū'') which contains a complete translation (pp. 471-648), together with a Sanskrit-Japanese glossary (pp. 1-60 with separate pagination).[8] Professor Takasaki's translation was undertaken during his stay in India (1954-1957) and continued afterwards. Apart from this book he has published between 1958 and 1964 ten articles relating to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (a list is given on pp. xii-xiii).[9] . . .<br> The translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' by Professor Takasaki is the first to be based on the Sanskrit text and the Chinese and Tibetan translations. Obermiller utilized only the Tibetan version and his translation, excellent as it is, contains a number of mistakes which are obvious in the light of the Sanskrit text. Ui utilized both the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation, but he was unable to consult the Tibetan translation directly. His knowledge of it was based upon a Japanese translation, made for him by Tada Tōkan, and upon Obermiller's English translation. It is clear from many indications that the Chinese translation is closer to the original than both the Sanskrit text and the Tibetan translation. However, as concerns the interpretation of the text, the Chinese translation is now always a reliable guide. There are several places where Professor Takasaki has been too much influenced by it but in general he indicates very well the wrong interpretations which are to be found in the Chinese translation. For the Tibetan translation Professor Takasaki has consulted only the Derge edition. A comparison of the passages quoted in the notes with the corresponding passages in the Peking edition (the only one at my disposal) shows that the Derge edition does not always give a satisfactory text. An edition of the Tibetan translation based on the Derge, Peking and Narthang editions would be highly desirable. In view of the importance of the vocabulary of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' for both Buddhist Sanskrit and Mahāyāna terminology, it would also be very useful to have indexes, on the lines of those compiled by Professor Nagao for the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''.<br><br>
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24650390?seq=1 Read more here . . .]<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#P. Demiéville, ''BEFEO'', XXIV, 1-2 (1924), p. 53.
#N. Peri, ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), p. 350; Takasaki, p. 9.
#Cf. H. W. Bailey and E. H. Johnston, "A Fragment of the Uttaratantra in Sanskrit", ''BSOS'', VIII (1935), pp. 77-89 (esp. p. 81) and Johnston's foreword to his edition of the Sanskrit text, pp. x-xii. To this Sthiramati the Tibetan tradition attributes a commentary on the ''Kāśyapaparivarta''. The Chinese translation (''Taishō'', 1523) is due to Bodhiruci. According to Chinese catalogues this commentary, just as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', has been translated by both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Cf. A. Staël-Holstein's edition (''A Commentary of the ''Kāśyapaparivarta'', Peking, 1933) and P. Pelliot's review, ''TP'', XXXII (1936), pp. 75-76. According to Chinese traditions both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati have translated also the ''Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra'' (''Taishō'', No. 1522), cf. Noël Peri, "A propos de la date de Vasubandhu", ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), pp. 352-353; Stanley Weinstein, "The concept of ''ālaya-vijñāna'' in pre-T'ang Chinese Buddhism". ''Essays on the History of Buddhist Thought. Presented to Professor Reimon Yūki'' (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 34-35. On the relations between Bodhiruci and Ratnamati see P. Demiéville, "Sur l'authenticité du ''Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen''", ''Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise'', II, 2 (Tōkyō, 1929), pp. 30ff.
#See the references given by Ét. Lamotte, ''L'Enseignement de Vimalakīrti'' (Louvain, 1962), pp. 92-93, n. 2. According to Hattori Masaaki, there is only one Sāramati who lived between Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga-Vasubandhu.
#Cf. La Vallée Poussin's interesting review, ''MCB'', I (1931-1932), pp. 406-409.
#Cf. G. Tucci, ''Tibetan Painted Scrolls'', I (Roma, 1949), p. 119: A ''Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism'' (Sendai, 1953), No. 5434. Ogawa Ichijō, "Butsu (Nyorai) to Busshō (Nyoraizō) — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso o shoe to shite", ''IBK'', XIII (1965), pp. 247-250. Id.: "Indo Daijō Bukkyō ni okeru Nyoraizō-Busshō-shisō ni tsuite — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso no kaidoku o kokoromite —", ''Tōhōgaku'', 30 (1965), pp. 102-116. A complete translation of this commentary would be very welcome.
#According to Frauwallner Sāramati lived about 250 A.D.
#For completeness' sake mention must be made of a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text in Roman letters and the Chinese translation by Nakamura Zuiryū: The ''Ratnagotravibhāga-Mahāyānottaratantra-çāstra. Compared with Sanskrit and Chinese, with introduction and Notes'' (Tokyo, 1961) (published originally in ''Ōsaki Gakuhō'', 103-110, 1955-1959). More important are the following articles: Tsukinowa Kenryū, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron ni tsuite", ''Nihon Bukkyō Kyōkai Nenpō'', VII (1935) pp. 121-139; Takata Ninkaku, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron no johon ni tsuite", ''Mikkyō Bunka'', 31 (1955) pp. 9-37; Hattori Masaaki, "'Busshōron' no ichi kōsatsu", ''Bukkyō Shigaku'', IV, 3-4 (1955), pp. 16-36 (I have not been able to consult the last two articles); Takata Ninkaku, "Hōshōron ni okeru tenne (āśrayaparivṛtti) ni tsuite", ''IBK'', VI (1958), pp. 501-504; Ogawa Ichijō, "'Busshō' to 'buddhatva'", ''IBK'', XI (1963), pp. 544-545.
#Not mentioned are two articles published in 1953: "Hōshōron ni okeru nyoraizō no igi", ''IBK'', 1, pp. 368-369 ; "Nyoraizō to engi — Hōshōron o tegakari to shite —", ''IBK'', II, pp. 244-247.
Articles/A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra +
The current of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought that was born in Indian Mahayana Buddhism spread throughout the cultural sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in Asia and has also long held a fascination for people far beyond its geographical confines. The academic foundations for the study of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought in India were laid by Takasaki Jikido, and the task left to us is to repeatedly reexamine each of Takasaki's findings on the basis of existing and newly discovered materials and corroborate or emend them. <br> Takasaki argued that the first extant text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' was the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''. Since Takasaki's research was published, there have been some remarkable advances in research on the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', and in recent years scholars such as S. Hodge and M. Radich have begun to argue that it was the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' that was the first Buddhist text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha''. The question of which of these two sūtras came first has not yet been definitively resolved, but it may be generally accepted that both belong to the oldest stratum of Buddhist texts dealing with ''tathāgatagarbha''.<br> On a previous occasion (Kano 2017), focusing on this point, I collected Sanskrit fragments of both texts containing the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' and discussed differences in the expressions in which it is used. In particular, taking into account the findings of Shimoda Masahiro, I argued that if the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' appearing in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' is interpreted as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound qualifying ''stūpa'', this would accord with the word's usage in this sūtra and with the gist of the chapter "Element of the Tathāgata" (Habata 2013: §§ 375–418). This does not mean, however, that this understanding needs to be applied uniformly to every example of its use in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra''. Because in this earlier article I focused somewhat unduly on the interpretation of ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound, the fact that there are instances of wordplay making use of the multiple meanings of ''garbha'' in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' needs to be added, together with some concrete examples. (In the passages of this sūtra, it is natural to understand the term ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a substantive in the sense of "''garbha'' of ''tathāgata''" or "''garbha'' that is ''tathāgata''," namely, ''tatpuruṣa'' or ''karmadhāraya'', and I do not exclude this possibility as discussed in Kano 2017: 39–42.) In addition, there were some redundant aspects in the structure of my earlier article. In this article I rework these aspects so as to sharpen the focus on the points at issue and add some supplementary points. In the first half I clarify some grammatical characteristics to be observed in examples of the use of ''tathāgatagarbha'' in Sanskrit fragments of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', while in the second half I ascertain the polysemy of the word ''garbha'' on the basis of some concrete examples. (Kano, "A Syntactic Analysis," 17–18)
The Mahāratnakūta Sūtra is one of the five major sutra groups in the Mahāyāna canon. Of the two great schools of Buddhism, Mahāyāna has the greatest number of adherents worldwide—it prevails among the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, and Vietnamese—and contains within it a number of movements, notably Zen, which have been of growing interest in the West in recent decades. Yet despite this increased attention and enormous following, translations of Mahāyāna scriptures have been scarce and fragmentary; clearly, a comprehensive translation of a major work within the canon was called for.
This volume addresses that need. It contains 22 of the 49 Sūtras of the Mahāratnakūta (or "Treasury") Sūtra, many translated for the first time in a Western language, selected and arranged to give the modern reader a progressive introduction to one of the world's major religious traditions. Subjects covered include Māyā and miracles, the teachings on Consciousness, Emptiness, and monastic discipline, the Mystical Light of the Tathāgata, and the devotional practice of Pure Land, making this a comprehensive source book of Mahāyāna Buddhism hitherto unavailable in English. The book also includes an introduction to provide historical and interpretive guidance, annotations that assist in the comprehension of difficult passages, and an extensive glossary that will be valuable to specialist and layman alike. A team of scholars, working in Taiwan, spent eight years translating the Treasury's million words from Chinese, using Tibetan texts for comparison and checking each Sūtra with an international board of scholars. In the course of translating from the original, special effort was made to retain both the devotional style appropriate for religious reading and the precision required by the scholar, while presenting the material with a clarity and flow that would make it accessible to the Western layman. The editors then selected, arranged, and annotated the 22 Sūtras presented here. ([https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-00341-3.html Source Accessed May 20, 2021])
In this profound 90-minute teaching, by one of the greatest living Buddhist teachers of our time, Mindrolling Jetsun Khandro Rinpoche speaks of our incessant movement, propelled by a search for happiness. She goes on to demonstrate how we perform unvirtuous actions when faced with challenges, and the great need for us to slow down our experiences through stillness, silence and non-thought.
For a transcription of the talk in PDF format, [https://vidyaloke.in/home/resource-library/pdf/Khandro_Rinpoche_Talk_Transcription.pdf click here.] +
Was Buddha a human or a god? Harvard Divinity School student Yin Guan, MTS ’19 gives the 2-minute story about the Buddha-nature within us all. +
In this video Arne Schelling offers information about the ''Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra''. The video serves as an introduction to an online buddha-nature study program with Khenpo Chöying Dorje. +
Jamie Hubbard explores some specifically Chinese materials in his contribution "Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion—The Universal Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao". [''sic''] The San-chieh-chiao wanted to hold together a radically pessimistic view of the capacities of human persons for religious practice with a strong assertion of a fundamental identity between living beings and Buddha. The subtle scholastic discussion by the San-chieh-chiao of how these two affirmations were to be held together focused upon the theoretical question of the relations between pure, undefiled Suchness (''tathatā'') and the realm of ordinary living beings—for the assertion of a fundamental identity between the two cannot be allowed to call into question the pressing apparent reality of defilements in this degenerate age. The central soteriological affirmation running through these discussions is that all beings will inevitably realize Buddhahood; the metaphysical problem is to show how this can be the case; and the practical problem is to delineate the kind of religious practice that is appropriate if it is the case. All these
challenges the San-chieh-chiao attempted to meet, and it is the burden of Hubbard's careful exegesis to detail the subtle metaphysical and exegetical distinctions they
constructed to do so. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to ''Buddha Nature'', 4–5) +
'''Abstract'''<br><br>
Buddha Nature or Tathāgatagarbha is a complex phenomenon that has been the subject of discussion in Buddhist cultures for centuries. This study presents for the first time a survey of the extent of Tibetan commentarial literature based upon the Indian Tathāgatagarbha Śāstra, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', as well as a comparison of passages of Tibetan interpretations upon The Three Reasons given for the presence of Tathāgatagarbha in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the inconsistencies regarding the dating, authorship, structure and content of this source text within the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan traditions.<br>
Thereby the present study addresses primarily the need for an overview of the Tibetan commentarial literature upon this important Śāstra, by surveying more than forty Tibetan commentaries. This survey will facilitate contextualization of future studies of the individual commentaries. Secondarily it addresses the need for documentation and interpretation of precise concepts and arguments, by presenting line for line comparison of passages of interpretations by four different authors, Rngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361), Rgyal tshab dar ma rin chen (1364-1432) and Mi pham phyogs las rnam rgyal (1846-1912). This comparison will trace divergent traditions of Tathāgatagarbha interpretation based on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in Tibet.<br>
It becomes apparent that the main divergence in these four authors' Tathāgatagarbha exegesis hinges on their interpretation of Dharmakāya and the role it plays as the first supporting reason for the presence of Tathāgatagarbha. Where some interpret Tathāgatagarbha as being "empty", others maintain that it is "full of qualities", apparent contradictions that however, are based upon the same scriptural passages of the source text, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. That the ambiguous nature of the source text accommodates such seemingly contradictory interpretations should be kept in mind when studying Tibetan interpretations so as to avoid dismissal of certain interpretations in favour of others.<br>
The aim of the present study is to provide a structural framework for accessing Tibetan Tathāgatagarbha interpretations based on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' that surveys their extent and documents their nature. The study may thus contribute to a broader understanding of Tibetan literature in general and of Buddha Nature interpretation in particular.
Affirmation in Negation: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha Theory in the Light of the Bodhisattva Practices +
The Tathāgatagarbha theory, also known as the Buddha-nature theory, is one of the most influential Mahāyāna doctrines in the East Asian Buddhism. In 1989, it was severely criticized by some Japanese scholars, namely, Shiro Matsumoto and Noriaki Hakamaya, for being contradictory to the Buddha's teaching of non-self (anātman) and accused of being a non-Buddhist theory in disguise. The purpose of this study is to refute such an accusation and to demonstrate the relationship between this theory and the Bodhisattva practices which are the very core of the Mahāyāna Buddhism.<br> This dissertation begins with definitions of the term "tathāgatagarbha" and some of its synonyms which are followed by a brief review of the historical development of the Tathāgatagarbha theory from India to China. With these as the background knowledge, it is easier to point out the fallacies of the two Japanese scholars' criticism on this theory. A key issue in their criticism is that they viewed the Tathāgatagarbha theory as the ātman of the Upaniṣads in disguise. It is therefore necessary to discuss not only the distinction between the ātman mentioned in the Tathāgatagarbha theory and that in the Upaniṣads but also the controversy over the issue of ātman versus anātman among the Buddhist scholars.<br> In the discussion to clarify the issue of ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory, it is demonstrated that the ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory is not only uncontradictory to the doctrine of anātman in Buddhism but very important to the Bodhisattva practices in the Mahāyāna Buddhism. It functions as a unity for the Bodhisattvas to voluntarily return to the world of saṃsāra again and again. Furthermore, the purport of the entire theory, that all sentient beings are endowed with the essence of the Buddha, supports various Bodhisattva practices such as the aspiration to save all beings in the world, the six perfections, etc. In a word, the Tathāgatagarbha theory is an excellent representative of the soteriology of the Mahāyāna Buddhism. Included in the end of this dissertation is an annotated translation of the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. ([http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/en/search/search_detail.jsp?seq=158543&q=negation&qf=TOPIC&comefrom=searchengine Source Accessed May 26, 2020])
This lecture will focus on one particular strand of thought in the history of Buddhism. Often neglected by scholars and even deemed to be non-Buddhist, the idea of universal buddhahood unfolded enormous influence throughout the history of Buddhism. The concept that all living beings have buddha-nature has its beginning in the early centuries of the common era in India. Its impact was crucial for the spread of Buddhism in Asia.<br><br>
Direct forerunners of the idea that all living beings have buddha-nature are the Lotus Sutra and parts of the ''Avataṁsaka'' (華嚴經). The lecture will discuss how the concept of buddha-nature came into existence, what kind of factors were crucial for this development, and how the idea was described in its earliest literature. Recent years have seen a fresh and unexpected re-arrangement of the early history of buddha-nature thought. These new developments will also be presented and evaluated. +
This volume is a study and edition of Bcom ldan ral gri's (1227–1305) ''Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi 'od''. Likely composed in the last decades of the thirteenth century, this systematic list of Buddhist Sutras, Tantras, Shastras, and related genres translated primarily from Sanskrit and other Indic languages holds an important place in the history of Buddhist literature in Tibet. It affords a glimpse of one Tibetan scholar's efforts to classify more than two thousand titles of Buddhist literature in the decades before the canonical collections known as the ''Bka' 'gyur'' and the ''Bstan 'gyur'' achieved a relatively stable form. Tibetan historiography traces the origin of the ''Bka' 'gyur'' and ''Bstan 'gyur'' to Bcom ldan ral gri's efforts, though the unique structure of the ''Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi 'od'', which differs greatly from available ''Bka' 'gyur'' and ''Bstan 'gyur'' catalogs, shows that the situation is more complex.
Known to contemporary scholars of Tibetan literature for some time through mention in other works, Bcom ldan ral gri's survey has recently become available for the first time in two manuscripts. The present work contains a detailed historical introduction, an annotated edition of the two manuscripts, as well as concordances and appendices intended to aid the comparative study of early Tibetan collections of Indic Buddhist literature. (Source: [https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674014596 Harvard University Press]) +
This book is based upon notes prepared by the author for general lectures on Buddhism which he has been giving to students at a number of universities in Tokyo since around 1960. The initial version of the present work first saw the light of day as part of a textbook for university students entitled ''Bukkyo ippan'' 仏教一般 (''Buddhism in General'') which was compiled in concert with professors specializing in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism and published by the Department of Buddhist Studies at Komazawa University in Tokyo. Then, at a later date, the author was approached by the Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai (University of Tokyo Press) to write an introductory work on Buddhism for the edification of the general reading public. By permission of the Department of Buddhist Studies at Komazawa University, he accordingly extracted those sections of the above textbook which he had himself written ("Outline of Buddhism" and "Indian Buddhism"), to which he then made some additions and corrections and also appended a brief history of Buddhism covering not only India but also China and Japan. This was then published in 1983 under the title of ''Bukkyo nyümon'' 仏教入門 (''An Introduction to Buddhism''), of which the present work is an English translation. (Takasaki, preface to the English version, iii) +
An Introduction to the Palpung Study and Practice program "Discovering the Buddha Within" by H.E Yongey Migyur Rinpoche
尊貴的 詠給明就仁波切介紹八蚌學修教程 ─ 開啟內在之佛 ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIK84yIJqk&t=13s Source Accessed June 8, 2023]) +
