Property:ArticleAbstract
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
T
Articles/Towards an Understanding of Tathāgatagarbha Interpretation in Tibet with Special Reference to the Ratnagotravibhāga +
This essay seeks to highlight a number of the complexities underlying the hermeneutical process of ''tathāgatagarbha'' interpretation in Tibet based on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (henceforth: ''RGV''). This is followed by an overview of literature that might help illuminate this field, by providing a provisional list of Tibetan commentaries explicitly based on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
This new translation is the work of four leading scholars in the field—John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham, and Mark Strange—who have been writing prolifically on Buddhist and East Asian philosophy and are thus ideal translators for the treatise. The translation is the product of a long process of concerted effort, starting as a workshop exercise in 2012, growing over the years to incorporate researches from various perspectives, and eventually appearing in 2019 as the second of the Oxford Chinese Thought series, a series aimed to introduce the riches of Chinese thought to the West.
Read more [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=55295 here]. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
In the tradition of Buddhism which has been transmitted to China and Japan, we can see two basically different streams of thought in the Yogācāra philosophy. Although this fact is well-known among Japanese scholars, it does not seem to be widely known among American, European, and Indian scholars. In order to understand correctly the Yogācāra philosophy, however, the clear understanding of these two streams of thought, their mutual differences, and their relation to the theories of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu is indispensable.<br> One of these two streams was introduced into China by Hsuang-tsang. Although the thought of this stream can be known through the works of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu as translated by Hsuang-tsang, it can be known in its most all-inclusive and systematic form in the ''Ch'eng wei shih lun'' of Dharmapāla.[1] This stream of thought continued from the time of Hsuang-tsang to the present day. Happily, it did not die out in China and Japan where its study was continued and where present-day scholars are well acquainted with it. There is no unclear point as regards the more important aspects of this stream of thought.<br> The other stream of thought, represented by the works of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu as translated by Buddhasānta, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha, Dharmagupta, Prabhākaramitra, and others, was introduced into China before the time of Hsuang-tsang. The translations of these masters, unlike those of the other stream, were not widely studied and the actual nature of its thought is difficult to determine. With the exception of Paramārtha, there are only one or two translated works of each of these masters. And, even in the study of their works, it is not possible to determine the differences from the other stream of Yogācāra thought.<br> Paramārtha, however, translated a great many of the important works of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu. And, with the discovery and publication of the Sanskrit texts, eminent scholars of Japan have done comparative studies based on the Sanskrit original and the Chinese and Tibetan translations in order to determine the extent to which the stream of thought introduced into China before the time of Hsuang-tsang differs from that stream which was introduced by Hsuang-tsang. The results of this research clearly show that there is a fundamental difference between the theory introduced by Paramārtha and that of Hsuang-tsang. The importance of this difference lies in the fact that the theories introduced by Paramārtha and Hsuang-tsang are both said to be the theories of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu. If the theories of Paramārtha and Hsuang-tsang are fundamentally different, the problem arises as to which transmission is faithful to the theories of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu; or, if they are both separate traditions, what was the theory of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu? This has been the focus of attention of present-day Japanese scholars doing research in the Yogācāra philosophy. As the studies of the Yogācāra philosophy by Western and Indian scholars have been lacking in knowledge of these two streams of thought, their interpretations of the central problems of the Yogācāra philosophy have been ambiguous and often erroneous and do not show a clear understanding of it. Their understanding of the Yogācāra philosophy is not in accord with the theory of either one of these two streams of thought. And, because the differences between their interpretations and the two streams of thought are not clear, one cannot find a clear-cut understanding of the theories of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu.<br> It is my aim in this paper to present the differences of interpretation of these two streams of thought relating to the theories of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu which were transmitted to China and to examine the question of which of the two streams is faithful to the thought of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu. As this paper cannot possibly deal with the whole of the Yogācāra philosophy, it will deal with only a few of the essential points. (Ueda, preparatory remarks, 155–56)
[https://www.scribd.com/document/165746617/Two-Main-Streams-of-Thought-in-Yogacara-Philosophy-YogacaraYoshifumi-Ueda Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Dharmapāla and others, ''Ch'eng wei shih lun'',<sup>P</sup> Taishō-Daizōkyō, Vol. 31, No. 1585. French translation: "''Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi''," by Dharmapāla, translated from Chinese into French by La Vallée Poussin (Paris, 1928-1929).
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
In Giuseppe Tucci’s collection of Sanskrit manuscripts and photographed materials, a set of positive prints of texts filmed at Ñor monastery contains a codex unicus of
Vairocanaraksita’s (fl. 11th/12th century) Yogācāra/Tathāgatagarbha commentarial
works:<br><br>
1. ''Viṃśikāṭikāvivṛti'' (glosses on Vasubandhu’s ''Viṃśikāvṛtti'' and Vinītadeva’s ''Viṃśikāṭīkā'');<br>
2. ''Triṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti'' (glosses on Sthiramati’s ''Triṃśikābhāṣya'' and Vinītadeva’s ''Triṃśikāṭīkā'');<br>
3. ''Madhyāntavibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti'' (glosses on Vasubandhu’s ''Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya''<br> and Sthiramati’s ''Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā'');<br>
4. ''Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī'' (glosses on the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'');<br>
5. *''Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti'' (glosses on Vasubandhu’s ''Sūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya'')<sup>2</sup> and<br>
6. *''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti'' (glosses on Vasubandhu’s ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti'').<sup>3</sup><br><br>
V. Gokhale (1978) was the first to study these works, using Saṅkṛtyāyana’s negatives and the prints made from them, which have been preserved in Patna. He reported titles of the six works, without, however, going into detail because of the poor quality of the images. Subsequently the details of the works remained unknown for a long time, and no complete editions have been published. To be sure, Zuiryū Nakamura edited the text of folios 9''v''<sub>2</sub>–14''v''<sub>7</sub> of the ''Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī'' (the text of folios 15''r''<sub>1</sub>–17''r''<sub>5</sub> remains to be edited);<sup>4</sup> and Mathes in his translation of the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti'' referred to some sentences from the *''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti''.<sup>5</sup> I myself also edited a small portion of the *''Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti''.<sup>6</sup><br>
The present paper contains an ''editio princeps'' of the ''Viṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti'' and *''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti''. Critical editions of the other three works are under preparation: Francesco Sferra is preparing a critical edition of the ''Madhyāntavibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti'', and I am preparing critical editions of the ''Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī'', the ''Triṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti'' and the *''Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti'' for publication. (Kano, introduction, 343-44)<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#[From title] I am grateful to Prof. Francesco Sferra and Prof. Harunaga Isaacson for a number of text-critical suggestions, and Prof. Lambert Schmithausen for permitting me to use his preliminary handwritten transcription of Vairocanarakṣita’s *''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti'', and also for his very valuable suggestions concerning that text. I am indebted, too, to Mrs. Bärbel Mund of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen for giving me the permission to use photographic images of the Göttingen Collection, to Dr. Diwakar Acharya for his help with deciphering barely legible letters in the manuscript, to Prof. Toru Yagi for his very valuable suggestions regarding Vairocanarakṣita’s grammatical explanations, to Dr. Martin Delhey, Dr. Kengo Harimoto and Dr. Koichi Takahashi for reading my draft and making many valuable suggestions, and to Prof. Robert Kritzer and Philip Pierce for their English proofreading.
#The title of the work is not ascertainable from the colophon: ''sūtrālaṃkāraḥ samāptaḥ'' II II ''kṛtiḥ paṇḍitavairocanarakṣitapādānaṃ'' II II. Other possible Sanskrit titles are ''Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti'', ''Sūtrālaṃkārakatipayapadavivṛti'', or ''Sūtrālaṃkāraṭippaṇī''.
#The title of the work is not ascertainable from the colophon: ''dharmadharmatāvibhā''[''gaḥ'']. The two illegible ''akṣaras'' after °''vibhā'' in the bottom margin are probably ''gaḥ''. Cf. the colophon to the *''Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti''. One might expect something like ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti'', ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti'' (as suggested by Gokhale 1978: 638), or ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgaṭippaṇī''. In Kano 2005: 142, I referred to this work under the title “Dharmadharmatāvibhā''[''gaṭīkā''],” supplying the three ''akṣaras'' enclosed by square brackets. However, in view of its scope, it can hardly be a ''ṭīkā'', a type of commentary typically more extensive in nature.
#For his edition, see Nakamura 1985. For studies of this text, see Nakamura 1980, 1982, 1992. Unfortunately, Nakamura’s edition contains many errors (around 190). It is remarkable that his edition shares some notable errors with Jagdishwar Pandey’s modern transcription preserved at Göttingen under the shelf-mark Xc14/90 (which contains a transcription of the full text of the ''Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī''); we can deduce that one of the two was made on the basis of the other. In my unpublished dissertation (Kano 2006b), I have critically edited the whole text of the ''Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī'' and presented a list of corrections to Nakamura’s edition.
#See Mathes 1996: 37, 115-135.
#The text of folio 17''r''>sub>7</sub>–''v''<sub>6</sub> of this work is edited in Kano 2006a: 92, n. 40.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
For a short but brilliant analysis of the positions of Dol po pa and Śākya mchog Idan we are very much indebted to the Jonang master Tāranātha, who is considered to be a follower and proponent of Dol po pa's doctrine. In each of the ''Twenty-one Differences with regard to the Profound Meaning'' a fictive initial statement of Śākya mchog Idan is followed by a similarly fictive reply of Dol po pa, Tāranātha being, of course, well aware of the fact that this is all ahistorical.[1] To be sure, it is not possible to establish Śākya mchog ldan's or Dol po pa's views on the basis of this short text alone, but it does sharpen our awareness of the subtle aspects of ''gźan stoṅ'' when studying the bulky and often not very systematic works of these masters. Furthermore, critically evaluating these doctrinal differences against the background of pertinent Indian texts in such traditions as the Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha promises to be a second interesting task. Both are, however, beyond the scope of this paper. Such an evaluation will, however, be undertaken with regard to the different presentations of ''trisvabhāva'' as an example of how one might proceed.<br> Tāranātha begins his somewhat delicate task of comparing the two masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan in a conciliating manner, by explaining that both supposedly see what is profound reality and hence should not have different thoughts about it. It is only in order to accommodate the different needs of their disciples that they enunciate variant views. Even though the essential ''gźan stoṅ'' view and meditation practices of both masters are the same, there are a lot of minor differences regarding tenets (''grub mtha''') that arise when formulating the view on the level of apparent truth.[2]<br> The first four of the twenty-one points address differences in the exegesis of the Madhyamaka and Maitreya texts which are considered to be commentaries on the Buddha's intention underlying the second and third turnings of the "Wheel of the Dharma" (''dharmacakra'').[3] Points 5-8 embody Śākya mchog ldan's and Dol po pa's different understanding of non-dual wisdom. In points 9-16, their views on the ''trisvabhāva'' theory are distinguished. In a related topic, Tāranātha also elaborates the different understandings of self-awareness (point 11), entities and non-entities, and conditioned and unconditioned phenonema (all in point 13). Next, our attention is drawn to different ways of relating the four noble truths with the apparent and ultimate (point 17). The last four points deal with the two masters' views on the Buddha-nature. (Mathes, "Tāranātha's 'Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning'," 294–95)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Taranatha: "Zab don ñer gcig pa", 792,1. 4.
#These remarks should not be taken too seriously, though. 'Ba' ra ba rGyal mtshan dpal bzaṅ (1310-1391) launches into his "Chos rje rnam gñis kyi dgoṅs bśad ñi ma'i 'od zer" (496-8) by stating, in a similar way, that Dol po pa and Bu ston (sic) are both omniscient and must see the same reality, but teach it in various ways with hidden intentions.
#The Indo-Tibetan exegetical traditions summarize the teachings of the Buddha in three circles or "[turnings of the] Wheel of the Dharma" (''dharmacakra''). See Mathes 1996: 155.
[https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8952/2845 Read more here . . .]
V
Many people find the Vajrayana teachings strange and confusing, but they offer a direct path to enlightenment. In this teaching, the late Karma Kagyu master Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche — who died on October 6, 2019 — presents a clear explanation of Vajrayana and its main practices of generation and completion, based on a song by the great seventeenth-century yogi, Karma Chakme Rinpoche. +
W
Articles/Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory +
Douglas S. Duckworth’s ''Mipam on Buddha-Nature'' characterises Mi-pham’s (1846–1912) philosophy (or philosophical approach) as "dialectical monism." We should instead characterise it with a neo-Sanskritism, namely, "Yuganaddhavāada" (''zung 'jug tu smra ba''), lest we get bogged down by the usage of the term "dialectical monism." While Duckworth is absolutely right in identifying Mi-pham as a proponent of "dialectical monism," there is still a need to define and refine our understanding of Mi-pham's position, offer plausible explanations for it, and present various argumentative strategies employed for it by Mi-pham, all based on critically assessed textual sources that engage the idea of "unity" (''zung 'jug'': ''yuganaddha''). +
Articles/We Are All Gzhan stong pas: Reflections on the Reflexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence by Paul Williams +
The present review article discusses aspects of Paul Williams' excellent and highly recommended book, which focuses on the question of "reflexive awareness" (Tib. ''reng rig''), Skt. ''svasaṃvittiḥ'', ''svasaṃvedana'') in Tibetan Mādhyamika thought. In particular, I am concerned with his characterization of ''so so rang rig ye shes'' and its relation to Rdzogs-chen teaching, and his notions of the ''gzhan stong'' doctrine and its place in the intellectual life of Far-eastern Tibet. My critical remarks on these topics are in many respects tentative, and I would welcome correspondence about them. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
According to the ''Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'', an ''icchantika'' (Tib. '' 'dod chen pa''), therefore, is a monk who, claiming (or fancies; ''icchanti'', Tib. '' 'dod pa'') himself to be an Arhat, rejects the teaching of the ''Vaipulya'' — namely the Mahāyāna ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' itself— as told by ''Māra''. Judging from the above-cited descriptions: "he ... also looks like a Mahāsattva," "'The Blessed One is impermanent. The ''Dharma'' and the ''Saṅgha'' will also become extinct. Such signs of the extinction of the Good ''Dharma'' are also evident.' — this is explained clearly in the (true) Mahāyāna (scriptures)," we may assume that ''icchantikas'' were monks who, following the traditional Mahāyāna teachings, did not approve (''icchanti'') of the then emerging theory of the eternity of the ''Tathāgata'' — which is the main theme of the Mahāyāna ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra''.<br> The word ''icchantika'' is either formed from the present active participle ''icchant''- with the suffix -''ka'', as Edgerton suggested, or derived from ''icchā'' + ''anta''. As we have seen above, the word ''icchant''-('' 'dod pa'') has the meanings "fancying; claiming, maintaining; admitting, approving of" in addition to its usual definition "desiring." Accordingly, the noun ''icchā'' has the meaning "assertion, claim" in addition to "desire." What is meant by ''icchantika'' is, then, probably "one who claims." When a monk—who claimed (''icchati'') to be an "Arhat" also was revered as an "Arhat" or a "Mahasattva" by his followers and thus, was an authority and spiritual leader of the Buddhist community—did not recognise (''nêchanti'') new ideas such as the eternity of the ''Tathāgata'' and the ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory as the Buddha's teachings, then the newly-risen, would-be "''Vaipulya'' teachings" (probably the older stratum of the Mahāyāna ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'') may have been branded as unorthodox. That is what was meant by the word "rejection" (''pratikṣepa''; Tib. ''spong ba''). If a simple, common monk rejects a new theory, his voice may not reach anybody. Being rejected and condemned by none other than the authorities of the Buddhist communities, those who advocated new ideas and their followers must have faced a crisis. Then, they may have condemned the authoritative monks repeatedly as being "arrogant," "evil" and "irredeemable," as well as calling them, in a derogatory term, ''icchantika'' ("one who claims [to be an authority]") in the newly-added chapters of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra''. However, if one looks at the descriptions cited above from a different point of view, those monks, who were condemned as ''icchantikas'' in the "Sutra," might have been respected conservative monks who stayed with the traditional (Mahāyāna) Buddhist teachings, while opposing new ideas concerning Buddhahood. They might have been so-called "fundamentalists" but never "evil monks."<br> Those, who composed the later stratum of the Mahāyāna ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'', were probably the first to label those monks, who did not approve of the eternity of the ''Tathāgata'' and the ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory, as ''icchantikas''. Following in the wake of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'', the composers of later Buddhist texts, putting forth the same ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory, continued to condemn those who did not approve of their theory, regarding them as ''icchantika''. Claiming that their texts were part of the "true Mahāyāna" tradition, the former condemned the latter as rejecters of the "Mahāyāna" teachings.<br> However, much later, the word ''icchantika'' seems to have come to be interpreted, not as meaning "one who claims" but "one who desires (transmigration)." This is clearly seen in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'':<br> p. 28, l. 14f. ''ye nâpi saṃsāram icchanti yathêcchantikā'' ( "They are not seeking for the<br> Phenomenal Life as the Icchantikas do, ... ")<br> p. 29, l. 1f. ''tatra ye sattvā bhavâbhilāṣiṇa icchantikās tanniyatipatitā ihadhārmikā evôcyante<br> mithyātvaniyataḥ satttvarāśir iti'' ("And here, those people who cling to this worldly life,<br> i.e. the Icchantikas and those who, though belonging to this Our Religion, have<br> definitely fallen into the former's way are called the group of people who confirm in<br> the wrong way.")<br> p. 31, l. 8f. ''tatra mahāyānadharmapratihatānām icchantikānām aśucisamsārâbhirati-<br> viparyayeṇa bodhisattvānāṃ mahāyānadharmâdhimuktibhāvanāyāḥ śubhapāramitâdhigamaḥ<br> phalaṃ draṣṭavyam'' ("Here, being opposite to the taking of delight in the 'impure'<br> Phenomenal Life by the Icchantikas who have hatred against the Doctrine of Great<br> Vehicle, it should be understood that the acquisition of the Supreme Purity is the<br> result of 'Practice of the Faith in the Doctrine of Great Vehicle' by the Bodhisattvas.")<br>The shift in meanings of the word ''icchantika'' from "one who claims" to "one who desires (transmigration)," may indicate the actual disappearance of those, who had disapproved of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' theory, at least from the vicinity. It may further suggest that followers of the theory might have increased in number, making them much more self-confident of their theory; or that the theory itself might have come to be fully recognised as a genuine Mahāyāna teaching. (Karashima, "Who Were the ''Icchantikas?''", 76–79)
*Author's notes have been omitted<br><br>
To read this whole article, see [http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/en/publication/aririab.html Vol. X of The Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University]
Sometime in the 1990s, I attended a Zen retreat with Harada Sekkei Roshi at the Mahabodhi Society in Bangalore. It was a rare, perhaps even unique, event at that time where Buddhists from all three main traditions of East Asian, Tibetan, and Theravada Buddhism came together for a Zen retreat. As we sat around the Roshi to begin the first session, he stated in a loud and solemn voice: “You are all buddhas.” The statement, telling from the manner it was delivered, was meant to be rousing in a Zen sort of way, and it did stir some thoughts in the audience. Most participants in the retreat were Theravada members of the Mahabodhi Society, and they clearly appeared bemused. During the break, one member privately protested, saying that such a claim is a Mahayana aberration and that all ordinary beings cannot surely be Buddhas. Being a follower of orthodox Theravada, he found the claim preposterous and provocative.
I was at that time a young monk engaged in studies on Buddhist hilosophy, particularly the course on the Ultimate Continuum, the main book on buddhanature in Tibetan Buddhism, at Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Mysore. The concept of a universal buddhanature is central to Tibetan Buddhist theory and practice and a very common topic in monastic education. I was familiar with the idea of buddhanature as a capacity for enlightenment and freedom present in all beings; the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions in which I received most of my training likened buddhanature to the bright sun that is temporarily obscured by clouds of samsara. When the clouds are fully cleared, the magnificence of the sun would become manifest in its full form. All Buddhist endeavors—from study, debates, rituals, art, yoga, chanting, and visualization to quiet meditation—are seen as paths to remove adventitious obscurations and reveal our true nature. Thus, the statement did not surprise me or have the intended effect of shock therapy that the Zen master perhaps hoped to achieve. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/why-buddhanature-matters/ Read more here])
This article aims at providing an outlook on the possible origin of tathāgatagarbha theory with a special reference to its relation to the soteriological and formal solutions found in the ''Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra'' and ''Avataṃsaka-sūtra''. Through comparative textual analysis, the first work of this tradition, ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'', is shown as a text providing a metaphysical foundation for the postulate of universal Buddhahood posited by the ''Lotus Sutra''. The realization of this postulate was possible through the implementation of 'Buddha-wisdom' (''tathāgatajñāna'') — a quality intrinsic to all living beings, which comes from the Tathāgata's all-encompassing compassion — taken from the "Manifestation of the Tathāgata" chapter of ''Avataṃsaka''. By combining these influences the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'' is presented as a culmination of an important soteriological trend of the early Mahāyāna, and at the same time the starting point for an influential 'buddha-nature' tradition. ([https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?user=p1gfBrcAAAAJ&hl=uk#d=gs_md_cita-d&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Duk%26user%3Dp1gfBrcAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3Dp1gfBrcAAAAJ%3Au5HHmVD_uO8C%26tzom%3D420 Source accessed June 26, 2020]) +
Articles/Wǒnhyo's Conception of Buddha-Nature in the Thematic Essential of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra +
Wǒnhyo interprets Buddha-nature as nature of One Mind (一心). He insists that the essence of Buddha-nature is precisely the same as essence of One Mind. The essence of One Mind is only realized by the Buddha. Hence it is explained that this Mind is Buddha-nature. Wǒnhyo himself considers Buddha-nature to be the One Mind, since the essence of One Mind leaves all extremes far off, has no corresponding place and thus corresponds to every place. The essence of One Mind transcends and embraces cause and effect. Wǒnhyo interprets Buddha-nature
as having the same meaning i.e. One Mind, in all Buddhist scriptures. His unique ''Hoe'tong'' (會通, harmonization) theory is focused on harmonizing different doctrines and sects within the same Buddhist Teaching. He combined all the different Buddhist theories into One Flavor (一味). Wǒnhyo did not reject the existing assertions on Buddha-nature but integrated them in a system elucidating the process of One Mind. +
Z
Articles/Zhanran's Arguments in Support of His Buddha-Nature Theory, as Presented in His Diamond Scalpel Treatise: Starting from an Analysis of the Title +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Sinicised schools of Buddhism – such as Tiantai 天台 – are deeply rooted in the Indian Buddhist teachings, but at the same time, their masters reinterpreted the inherited teachings, and attributed new meanings to the translated texts, by shifting the emphasis, changing the point of views, etc. Through the process of interpreting and reinterpreting, some new theories emerged having diametrically different ideas from those of the original Buddhist teachings. All of them are original and intriguing examples of a Chinese way of thinking and worth of being subjects of a more detailed examination. When creating commentaries to the Indian ''sūtras'' and treatises, the Chinese masters elaborated their own theories. Rather than the word by word, sentence by sentence type of commentaries, these commentaries attempting to explain and expand the 'subtle' meaning of a parable, a symbol or certain characters, proved to be more adequate to the purpose of elaborating original, ingenious ideas, reaching far beyond the original textual meaning, and the presupposed intention of the author or translator.[1] A typical example of such approach is the ''magnum opus'' of the ''de facto'' founder of the Tiantai school, Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), ''The Subtle Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra'' (''Miaofa lianhua jing xuanyi'' 妙法蓮華經玄義; T33: 1716), where the author presents the basic tenets of the Tiantai school, in the form of explaining the character 'miao' 妙 (meaning 'subtle' or 'wonderful'), the very first character of the most well-known Chinese translation of the ''Lotus Sūtra''.[2] In the eyes of the author (and his followers), this single character offers sufficient basis to expound his novel insights, in a way that, despite their novelty, are at the same time linked to the Buddhist tradition. A substantial part of the lengthy commentary is centered on the 'explanation' of the term 'subtle'. According to Zhiyi, this notion is the best expression of ultimate reality. 'For Chih-i the word 'subtle' symbolizes and summarizes that which is beyond conceptual understanding, and thus it is the word most appropriate to describe reality, which is ultimately indescribable.'[3]<br> From this, we can draw the conclusions that for a Tang Dynasty (618–907) monk, trained on the teachings and traditions of a Sinitic school of Buddhism, the title of a Buddhist writing is highly important, for mainly two reasons: (1.) it can bear the very essence, the 'subtle' meaning of the whole work, and (2.) it can serve as an anchor, that bounds it to the 'original' Buddhist teachings, serving as a means of legitimatisation, at the same time. These two aims can be detected in Zhanran's[4] 湛然 (711−782) choice of the title for his ''Diamond Scalpel'' (''Jin’gang bei'' 金剛錍; T46:1932) treatise. The ''Diamond Scalpel'' treatise, in one fascicle, written in his old age, is a relatively short work, compared to his lengthy commentaries, yet well deserves to be considered his most creative, genuine work. The main theme of the treatise is the Tiantai interpretation of the teaching of Buddha-nature, as inherently including insentient realm, as well as all sentient beings. While expounding the topic, and presenting his arguments, the main tenets of the Tiantai school emerge one after the another, offering the reader a complete picture of the self and the world, suffering and the ways to liberation, etc. – i.e. problems of utmost importance for a Buddhist practitioner –, as seen by a Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk. At a first reading, the title of the treatise does not seem to tell us a lot about its content, but taking a closer look, and applying a more careful, meticulous examination, we find that Zhanran's choice of title must have been the result of a thoughtful consideration, for it perfectly suites the above mentioned two criteria. Following Zhiyi’s legacy, Zhanran chooses a title, which 'symbolizes and summarizes' the main issues to be discussed in his treatise. More precisely, first of all, it hides an allusion to a simile from a mahāyāna ''sūtra'' (thought to render the words of the Buddha), and thus anchors, bounds the whole work to the 'original' teachings of the Buddha, and secondly, after decoding the symbols and references, and interpreting them in the light of Tiantai philosophy, we find that these three characters can truly be regarded the quintessence of the work, the very argument in support of the theory of Buddha-nature of the insentient. Zhanran, following the example of his great predecessor, Zhiyi, expounds and argues based on the most important texts and tenets of mahāyāna Buddhism, while interpreting, reinterpreting, and often furnishing these with new, ingenious meanings.<br> First, we are going to examine the provenance and possible interpretations of the title – i.e. the context in which the basic notions appear, before Zhanran's time –, Zhanran's own explanation of the title, i.e. the very first paragraph of his work, and further interpretations of the title (and its explanation) found in later commentaries, written to the treatise, by Tang and Song Dynasty monks. Through this one, particular example we can get a glimpse into the complex process of how Chinese monks interpreted and reinterpreted the texts inherited from India, the way in which through focusing on, and/or consciously selecting certain motifs, similes or even terms, embellished these with new meanings, which were further used as tools to prove their own ideas and theories, as if these were identical with the original teachings of Buddha Śākyamuni. Secondly, we are going to examine the most important arguments Zhanran is using to prove his theory about the Buddha-nature of the insentient. I will argue that these arguments can be grouped around two key concepts, already concealed within the title. (Pap, "Zhanran’s Arguments in Support of his Buddha-Nature Theory," 129–130)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#For a comprehensive study of Chinese Buddhist commentaries, see: Hamar 2003: 259-271.
#The most popular translation of the ''Lotus Sūtra'' (''Saddharmapuṇḍarīka'') is Kumārajīva’s (344–413 / 409) work, entitled ''Miaofa lianhua jing'' (T09: 262), literally '' 'The Lotus Sūtra' of the Subtle Dharma’ ''.
#Quoted from: Swanson 1989: 14.
#Zhanran was the ninth patriarch of Tiantai school, according to the traditional lineage, conferring the title of the first patriarch to the Indian Nāgārjuna (2nd Century AD). Zhanran was the second most influential figure of the school, after the ''de facto'' founder, Zhiyi, to whom the Tang Dynasty renaissance of Tiantai philosophy is credited. Following Zhiyi’s footsteps, he further elaborated the system of classification of teachings (''panjiao'' 判教), and entering into debate with influential scholar monks of his time, brought forth a solid argumentation in favor of the theory of the insentient world having Buddha-nature. For Zhanran’s life see: Penkower pp. 10-141.
Ś
The first part of this article will shed light on the unique role played by the 9th Je khenpo Śākya Rin chen (1709/10-1759) of Bhutan in the preservation of Śākya mchog ldan's texts in Bhutan. Not only did Śākya Rin chen effectuate the physical preservation of the actual texts, but he also promoted their study in the monastic colleges, thereby enfusing vitality into the tradition of understanding their meaning and ensuring the continuity of this transmission of knowledge.<br> The second part will demonstrate the immense value of the preservation of these texts by giving an example of Śākya mchog ldan's writings, in the form of an English translation of his ''Rgyud bla ma'i rnam bshad sngon med nyi ma'',[1] a commentary on The ''Rgyud Blama''- also known as The ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra''- in which he outlines his hermeneutical schema for understanding the Buddha nature.<br> The third part will list the titles contained in Śākya mchog ldan's Collected Works reproduced and published in Bhutan in 1975 according to the copies kept at The National Library, Thimphu, including provisional references of published studies in English that have dealt with them.<br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#In Śākya mchog ldan's Collected Works, '' 'dzam gling sangs rgyas bstan pa'i rgyan mchog yongs rdzogs gnas lngar mkhyen pa'i pandita chen po gser mdog pan chen shākya mchog ldan gyi gsung 'bum legs bshad gser gyi bdud rtsi'', vol. 13, Thimphu 1975. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
This paper is being presented as part of a panel on the topic of Reformulations of Yogācāra in
Tibet. Particularly, it relates to Tibetan commentary on ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' (''AA'') I:39, in
which it is taught that the foundation (''pratiṣṭhā'') for religious practice is the ''dharmadhātu'' and
that since the ''dharmadhātu'' is undifferentiated (''asaṃbhedā''), there are ultimately no distinct
''gotras'' corresponding to the three vehicles. This teaching is usually interpreted as a
Mādhyamaka justification for one final vehicle, as opposed to the three-vehicle theory,
attributed to Cittamātra/Vijñaptimātratā, and which is closely related to the doctrine of three
gotras found in sutras such as ''Saṃdhinirmocana'' and ''Laṅkāvatāra'' and śāstras such as
''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''. However, there are some Tibetan writers outside the influential
Gelug tradition who see the equation of ''gotra'' with ''dharmadhātu'' as an essentially Yogācāra
doctrine. This alternative viewpoint implies that Yogācāra and Cittamātra are not, as is
commonly held to be the case, the same thing and brings to the fore the question of whether
Yogācāra is better understood as a tradition that transcends traditional doxographic categories.
Through an analysis of Śākya-mchog-ldan’s explanation of ''AA'' I:39, which includes a
differentiation of two other terms that are also often held to be synonymous, namely ''gotra''
and buddha-essense (or ''tathāgatagarbha''), I aim to highlight some of the ways in which his
‘reformulation’ of Yogācāra implies a reformulation of certain Cittamātra doctrines. Finally, I
conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the extent to which doxographical discourse
both restricts and allows for the formulation of an individual point of view. (Gilks, introduction, 1) +
