Property:Description
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
A
Media/Anne Burchardi: On the Sutra Sources for the Uttaratantra and Her Work on the Dharanishvarajasutra +
See [https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/images-budnat/3/3a/Illustrations_of_Buddhanature.pdf The Illustrations of the Nine Examples of the Buddha-Nature from the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''] by Sofia Burchardi. +
Join Anne Burchardi and Lopen Karma Phuntsho as they discuss the purpose of the Buddha-Nature teachings in the context of Kagyu and Nyingma traditions and beyond.
'''Handout Available:''' [[Media:Illustrations of Buddhanature.pdf|See an artist's modern rendition of the traditional examples of buddha-nature]] from the sutras. +
It is a widely held view, among modern scholars of Mahāyāna as well as within certain of the Mahāyāna traditions themselves, that Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika of the sort one finds in such works as Nāgārjuna's ''Mūlamadhya-makāirika'' and ''Vigrahavyāvartanī''is the definitive rendition of the Greater Vehicle's ultimate purport. T. R. V. Murti, in his classic study, has called Mādhyamika the "Central Philosophy of Buddhism." Kenneth Inada has called Nāgārjuna "the giant among giants" of all Buddhist thinkers.Bimal K. Matilal has recently argued that "there is a sense in which the Mādhyamika position may be considered logically unassailable," thereby raising it to a status of universal rather than just Buddhist preeminence. Such judgments abound in the literature of Buddhist scholarship. Nor is it surprising that they should, for they only echo the centuries-old conviction of many eminent Buddhist that Nāgājuna's thought is the most perfect expression of the Buddha's own middle path. The pride of place accorded to it by Tsoṅ kha pa and his dGe lugs pa school is only one of the relatively more recent traditional examples of this tendency.<br>
There is no doubt excellent reason for such acclaim as this. The clarity, force, and elegance of Nāgārjuna's arguments are undeniable. They can easily overwhelm, and often have. However, the lavish traditional and modern appreciations of Nāgārjuna's thought have not been without untoward consequences for our understanding of other varieties of Mahāyāna. The Mahāyāna is a far more various thing than a reading of the ''Kārikas'', or even of their antecedent Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, would indicate; and the Mādhyamika position has hardly gone unchallenged in Buddhist intellectual history. Indeed, much of the subsequent history of Mahāyāna thought may be read as a cumulative qualification of the Śūnyavāda that one finds in the Perfection of Insight Literature and in Nāgārjuna. Such at least was the case with the Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha traditions; and when Buddhism found its way to China, Chinese Buddhist thinkers often expressed a clear preference for the later qualifications or modulations of Mādhyamika rather than for the severity of an unadulterated Nāgārjunism. It may well be that our enthusiasm for Nāgārjuna along with the comparative complexity and inaccessibility of other traditions have predisposed us to give less attention than deserved to the alternative forms of Mahāyāna. Should this be so, the remarks that follow may be taken as an effort at compensation.<br>
The criticisms, explicit or implicit, that have been leveled against classical Śūnyavāda are many and diverse. One might undertake to examine the question of whether Mādhyamika is normative for the whole of Mahāyāna by investigating, for example, the claim of the ''Madhyāntavibhāga'' that an understanding of emptiness is crude and incomplete unless tempered by an understanding of the reality and potency of constructive imagination. For the Yogācāra authors of this text, emptiness is always and ever coincident with the imagination of the unreal (''abhūtaparikalpa''; ''hsü-wang fen-pieh'') and it is only the coefficiency of the two principles that can wholly account for the way things really are. It is in recognition of this—the essential duplexity of reality—that the ''Madhyāntavibhāga'' may say, as one would not expect Nāgārjuna to say:<br><br>
na śūnyaṁ napi caśūnyam tasmat sarvvam vidhīyate<br> satvad asatvāt satvāc ca madhyama pratipac ca sā<br><br> ku shuo i-ch'ieh fa fei k'ung fei pu-k'ung<br> yu wu chi yu ku shih ming chung-tao i<br><br> Therefore it is said that all dharmas<br> Are neither empty nor nonempty,<br> Because they exist, do not exist, and yet again exist.<br> This is the meaning of the "middle-path."<br><br>
One might choose also to consider the theory of the "three revolutions of the wheel of the law" found in the ''Saṁdhinirmocanasūtra'':<br>
<blockquote> Formerly, in the second period and for the sake only of those aspiring to practice of the Mahayana-reckoning on the fact that all dharmas lack own-being, neither arise nor perish, and are originally calm and essentially of ''nirvāṇa''—the Lord turned the Wheel of the Law which is characterized by a hidden intent (''i yin-mi hsiang''). [But] this too (i.e., like the first turning) had [other teachings] superior to it to which it deferred. It was of a sense still to be interpreted (''yu wei liao-id''; ''neyartha''), and [thus] the subject of much dispute.<br>
In the present third period and for the sake of aspirants to all vehicles—reckoning [again] on the fact that all dharmas lack own-being, neither arise nor perish, are originally calm and essentially of ''nirvāṇa'', and have the lack of own-being as their nature-the Lord has turned the Wheel of the Law which is characterized [this time] by a manifest meaning (''i hsien-liao hsiang''). This is the most rare and precious [of teachings]. There is nothing superior to this Turning of the Wheel of Law by the Lord and nothing to which it defers. It is of truly explicit meaning (''chen liao-i''; ''nīthārtha'') and not the subject of disputes.</blockquote>
The third revolution of the ''dharmacakra'' here described is, of course, the annunciation of what was to become Yogācāra Buddhism. The second corresponds to the Śunyavāda of the Prajñāpāramitā canon and, proleptically, to its Mādhyamika systematization. The implication of this passage is that although both dispensations of the law teach emptiness (here called "lack of own-being," "nonarising," etc.), the Prajñāpāramitā and Mādhyamika versions of the doctrine are inchoate, eliptical, imprecise and a source of controversy, whereas the Yogācāra version is definitive, explicit, and not liable to conflicting interpretations.<br>
A third approach might be to follow the masterful lead of Ruegg, Takasaki, and Wayman in considering the claims of the Tathāgatagarbha tradition to superiority over classical Śunyavāda. The Tathāgatagarbha, after all, is a tradition which argues forcefully that the reality of all things is as much "nonempty" (''aśūnya''; ''pu-k'ung'') as it is "empty" (''śūnya''; ''k'ung'') and which employs such un-Mādhyamika terminology in its locutions about reality as "permanence" (''nītya''; ''chang''), "purity" (''śubha''; ''ching''), and even "self" (''ātman''; ''wo'').<br> A fourth option, and the one we take here, is to look at the differences among Mādhyamika and the other varieties of Mahāyāna through the eyes of those Chinese Buddhist who, in devising their own systems of thought, were given the opportunity to compare and choose. I refer here to the numerous sixth-and-seventh-century Chinese thinkers who formulated "division of the doctrine" (''p'an-chiao'') and similar schemes in the course of fashioning new and uniquely sinic schools of Buddhism. Almost without exception these thinkers chose to subordinate Śūnyavāda of the sort one finds in the Perfection of Insight literature and the ''Kārikās'' to other kinds of Mahāyāna, often to doctrines and texts of Tathāgatagarbha provenance or association. The Hua-yen ''p'an-chiao'' system, for example, relegated Śūnyavāda to the category of "incipient" or "elementary" (''shih'') Mahāyāna but held the Tathāgatagarbha tradition to be representative of an "advanced" or "final" (''chung'') Mahāyāna, both of which fell short of the perfection of its own "rounded" or "comprehensive" (''yüan'') teaching.<br>
A theme that unites all of these challenges to Mādhyamika primacy—the Yoācāra, the Tathāgatagarbha, and the Chinese—is a profound dissatisfaction with the seemingly relentless apophasis of Nāgārjuna and, to a lesser extent, of his sources. All are able to acknowledge Nāgārjuna's caution—that uncritical use of the constructive language of philosophical views is a species of intellectual bondage—but they acknowledge it only as a caution, a corrective to false views. They insist, however, that the way of denial and negation, the unremitting distrust of positive language, is necessary but not sufficient unto enlightenment. It allows one to fend off error but does not actively advance one toward the truth and may even impede the practical religious life by generating more subtle forms of error and by inhibiting compassion. Therefore, the various alternatives to Mādhyamika that we have mentioned took it upon themselves to reassert the salvific value of kataphasis, the spiritual utility of positive and affirmative language. They chose, in short, eloquence over silence.<br>
In what follows we offer for consideration one example of the rejection of an exclusive apophasis in favor of a disciplined kataphasis. We will examine the argument of a brief but important text entitled ''Discernments of the Dharma-Element of the Avataṁsaka'' (''Hua-yen fa-chieh kuan-men'') attributed to Tu-shunq (557-640), the reputed "first patriarch" of China's Hua-yen (Avataṁsaka) school of Buddhism. This very influential text has been put to many uses in the history of East Asian Buddhism, both within and without the Hua-yen tradition. It is, of course, not simply a text "about Buddhist theories of language." But without denying the broader range of its meanings we do suggest that it does serve our particular purpose well; it offers a significant vision of the place of language in the religious life. (Gimello, "Apophatic and Kataphatic Discourse in Mahāyāna," 117–20)
Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, is the highest meditative practice of the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Approaching the Great Perfection looks at a seminal figure of this lineage, Jigme Lingpa, an eighteenth-century scholar and meditation master whose cycle of teachings, the Longchen Nyingtig, has been handed down through generations as a complete path to enlightenment. Ten of Jigme Lingpa’s texts are presented here, along with extensive analysis by van Schaik of a core tension within Buddhism: Does enlightenment develop gradually, or does it come all at once? Though these two positions are often portrayed by modern scholars as entrenched polemical views, van Schaik explains that both tendencies are present within each of the Tibetan Buddhist schools. He demonstrates how Jigme Lingpa is a great illustration of this balancing act, using the rhetoric of both sides to propel his students along the path of the Great Perfection. [https://wisdomexperience.org/product/approaching-great-perfection/ (Source: Wisdom Publications)] +
The ''Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna'' (''Dasheng qixinlun'') is one of the most influential philosophical texts in East Asian Buddhism. It is most important for developing the Indian Buddhist doctrine of an inherent potentiality for Buddhahood (''tathāgatagarbha'') into a monistic ontology based on the mind as the ultimate ground of all experience. Its most significant contribution to East Asian Buddhist thought is its formulation of the idea of original enlightenment (''benjue'', or in Japanese, ''hongaku''). ([https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/awakening-of-faith-in-mahayana/v-1 Source Accessed June 3, 2020]) +
This book is an attempt to clarify a few of the topics that come up most often in teachings and discussions of Mahayana Buddhist thought.
We begin at the beginning with buddha nature, because that is the most important concept to understand. Then, for the Mahayanist, comes bodhichitta. How the recognition of buddha nature is accomplished and the field in which we learn to practice bodhichitta is dealt with in a discussion of reincarnation and karma. Understanding emptiness brings us into a position to study Tantric science, of which the Mahamudra is an example of the highest form. It is through the practice of such Tantric sciences that we gain realization through the transformation they precipitate.
As the process of transformation moves forward, realization can come at any time or in any place. Realization itself has many aspects, leading to the highest realization that transcends subject and object, relative and absolute—all samsaric manifestations. Every moment of life, and the intermediate states between life and death and between sleeping and waking, are the means of attaining realization. Every mistake and every success leads gradually to the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhist study and practice is, of course, the state of being completely purified, the enlightenment of a buddha. (Source: introduction). +
The study of Buddhism has recently made gigantic strides, on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other. Not only is the importance of the science of comparative religion making itself felt, but the advance of our Pali and Sanskrit knowledge has greatly contributed to a better understanding of things Oriental. Even Christians who were without sympathy for "heathen" religions have now taken up the study of Buddhism in earnest. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the teachings of Sakyamuni are not yet known in their full significance and that they do not yet command just appreciation. Though intolerant critics lose no chance of vigorously and often wrongly attacking the weak points of Buddhism, which are naturally seen at the surface, clear-sighted people have been very slow to perceive its innermost truth. This is especially the case with the Mahayana school.<br> The main reasons for this are, in my opinion, evident. While the canonical books of the Hinayana Buddhism have been systematically preserved in the Pali language, those of the Mahayana Buddhism are scattered promiscuously all over the fields and valleys of Asia and in half a dozen different languages. Further, while most of the Sanskrit originals have been destroyed, their translations in Tibetan, Mongolian, and Chinese have never been thoroughly studied. And, lastly, the Mahayana system is so intricate, so perplexingly abstruse, that scholars not accustomed to this form of thought and expression are entirely at a loss to find their way through it<br> Among the false charges which have been constantly poured upon the Mahayana Buddhism, we find the following : Some say, "It is a nihilism, denying God, the soul, the world and all"; some say, "It is a polytheism: Avalokiteçvāra, Tara, Vajrapani, Mañjuçri, Amitābha, and what not, are all worshipped by its followers"; still others declare, "It is nothing but sophistry, quibbling, hair-splitting subtlety, and a mocking of the innermost yearnings of humanity" ; while those who attack it from the historical side proclaim, "It is not the genuine teaching of Buddha; it is on the contrary the pure invention of Nāgārjuna, who devised the system by ingeniously mixing up his negative philosophy with the non-atman theory of his predecessor"; or, "The Mahayana is a queer mixture of the Indian mythology that grew most freely in the Tantric period, with a degenerated form of the noble ethical teachings of primitive Buddhism." Though no one who is familiar with Mahayanistic ideas will admit these one-sided and superficial judgments, the majority of people are so credulous as to lend their ear to these falsified reports and to believe them.<br> The present English translation of Açvaghosha's principal work is therefore dedicated to the Western public by a Buddhist from Japan, with a view to dispelling the denunciations so ungraciously heaped upon the Mahayana Buddhism. The name of Açvaghosha is not very well known to the readers of this country, but there is no doubt that he was the first champion, promulgator, and expounder of this doctrine, so far as we can judge from all our available historical records. Besides, in this book almost all the Mahayanistic thoughts, as distinguished from the other religious systems in India, are traceable, so that we can take it as the representative text of this school. If the reader will carefully and patiently go through the entire book, unmindful of its peculiar terminology and occasional obscureness, I believe he will be amply and satisfactorily repaid for his labor, and will find that the underlying ideas are quite simple, showing occasionally a strong resemblance to the Upanishad philosophy as well as to the Samkhya system, though of course retaining its own independent thought throughout.<br> In conclusion let me say a word about the difficulty of translating such an abstruse religio-philosophic discourse as the present text. It is comparatively easy to translate works of travels or of historical events or to make abstracts from philosophical works. But a translator of the Mahayanistic writings, which are full of specific phraseology and highly abstruse speculations, will find himself like a wanderer in some unknown region, not knowing how to obtain any communicable means to express what be perceives and feels. To reproduce the original as faithfully as possible and at the same time to make it intelligible enough to the outside reader, who has perhaps never come in contact with this form of thought, the translator must be perfectly acquainted with the Mahayanistic doctrine as it is understood in the East, while he must not be lacking in adequate knowledge of Western philosophy and mode of thinking. The present translator has done his best to make the Mahayanistic thoughts of Açvaghosha as clear and intelligible as his limited knowledge and lack of philosophic training allow him. He is confident, however, that he has interpreted the Chinese text correctly. In spite of this, some errors may have crept into the present translation, and the translator will gladly avail himself of the criticisms of the Mahayana scholars to make corrections in case a second edition of the work is needed. (Suzuki, translator's preface, x–xiv)<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/avaghoshasdisc00asva/page/n5/mode/2up Read more here . . .]
B
What is enlightenment? How is it possible? Who can achieve it? One of Mahayana Buddhism’s most important teachings is the doctrine of Tathāgatagarbha, or Buddha Nature, the innate pure and changeless essence of the mind which gives rise to the fundamental potential for each being to attain full enlightenment or Buddhahood. This course in the FPMT Basic Program utilizes the first chapter of Maitreya’s ''Sublime Continuum'', a text replete with rich poetic imagery and metaphor, to explore this profound and inspiring topic. Taught by Don Handrick. ([https://archive.org/details/BuddhaNatureEssenceOfEnlightenment2014/Essence_of_Enlightenment_12_2014-08-13.mp3 Source Accessed Nov 16, 2020]) +
Dr. Pettit speaks about the basics of Buddha-Nature (''bde gshegs snying po’i rigs'' = ''sugatagarbhagotra'') according to Mipham Rinpoche, with additional reference to some Pāli Suttas, Nāgārjuna’s ''Praise of Dharmadhatu'', and the ''Uttaratantra''. He bases his remarks on Mipham’s text, ''The Lion’s Roar: Exposition on Buddha Nature'' (''bde gshegs snying po stong thun chen mo seng ge nga ro''). John Whitney Pettit holds graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia University in the study of World Religions and Buddhist Studies. He has been the student of the previous Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and also heard or translated teachings from prominent masters representing the Nyingma tradition and the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. He is the translator and author of ''Mipham’s Beacon of Certainty'' (1999) and of a forthcoming anthology volume on the subject of Buddha-nature. Since 1998 he has lived in or near New York’s Hudson Valley, working on occasional translations, carving mani stones and communing with the genius loci. He spoke with students at RYI on the 27th of March, 2019. ([https://soundcloud.com/rangjung-yeshe-institute/basics-of-buddha-nature-miphams-roaring-lions-public Adapted from Source Aug 13, 2020]) +
This collection includes a history of buddha-nature theory in Tibet by Thupten Jinpa and seven texts influential in the development of buddha-nature teachings in Tibet. The texts included represent many lineages and historical periods. Along with the root text the following texts appear: 1) Butön's commentary to the Uttaratantrashastra (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པ་མཛེས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་རྒྱན། pp 3-63). 2) The Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's commentary (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་བསྟན་པ། pp 65-69). 3) The Fifteenth Karmapa Khakyap Dorje's commentary (དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པའི་སྙིང་པོ་བསྟན་པའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཀྱི་མཆན་འགྲེལ། pp 71-88). 4) Rongton's commentary (ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལེགས་པར་བཤད་པ། pp 89-206). 5) Shakya Chokden's commentary (ཆོས་དབྱིངས་བསྟོད་པའི་འགྲེལ་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་དབྱིངས་རྣམ་པར་ངེས་པ། pp 207-238). 6) Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's text on the disposition (''gotra, rigs'') (རིགས་ཀྱི་སྤྱི་དོན། pp 239-287) 7) Mipham Gyatso's Lion's Roar (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོའི་སྟོང་ཐུན་ཆེན་མོ་སེངྒེའི་ང་རོ། pp 289-316). +
It has recently been alleged by scholars of the Tibetan "Ancient" (rnying ma) tradition that although buddha-nature theory was well known in Tibet from as early as the eighth century, it played quite an insignificant role in early Nyingma exegesis.[1] I intend in this chapter to challenge this assertion by demonstrating that buddha-nature concepts played a highly significant part in Dzokchen thought during the so-called early diffusion (''snga dar'') period, albeit mostly in the form of autochthonous *''bodhigarbha'' (''byang chub snying po'') or bodhi-nature concepts rather than their well-known Indian counterpart ''tathāgatagarbha''[2] (''de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po''), as well as the as yet unattested but virtually synonymous *''sugatagarbha''[3] (''bde bar gshegs pa'i snying po''), which are both usually translated as buddha-nature. Although this family of terms is widespread in preclassical Dzokchen exegesis and therefore of inestimable importance for understanding the early development of buddha-nature theories in Tibet, it has hitherto received no attention in contemporary Buddhist studies. In determining the reasons for the obvious predilection for this indigenous family of buddha-nature concepts from the eighth to eleventh centuries, my aim is to clarify how bodhi-nature was understood by early Dzokchen authors, why it was distinguished from mainstream Mahāyāna-based buddha-nature concepts, and how it eventually became overshadowed by these latter during the classical period (13th–14th c.) as Indian non-tantric buddha-nature theories and controversies took center stage.[4] It is hoped that this short survey of Dzokchen bodhi-nature ideas and their cultural milieu will fill some gaps in our still fragmentary understanding of the origins of Tathāgatagarbha theory in Tibet. At the very least, it will show that a decidedly affirmative indigenous current of buddha-nature teachings flourished in Tibet several centuries prior to the ascendancy of the New (''gsar ma'') traditions and their polemically heated debates over rangtong (''rang stong'') and zhentong (''gzhan stong'') interpretations of buddha-nature. (Higgins, "*Bodhigarbha," 29)
<h5>Notes</h5>
# Wangchuk, "rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations" 179. "Yet even though the [buddha-nature] theory has certainly been present from early times in the rÑiṅ-ma literature, it seems to have played quite an insignificant role and never gained prominence or an independent status, in the way it was conceived, for instance, in the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''" This conclusion is repeated by Almogi, ''Rong-zom-pa's Discourse on Buddhology'' 160.
# For a detailed discussion of the term buddha-nature, see Zimmermann 2002, 39-40.
# Although *''sugatagarbha'' is not attested in Sanskrit (see Seyfort Ruegg, ''Traite du tathagatagarbha'' 68), Wangchuk, "rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations" 178 and n. 21, points out (on the basis of references provided to him by Kazuo Kano) that "the term ''bde gśegs sñiṅ po'' does occur in the Tibetan translations of the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' (P fol. 174a5; D fol. 166b2: bde gśegs sñiṅ po theg pa che las skyes) and ''Ghanavyūhasūtra'' (P fol. 62b 1; D fol. 55b 1: ''bde gśegs sñiṅ po dge ba'aṅ de; cf., however, Taisho 747a7) for which the Sanskrit is not extant." We may add that the term ''bde [bar] gshegs [pa'i] snying po'' occurs in a large number of Tibetan translations of Indian works. A search of the Derge Bka' 'gyur and Bstan 'gyur canons using the contraction ''bde gshegs snying po'' turned up occurrences in the following sūtras in addition to those mentioned earlier: ''Bhadrakalpika'' (D 94), ''Sūtrasammucayabhāṣtaratnālokālaṃkāra'' (D 3935), ''Laṅkāvatāravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra'' (D 4031), and ''Sūtrālaṃkārapaṇḍārtha'' (D4031). It is also found in twenty-two tantric works: D 453, 829, 832, 833, 834, 837 (these last four belong to the ''Māyājāla-Guhyagarbha'' cycle), 1202, 1401, 1407, 1414, 1613, 1630, 1644, 2128, 2304, 2626, 2816, 2834, 2837, 3713, 3723, and 4449. The unabbreviated ''bde bar gshegs pa'i snying po'' occurs in the following tantric works: Kaṇha's ''Hevajranāmamahātantrarājadvikalpamāyapañjikāsṃrtinipāda'' (''Rgyud kyi rgyal po dgyes pa'i rdo rje zhes bya ba sgyu ma brtag pa gnyis pa'i dka 'grel dran pa'i 'byung gnas''), which, however, does not contain the term buddha-nature, D 1187; ''Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgītiṭīkāvimalaprabhā'' (''<i>'</i>''Jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa'i grel pa dri ma med pa'i od''), D 1398; ''Bhagavatsarvadurgatipariśodhanatejorajatathāgatāhatsamyaksaṃbuddhamahātantrarājavyākhyāsundarālaṃkāra'' (''Bcom Idan 'das de bzhin gshegs pa dgra bcom pa yang dag par rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas ngan song thams cad yongs su sbyong ba gzi brjid kyi rgyal po chen po'i rnam par bshad pa mdzes pa'i rgyan''), D 2626; ''Vajravidāraṇānāmadhāraṇīpaṭalakramabhāṣyavṛttipradīpa'' (''Rdo rje rnam par 'joms pa'i gzung zhes bya ba'i rim par phye ba'i rgya cher 'grel ba gsal ba'i sgron ma''), D 2687; ''Tantrārthāvatāravyākhyāna'' (''Rgyud kyi don la 'jug pa'i grel bshad''), D 2502; ''Mahābalikarmakramavṛtti'' (''Gtor ma chen po'i las kyi rim pa'i grel pa''), D 3773. This is not the place for an analysis of these occurrences. It is hoped that future research may determine whether any of them can be traced to an extant Indian work containing the term *''sugatagarbha''.
#On problems of Tibetan historical periodization and a useful variant based on existing schemes, see Cuevas, "Some Reflections." For a useful doctrinal-historical periodization scheme based on developments in Tibetan Buddhist epistemology, see van der Kuijp 1989. Loosely following van der Kuijp's proposed periodization, we can distinguish (1) the Ancient (''rnying ma'') period (8th-9th c.) corresponding to the Early Dissemination (''snga dar'') and Early Translation (''snga gyur'') period, which witnessed a massive program of translating Indian works into Tibetan and the growth of early Tibetan monastic communities under the sponsorship of the Tibetan Empire; (2) the Preclassical period (late 10th-12th c.) corresponding to the Late Dissemination (''phyi dar'') and New Translation (''gsar gyur'') periods following the collapse of the Tibetan Imperium (and ensuing Period of Fragmentation, ca. 910-1056), which witnessed a campaign of new reformed translations of Indian Buddhist texts and the ascendency of the so-called New (''gsar ma'') Tibetan Buddhist schools (and their scholastic traditions) that were henceforth distinguished from the Ancients (''rnying ma''); (3) the Classical period (13th-14th c.), which was characterized by the expansion of the major Tibetan Buddhist schools and the consolidation and systematization of their representative doctrines and practices; and (4) the Postclassical period (15th c. onward) characterized by the intensification of intersectarian dialogue and polemicism fueled by the increasingly fractious sectarian politics as Tibetan orders vied for patronage by foreign powers (Mongols and Chinese) and domestic aristocratic clans.
Articles/Book Launch: Revisiting Buddha-Nature in India and China by Dr. Christopher Jones and Dr. Li Zijie +
In this online book-launch event, Dr. Christopher Jones and Dr. Li Zijie discuss their new books on the topic of buddha-nature. Below are the respective abstracts from each author:<br>
''The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman'' (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2020) by Christopher Jones
It has long been recognized that Indian Buddhist writings concerned with buddha-nature, or more narrowly the enigmatic expression ''tathāgatagarbha'', have a complex relationship with foundational Buddhist teachings about 'not-self' (''anātman''). Drawing upon and developing recent scholarship concerning the relative ages of Indian Buddhist works that deal with buddha-nature, ''The Buddhist Self'' explores the likely trajectory of this complex relationship. Constituent chapters deal with all Indian texts, across Indic, Chinese and Tibetan sources, that deal with buddha-nature and the matter of how far it should be conceptualized in terms of selfhood. I argue that it is likely that our earliest sources for teaching about ''tathāgatagarbha'', perhaps beginning with the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', are those which understood this term to refer to what could also be called the self (''ātman''). It is only later in the development of ''tathāgatagarbha'' literature that teachings about buddha-nature were elaborated to stress that this is not, after all, something of a caveat to teachings about absence of self. As such, teaching about ''tathāgatagarbha'' was perhaps originally presented as the Buddha's revelation of what is enduring and precious in the constitution of all sentient beings, and was in part a dynamic move to enter wider Indian discourse about the nature and value of the self. In 2021 ''The Buddhist Self'' was awarded the [https://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/news/cbs-announces-2021-toshihide-numata-book-award Toshihide Numata Book Award].
''Kukyō ichijō hōshōron to higashiajia bukkyō: Go—nana seiki no nyoraizō, shinnyo, shushō no kenkyū''『究竟一乗宝性論』と東アジア仏教 ── 五—七世紀の如来蔵・真如・種姓説の研究 [''The Ratnagotravibhāga and East Asian Buddhism: A Study on the Tathāgatagarbha, Tathatā and Gotra between the 5th and 7th Centuries''] (Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 2020) by Li Zijie
My monograph explores theories on ''tathāgatagarbha'', ''tathatā'' and ''gotra'' in East Asian Buddhism between the 5th and the 7th centuries, with a focus on the influence of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' [Chin. ''Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun'' 究竟一乘寶性論]. There are major differences between the Sanskrit text and its Chinese translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', which had an immeasurable influence on East Asian Buddhism and has yet to be explored. I furthermore discuss the background, such as the ''Pusa dichi jing'' 菩薩地持經 and the ''Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra'' [Chin. ''Lengqie jing'' 楞伽經], and the influence of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' on the ''Dasheng qixin lun'' 大乘起信論, Jizang 吉藏, Huiyuan of Jingying temple 淨影寺慧遠, Fazang 法藏, and some writings in Korean and Japanese Buddhism.
This volume presents the first book-length study in English of the concept of Buddha nature as discussed in the ''Buddha Nature Treatise'' (''Fo Xing Lun''), attributed to Vasubandhu and translated into Chinese by Paramartha in the sixth century. The author provides a detailed discussion of one of the most important concepts in East Asian Buddhism, a topic little addressed in Western studies of Buddhism until now, and places the Buddha nature concept in the context of Buddhist intellectual history. King then carefully explains the traditional Buddhist language in the text, and embeds Buddha nature in a family of concepts and values which as a group are foundational to the development of the major indigenous schools of Chinese Buddhism.<br> In addition, she refutes the accusations that the idea of Buddha nature introduces a crypto-Atman into Buddhist thought, and that it represents a form of monism akin to the Brahmanism of the ''Upanisads''. In doing this, King defends Buddha nature in terms of purely Buddhist philosophical principles. Finally, the author engages the Buddha nature concept in dialogue with Western philosophy by asking what it teaches us about what a human being, or person, is.
(Source: back cover) +
This book contains the teachings on buddha nature given
by the 14th Shamarpa, Mipham Chokyi Lodro (1952-2014),
in Dhagpo Kagyu Ling, France, in the year 1988. In a very
inspiring way he clearly pointed to what really counts: the heart of awakening is nothing other than our true nature and therefore all of us, in fact every sentient being, can awaken to his or her buddha qualities.
The Shamarpa based his explanations on the text ''Revealing Buddha Nature'' composed by the 3rd Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje (1284-1339), which sums up Maitreya/Asaṅga's ''Ultimate Continuum'', that is, the ''Uttaratantraśāstra'', also known as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. This latter treatise is considered to reflect the meaning of the so-called third and final cycle of the Buddha's teachings, which is mainly concerned with buddha nature and its qualities.
The first part of this book consists of the Shamarpa's instructions, which at the time were orally translated from the Tibetan by Lama Rinchen, a long-time meditator, translator, and retreat-master, based in France. . . . The second part of this book presents a translation of ''Revealing Buddha Nature'' by Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, the text on which these teachings are based. (Draszczyk, preface, xi) +
The tathāgatagarbha or buddha nature doctrine is centered on sentient beings’ potential for buddhahood—sometimes understood in the sense that all beings already contain a “buddha within.” This notion is found through various strands of early Mahāyāna sources that, notwithstanding their complex and interwoven development, came to share enough common features to summarize them under the doxographical category of Tathāgatagarbha.
The chapters contained in this volume represent the latest research into buddha nature theory that covers a range of topics across major Buddhist traditions. These contributions were originally presented as papers during the symposium “Tathāgatagarbha across Asia: The Reception of an Influential Mahāyāna Doctrine in Central and East Asia,” held at the University of Vienna in 2019. This symposium brought together academic scholars focusing on religio-historical developments of buddha nature theory as well as traditional teachers and monastics who offered emic perspectives on the relevance of the concept within the context of their own tradition. The resulting volume, therefore, aims at contributing to the overall better understanding of tathāgatagarbha doxography, both historically and in living Buddhist communities. [https://wstb.univie.ac.at/product/wstb-103/ (Source: WSTB)] +
This is David Higgins and Martina Draszczyk's second book together and comes out of their first study, ''[[Mahāmudrā And The Middle Way]]''. In their follow up they have delivered another two volumes on the writings of the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje (1507-1554) and his nuanced approach to the intricacies of the buddha-nature debate. It is an approach that combines the yogic sensibilities of Mahāmudrā with the dialectic approach of the Madhyamaka, which, according to the authors, Mikyö Dorje characterizes as the Yuganaddha-Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka (''zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa’i dbu ma''), that is, as a “Nonfoundational (or Nonabiding) Middle Way consisting in Unity.” As the authors explain,
"This nomenclature tells us much about the central philosophical aims and presuppositions of the Eighth Karma pa and his Karma bka’ brgyud tradition. As a Mahāmudrā proponent, Mi bskyod rdo rje gives primacy to innate modes of being and awareness, such as coemergent wisdom or buddha nature naturally endowed with qualities, that are amenable only to direct yogic perception and revealed through the personal guidance of a qualified teacher. As an exponent of ''yuganaddha'' (''zung ’jug''), i.e., unity (literally, “yoking together”), he espouses the tantric goal of unity beyond extremes, a goal grounded in the inseparability of the two truths or realities (''bden gnyis dbyer med''), of appearance and emptiness (''snang stong dbyer med''). In his eyes, this unity is only fully realized when one understands that the conventional has no independent existence apart from the ultimate and that the latter is a condition of possibility of the former. As an advocate of ''apratiṣṭhāna'' (''rab tu mi gnas pa''), i.e., nonfoundationalism, he resolutely maintains that all outer and inner phenomena, including deep features of reality disclosed through meditation, lack any ontic or epistemic essence or foundation that the mind can lay hold of. Finally, as a champion of Madhyamaka, i.e., the Buddhist Middle Way, the author attempts to ply a middle course between the extremes of existence and nonexistence, eternalism and nihilism. These various doxographical strands are deftly interwoven in the Karma pa’s view of buddha nature, which affirms the innate presence of buddha nature and its qualities in all sentient beings as well as their soteriological efficacy while denying either any ontological status." (Higgins and Draszczyk, preface, 14)
The present compendium aims to give the Buddhist student an opportunity to come into direct contact with these very positive and cataphatic (Truth-affirmative) doctrines and therewith enrich his or her practice of the Dharma. The Nirvana Sutra gives us the Buddha's own direct teachings, and the Srimala Sutra communicates similar doctrines through the person of the great Buddhist queen, while speaking in the approving presence of the Buddha himself. (Tony Page, preface, 4) +
Sallie B. King, in her essay "Buddha Nature Thought and Mysticism", offers a characterization of the phenomenon of mysticism and analyzes three Buddha Nature texts to see whether and to what extent the thought of those texts may properly be called 'mystical'. All three of the texts she discusses are extant only in Chinese. Two of them—the ''Buddha Nature Treatise'' (''Fo hsing lun'') and the ''Supreme Basis Sūtra'' (''Fo shuo wu shang i ching'')—are translations made by Paramārtha in the sixth century CE; and there is some question as to whether he may have actually composed them rather than simply translated them. The third, the ''No Increase, No Decrease Sutra'', was also translated into Chinese in the sixth century CE (by Bodhiruci), and there almost certainly was an Indic original for this text. Each of these texts belongs, more or less, to the Tathāgatagarbha tradition, but King wishes to classify only the Buddha Nature Treatise and the ''No Increase, No Decrease Sūtra'' as properly mystical texts. The ''Supreme Basis Sūtra'', she argues, endorses devotionalism rather than direct mystical experience for the practitioner; it cannot therefore be classified as a mystical text. King therefore distinguishes different threads or emphases within the Buddha Nature thought of the period with which she deals. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to ''Buddha Nature'', 5–6) +
''Buddha Nature and Animality'' is about peaceful living. In discussions about the relation between humans and their animal relatives, a central theme is that Buddhism represents the most viable philosophical/religious alternative to the malaise surrounding us when we confront ecological problems. This recognition points to the notion of compassion. ''Karuna'' is given expression as an alternative to stewardship since stewardship too falls into the dualistic trap of privileging the human. Authors seek beyond the limits imposed by discourses of ethics and assume a more radical approach to seek the roots of the perspectives that allow the conceptual space for the problematic dialogues in the first place. Rather than viewing animals as distinct beings sharing our environs, authors attempt to give the animal soul back to spirituality. They argue for the naturally enlightened spontaneity arising in animal nature and that animal nature is Buddha-nature. This "animal-buddha" nature is fundamental to understanding Buddhism as a 21st century philosophy for living and dying. (Source: [https://www.jainpub.com/inc/sdetail/1229 Jain Publishing Company]) +
"Your buddha-nature is really all there is. And it is never ever violated." +
