Property:TileDescription
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
M
For centuries, Dzogchen—a special meditative practice to achieve spontaneous enlightenment—has been misinterpreted by both critics and malinformed meditators as being purely mystical and anti-rational. In the grand spirit of Buddhist debate, 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham wrote ''Beacon of Certainty'', a compelling defense of Dzogchen philosophy that employs the very logic it was criticized as lacking. Through lucid and accessible textural translation and penetrating analysis, Pettit presents Mipham as one of Tibet's greatest thinkers. (Source: [https://wisdomexperience.org/product/miphams-beacon-certainty/ Wisdom Publications]) +
Lopen Karma Phuntsho interviews Tsadra Foundation's director of research, Gregory Forgues and discusses his recent book ''Radical Nonduality: Ju Mipham Namgyal Gyatso's Discourse on Reality'' (Vienna WSTB 106).
Ju Mipham Namgyal Gyatsho (1846–1912) stands as one of the most influential scholars within the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. This book, which will be of interest to both academic researchers and Buddhist practitioners, presents a comprehensive analysis of Mipham's nonconceptual nondualism through the traditional Buddhist framework of ground (gzhi), path (lam), and result ('bras bu).
The study begins by examining how Mipham's view represents a form of ontological nondualism, exploring his innovative use of ascending perspectives to explain the two truths. This approach offers readers new insights into Mipham's sophisticated philosophical system while illuminating the philosophical foundations of the path.
The middle section investigates how knowledge and liberation interweave in Mipham's soteriological project through his teachings on practice and conduct. Here, readers will discover how cognitive nondualism serves as a bridge to realizing ontological nondualism, while scholars will appreciate the theoretical framework underlying these practices.
The final section examines Mipham's soteriological nondualism, in which ground and result are understood to be beyond any distinction or separation. This fresh analysis of Mipham's thought offers valuable insights into one of Tibet's most sophisticated philosophical systems and its practical application on the Buddhist path.
The book is free online [https://wstb.univie.ac.at/product/wstb-no-106/ here!]
Dr. Gregory Forgues is the Director of Research at Tsadra Foundation. Before joining the foundation, Gregory was part of the Open Philology research project with Professor Jonathan Silk at the University of Leiden. He also worked as a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Heidelberg and a Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Bochum. Gregory has published on a wide variety of topics including Mahāyāna sūtra translations, Tibetan tantric rituals, Dzogchen teachings, and digital humanities methods. His PhD dissertation on Jamgon Mipham’s interpretation of the two truths under Professor Klaus-Dieter Mathes' supervision was reviewed by Professor Birgit Kellner and Professor Matthew Kapstein, receiving a distinction from the University of Vienna.
''Mipham's Sword of Wisdom'' explores the Nyingma-lineage understanding of valid cognition in Vajrayana Buddhism. This translation, a clear and concise primer on higher realization through valid cognition in Buddhist philosophy, presents these ideas in English for the very first time and includes the sutra presentation of the two truths and the tantra teachings of the two truths as the purity and equality of all phenomena.
(Source: back cover) +
This classic Buddhist work, written in the sixteenth century, comprehensively presents the entire scope of the Tibetan Kagyu Mahāmudrā tradition. These profound yet accessible instructions focus on becoming familiar with the nature of one’s mind as the primary means to realize ultimate reality and thus attain buddhahood. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s manual for the view and practice of Mahāmudrā is widely considered the single most important work on the subject, systematically introducing the view and associated meditation techniques in a progressive manner.
''Moonbeams of Mahāmudrā'', along with the Ninth Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje’s ''Dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance'', are to this day some of the most studied texts on Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu monasteries throughout Tibet and the Himalayas. Elizabeth M. Callahan, a renowned translator of classical Kagyu literature, has provided new translations of these two texts along with ancillary materials and annotations, making this a genuine resource for both scholars and students of Tibetan Buddhism. This historic contribution therefore offers the necessary tools to properly study and apply the Mahāmudrā teachings in a modern context. (Source: [https://www.shambhala.com/authors/o-t/dakpo-tashi-namgyal/moonbeams-of-mahamudra.html Shambhala Publications]) +
Translated here for the first time into any language, ''Mountain Doctrine'' is a seminal fourteenth-century Tibetan text on the nature of reality. The author, Dol-bo-ba Shay-rap-gyel-tsen was one of the most influential figures of that dynamic period of doctrinal formulation, and his text is a sustained argument about the buddha-nature, also called the matrix-of-one-gone-thus. Dol-bo-ba recognizes two important types of emptiness—self-emptiness and other-emptiness—and shows how other-emptiness is the actual ultimate truth. He justifies this controversial formulation by arguing that it was the favored system of all the early outstanding figures of the Great Vehicle. The translator's introduction includes a short biography of Dol-bo-ba and an exposition of nine focal topics in his religious philosophy. (Source: [https://www.shambhala.com/mountain-doctrine-3814.html Shambhala Publications]) +
'''Abstract'''<br><br>The objective of this thesis is to investigate the multivariant levels of interpretation within selected Caryās. The Caryās selected depict Buddha Nature as it was understood in tāntric Buddhism in the area of Bengal. There are three levels of interpretation. The first level is the blatant meaning, and is outlined in the translation section of the songs. The second level is the anuyoga/Mother tāntra meaning. A comparison is made between the interpretations of selected scholars. The final level is the Mahāmudra meaning. This level is inferred from various textual sources. +
A translation of Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche's detailed explanation of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's famous Mahāmudrā Aspiration Prayer. +
A collection of inspiration and wisdom, seen through the tales of housewives and kings, bandits and monks, and the deep mountains of Korea.
In these thirty-three stories, one of Korea’s foremost Seon(Zen) Masters shows us our inherent potential and teaches us how to live with dignity and courage in any circumstances. Appealing to both children and adults, these stories are drawn from the rich Buddhist tradition of Korea and reveal the unseen dimensions of our lives while showing us how to become true human beings. (Source: [http://www.hanmaumbooks.com/ Hanmaum Publications]) +
N
''karma pa gsum pa rang byung rdo rje ཀརྨ་པ་གསུམ་པ་རང་བྱུང་རྡོ་རྗེ་. nang brtag rgyud gsum: zab mo nang don; rgyud brtag gnyis; rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos ནང་བརྟག་རྒྱུད་གསུམ། ཟབ་མོ་ནང་དོན། རྒྱུད་བརྟག་གཉིས། རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྟན་བཅོས།. wA Na badzra bi dya dpe mdzod khang ཝཱ་ཎ་བཛྲ་བི་དྱཱ་དཔེ་མཛོད་ཁང་, 2011. <br>
The Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje. ''A Collection of Important Root Texts: Gyu Lama, Zangmo Nangdon, Namshe Yeshe Chepa, and the Hevajra Tantra.'' Vajra Vidya Library, 2011.'' +
Dzogchen is the consummate practice of Tibetan Buddhism. A pure awareness practice applicable to any circumstance and readily integrated into modern life, Dzogchen directly introduces us to the inherent freedom, purity, and perfection of being that is our true nature. ''Natural Great Perfection'' is an inspiring collection of teachings providing the deepest possible insight into the practice of the Dzogchen path. The teachings are followed by a collection of spontaneous vajra songs composed in the tradition of Milarepa as the delightful play of wisdom consciousness. (Source: [https://www.shambhala.com/natural-great-perfection-2310.html Shambhala Publications]) +
Thanks to several previous studies, the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' (''MPNS'') has been proved to shift its central thought from the ''buddhakāya'' idea to the ''tathāgatagarbha/buddhadhātu'' idea. The present author has shown in another paper (Suzuki [1999]) that the movement between the ''buddhakāya'' idea and the ''tathāgatagarbha/buddhadhātu'' idea appears in the larger context including the ''MPNS'', and has extracted this context from the various Mahāyāna ''sūtras'' under the name of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra''-Group (''MPNS''-G), which consists of the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' (''MMS''), the ''MPNS'', the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' (''AMS'') and the ''Mahābherisūtra'' (''MBhS''). While the ''AMS'' is a direct successor of the ''MPNS'', the ''MBhS'' succeeds the ''MPNS'' critically and shifts back its central thought from the ''tathāgatagarbha/buddhadhātu'' idea to the ''buddhakāya'' idea again.<br> The ''MPNS''-G declares or suggests the non-emptiness of the ''tathāgata''. This is reinterpretation of the ''pratītyasamutpāda'' and the ''śūnyatā'' idea, and follows the rule of the historical Buddhist hermeneutics. It is especially worthwhile to note that the ''MBhS'', like the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'' in the ''Vijñāptimātra'' idea, devaluates the ''śūnyatā'' idea as imperfect. This quite negative attitude toward the ''śūnyatā'' idea does not appear in any other Indian texts on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' idea including the ''MPNS'' and the ''AMS''. Aiming at establishing the theory that every sentient being is able to perform religious efforts and become ''buddha'' on account of the nonemptiness and the eternalness of the ''tathāgata'', the ''MBhS'' must reject any ''sūtra'' concerning the śūnyatā idea as imperfect. Though the ''MPNS'' is a pioneer in reinterpretation of the the ''śúnyatā'' idea, the ''MPNS'' cannot devaluate it perfectly because the ''śūnyatā'' idea is one of the main backgrounds to the ''MPNS''. The ''MBhS'''s decisive attitude toward the ''śūnyatā'' idea devaluation becomes possible by having the ''MPNS'' as its basis. (Source: [https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=27072&item_no=1&page_id=28&block_id=31 UTokyo Repository])
The study of the ''Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra'''"`UNIQ--ref-0000078C-QINU`"') has a long history. French, Chinese and Japanese scholars have participated in the discussion, some of them great authorities in the field of Sino-Indian Studies, as P. Demieville, Ui Hakuju, Tokiwa Daijō, and Mochizuki Shinkō'"`UNIQ--ref-0000078D-QINU`"') . That I dare to add my grain to the store of knowledge already collected, though not even fully acquainted with the earlier efforts , demands an explanation. When studying Chinese Buddhism and slowly progressing through the centuries I came before the stumbling block of this text and found that without more definite knowledge about the ''Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' a clear picture of Medieval Buddhism could not be attained. As no answer has yet been given to this problem acceptable to all the debaters I had to look into it myself. Unfortunately, the Indian libraries in my reach are very incomplete with respect to Japanese and Chinese books and periodicals. So I was confronted with a dilemma which worries many scholars to-day, namely, whether I should continue my studies in spite of this handicap or stop altogether. Finally I decided that I would try to get a result by using what was available to me and adding material which I collected myself. This led to what I consider as a result worth while to be submitted as a basis of discussion. The professors Matsunami Seiren and Hayashi Kemmyō kindly sent me reprints of their papers.<br> The present state of the discussion may in short be characterized as follows. The traditional view that (1) the ''Śāstra'' is a translation of a Sanskrit original and (2) that the translator is Paramārtha, is now generally abandoned'"`UNIQ--ref-0000078E-QINU`"'). It is also known that the ''lntroduction'' is forged.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000078F-QINU`"') It is further known that the Sanskrit text translated by Śikṣānanda was itself a translation from the extant Chinese version'"`UNIQ--ref-00000790-QINU`"'). If so much is accepted, early doubts of Chinese Buddhists concerning the ''Śāstra'' gain weight'"`UNIQ--ref-00000791-QINU`"').<br> Hui-chün, an early seventh century witness, in the passage quoted above p. 156 note 4, speaks of "former" Dāśabhūmikas who forged the ''Śraddhotpāda''. Chi-tsang (549-623) blames Dāśabhūmikas "of a former generation"
that they mistook the eighth ''vijñāna'' for Buddha-nature (T. vol. 34 380 b 20 f.). In another place he speaks of "old" Dāśabhūmikas (T. vol. 42 104 c 7). This implies that we have to distinguish between late Dāśabhūmikas (after the arrival of the ''Mahāyāna-saṁgraha'') and early ones (the first and second generations after the translators of the ''Daśabhūmika Śāstra'')'"`UNIQ--ref-00000792-QINU`"') . Among them, those who belonged to the early generation are said to have forged the ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'''"`UNIQ--ref-00000793-QINU`"').<br> Tokiwa believes in a Chinese author who mainly relied on the ''Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra'' both translations of which (Sung and Wei) he amalgamated. This may be correct though I could not find allusions peculiar to Guṇabhadra's (Sung) translation.<br> Mochizuki has proved that the Chinese author was acquainted not only with the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' but with several other texts. He proposes as author T'an-tsun, a disciple of Fa-shang who dictated the ''Śāstra'' to his disciple T'an -ch'ien. See below p. 160.<br> Hayashi Kemmyō, has traced material in Liang Wu-ti's writings and the ''Pao-tsang lun''. Liang Wu-ti believed in immortal souls'"`UNIQ--ref-00000794-QINU`"'). The ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' contains nothing of that sort. Though influence from that side cannot be excluded, I do not feel this material to be significant enough to permit us to place the author in the South.<br> Matsunami Seiren believes in Aśvaghoṣa if not as author yet as the spiritual father of the ''Śraddhotpāda''. I have compared his quotations from the ''Sauṇdarānanda Kāvya'' etc . which are interesting. But I think we might consider as established that the author of the ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' was a Chinese and work upon that assumption'"`UNIQ--ref-00000795-QINU`"'). Besides, the main tenets of the ''Śāstra'' have not been found in the ''Kāvya''.<br> I pass by other theories of which I have only heard . Scholars are searching in all directions and undoubtedly will find material unknown to me which will throw even more light on the intricate problem of our text. Meanwhile I shall consider as established that the ''Śāstra'' was composed by an early Dāśabhūmika and limit my investigation to the question who this person was. (Liebenthal, "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra," 155–58)
The book concerns the recent debate in Thailand over the nature of ''nibbāna'' (''nirvāṇa''), the unconditioned, whether it is ''attā''
(self) or ''anattā'' (not-self). +
This book is the full Dharmakṣema version of the ''Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra''. This particular book is unique in that the passages are numbered, making it easier for people to find verses of importance. It is translated by Kosho Yamamoto. +
It is often said that enlightenment means “crossing over to the other shore,” that far-off place where we can at last be free from suffering. Likewise, it is said that Buddhist teachings are the raft that takes us there.
In this sparkling collection from one of the most vital teachers of modern Korean Buddhism, Zen Master Daehaeng shows us that there is no raft to find and, truly, no river to cross. She extends her hand to the Western reader, beckoning each of us into the unfailing wisdom accessible right now, the enlightenment that is always, already, right here.
A Zen (or seon, as Korean Zen is called) master with impeccable credentials, Daehaeng has developed a refreshing approach; ''No River to Cross'' is surprisingly personal. It’s disarmingly simple, yet remarkably profound, pointing us again and again to our foundation, our “True Nature”—the perfection of things just as they are. (Source: [https://wisdomexperience.org/product/no-river-cross/ Wisdom Publications]) +
''Duckworth, Douglas S. "Non-representational Language in Mipam's Re-presentation of Other-emptiness." ''Philosophy East and West'' 64, no. 4 (2014): 920–32. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2013/07/NonRepresentational_duckworth.pdf.'' +
One of the most interesting notions found in the early ''tathāgatagarbha'' literature is the idea that ''nirvāṇa'' should be understood as nonorigination (''anutpāda''). This idea is explicitly formulated in two texts, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', the only ''śāstra'' extant in Sanskrit which is completely devoted to the ''tathāgatagarbha'' and Buddha-nature teachings, and the ''Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra'', the ''sūtra'' upon which the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' bases its exposition of nonorigination. The ''Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra'' itself does not speak of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' or Buddha-nature doctrines, but the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' takes the ''Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra'' explanation of nonorigination and links it to the view of ''nirvāṇa'' found in two of the important early ''sūtras'' that do speak of the ''tathāgatagarbha'', the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa'' and the ''Śrīmālādevīsūtra''. This interpretation of ''nirvāṇa'' in terms of nonorigination is of considerable importance in understanding the early ''tathāgatagarbha'' teaching, for it clarifies certain notions frequently associated with the ''tathāgatagarbha'' like the "natural purity of mind" (''cittaprakṛtiviśuddhi'')—notions which have been hotly debated ever since the doctrine's inception. It may also tell us something about the conceptual issues which divided the schools of early Buddhism and so hold clues for understanding the origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism. (Grosnick, "Nonorigination and ''Nirvāṇa''," 33)<br><br>
[https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8547/2454 Read more here . . .] +
''Not Always So'' is based on Shunryu Suzuki's lectures and is framed in his own inimitable, allusive, paradoxical style, rich with unexpected and off–centre insights. Suzuki knew he was dying at the time of the lectures, which gives his thoughts an urgency and focus even sharper than in the earlier book.
In ''Not Always So'' Suzuki once again voices Zen in everyday language with the vigour, sensitivity, and buoyancy of a true friend. Here is support and nourishment. Here is a mother and father lending a hand, but letting you find your own way. Here is guidance which empowers your freedom (or way–seeking mind), rather than pinning you down to directions and techniques. Here is teaching which encourages you to touch and know your true heart and to express yourself fully, teaching which is not teaching from outside, but a voice arising in your own being. ([https://www.harpercollins.com/products/not-always-so-shunryu-suzukiedward-espe-brownzen-center-san-francisco?variant=32122621132834 Source Accessed Nov 25, 2020]) +
Interest in the ''Vajrasamādhi'' has been roused by a paper of Lin Tai-yün published in 1932'"`UNIQ--ref-000008A3-QINU`"'. In the ''Vajrasamādhi'' Lin had found a quotation from what is generally supposed to be a Bodhidharma text'"`UNIQ--ref-000008A4-QINU`"', and thus the problem was set of the relation between these bits of material and the bearing which an investigation into this matter might have on the riddle of Bodhidharma. Suzuki Daisetsu has dealt with this problem in 1936'"`UNIQ--ref-000008A5-QINU`"', Paul Demiéville in 1952'"`UNIQ--ref-000008A6-QINU`"' and Dr. Mizuno in I955'"`UNIQ--ref-000008A7-QINU`"'. I shall in this note confine myself to the text itself.<br> The texts in question are:<br>
1. ''Chin-kang san-mei ching'' (''Vajrasamādhi'') T. 273 vol. 9. (Quoted in the following as ''Samādhi''.) It has three commentaries:<br>
a. The ''Chin-kang san-mei ching lun'', T. 1730 vol. 37 composed by Yüan-hsiao, a Korean, in the second half of the seventh century. This is the only commentary which I have used for this paper in order to correct the original. A very good modern edition has been published by Chou Shu-chia in Peking 1936.<br>
b. ''Zokuzōkyō'' A 55/2-3. Ming.<br>
c. ''Zokuzōkyō'' A 55/3. Ch'ing.<br>
2. ''Chin-kang shang-wei t'o-lo-ni ching'', T. 1344 vol. 21. Transl. Buddhaśānta (?). Yüan Wei.<br>
3. ''Chin-kang ch'ang t'o-lo-ni ching'', T. 1345 vol. 21. Transl. Jinagupta (?) (527-604). A second translation of the preceding. These two texts have no relation to the ''Samādhi''.<br>
4. ''Chin-kang san-nei pen-hsing ch'ing-ching pu-huai pu-mieh ching'', T. 644 vol. 15. A probably genuine text, containing 100 ''samādhis'' . . . (Liebenthal, opening remarks, 347–48)<br><br>
[ . . . ]<br><br>
It seems to me established that<br> The ''Samādhi'' is an agglomeration of several texts, of which we have distinguished:<br> 1. A frame (Text A), probably derived from a sūtra translated in the fifth century or earlier in the North, perhaps in Liang-chou. This seems to have been a Hīnayāna text.<br> 2. A text (B), which contains the verses and part of the prose, composed between 565 and 590 by a teacher of the North, Yeh or P'eng-ch'eng. The author might have been Ching-sung.<br> It is difficult to say how Text B originally looked. Was it a pamphlet or a collection of gleanings from other texts? Was it written to counteract the propaganda of Hui-ssu?<br> In order to further clarify these points I propose for study: (1) a careful investigation of the northern tradition from Bodhiruci and Buddhaśānta on to about 590 A.D., (2) searching the Tun-huang fragments for parts of the original Text B, (3) further search for quotations in the texts studied by the teachers of the Northern Ch'i. (Liebenthal, conclusion, 383–86).<br><br>
(*Chinese characters in the original text and notes unavailable)<br><br>
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
Prof. Hauer has started a series of studies, chiefly dedicated to the critical investigation of Indian religion.[1] We cannot help being very greateful to him for this, because we must acknowledge that the various aspects of Indian religion are not yet studied as they deserve.<br> I do not need to insist on proving the great importance of this research, which is likely to throw much light on many a problem; chiefly on that of the extent of the influences exercised by the aboriginal element on the evolution of Indian religious thought and Indian civilization in general. The Vedas have a great importance, no doubt,
but it is also true that Indian gods, mythology, practices, theories about sacrifice, etc., are, on the whole, very different from the religious ideas expounded in that famous book. The study of the
last phases of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and of its relation with the Hindu systems proper, will prove of the greatest importance for this kind of research; because it is just in the literature of that period that we find the most important documents of these new conceptions and meet the names of a host of gods, demons and goblins of whom we did not hear before that time.<br> For this reason I think that Prof. Hauer is quite justified in having started his Series with the study of such an important Mahāyāna text as the Laṅkāvatāra, which contains some very interesting allu- sions to the relation between the Buddha and the gods of Hinduism (cf. e.g., p. 192).<br> The first of the papers dedicated to our text is chiefly concerned with the refutation of the Sāṅkhya system contained in the Laṅk., X, 546 ff. This section has been translated by the author, as he thinks that it represents the reply of the Mahāyāna to the new claim of the Sāṅkhya to be the doctrine of salvation (p. 5.). This Sāṅkhya is, according to the A., the new exposition of the system as contained in the Sāṅkhyakārikā of Iśvarakṛṣṇna. The chronology of either text seems to support this view. In fact, this refutation is contained in the tenth Chapter of the Laṅk., which is wanting in the first Chinese translation by Guṇabhadra (443 A.D.), while it is found in the second
translation, made by Bodhiruci in the year 513 A.D. On the other hand, we may suppose that the ''kārikā'' was composed about 450 A.D. That is true, but I do not think we are allowed to infer from this, that there is any interdependence of this kind between the ''kārikā'' and the Xth Chapter of the Laṅk. First of all, the history of the various redactions of this text, represents a very difficult and complex problem. I have compared the three Chinese translations with the Sanskrit original and I already had the opportunity to point out that the text of the Laṅkāvatāra underwent many changes,[1] so that we may safely assume that different redactions of the Laṅk, circulated not only at different times, but also in different places. It is true that the allusion to the Huns, which is found in X, 785, must go back to the first decade of the 7th century A.D., but the fact remains that the Sanskrit text of the Xth Chapter, as it has been handed down to us in the Nepalese manuscripts, looks like a compilation from various sources. Thus it has been enlarged by the insertion of various ''ślokas'' already quoted in the preceding chapters in prose.[2] As a rule, all these double verses cannot be found in the translation of Śikṣānanda. This I say in order to show that the problem of the various strata composing the vulgata of the Laṅk, as well as the other concerning the age to which they must be attributed is a very complex one. They can only be solved by the comparative study of the Tibetan and Chinese translations. Therefore it is evident that the chronology based upon any passage of the present text cannot be relied upon as definitive, until the history of the text has been reconstructed. On the other hand, the refutation of the Sāṅkhya system, as contained in X, 558 ff, is neither one of the earliest, nor one of the best. The refutation of the ''satkāryavāda'' (Sāṅkhya) as well as of the ''asatkāryavāda'' (Vaiśeṣika) forms one of the chief contents of the dogmatical works of Mahāyāna Buddhism. It can be found in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-Śāstra of Nāgārjuna, in the Śataśāstra of Āryadeva, in the Buddhagotraśāstra attributed to Vasubandhu etc.[1] Nor shall we forget that Vasubandhu and
Diṅnāga refuted at length the Sāṅkhya theories in their Paramārthasaptati and Pramāṇasamuccaya respectively. Moreover, as Diṅnāga himself tells us in his commentary upon the Nyāyamukha, he wrote a book exclusively devoted to refuting the Sāṅkhya system. Shen T'ai, a disciple of Yuan Chwang, who commented upon the Nyāyamukha, tells us that this work was a very large one, as it contained six thousand ''ślokas''.<br> Therefore I do not think that this criticism of the Sāṅkhya as contained in the Laṅkāvatāra can really throw much light on the history of the controversy between the two systems. In fact, we must acknowledge that the value of the Laṅkāvatāra, as a philosophical hook, is rather limited, although it is of the highest importance for the history of the evolution of the Mahāyāna Buddhologie and "Erlosungslehre."<br> But I can hardly believe that the passage in question is expressly directed against the Sāṅkhya system. It is only meant to assert the idealistic view which is expounded throughout the book. Kapila, it is true, is referred to by name in the verse X, 558 and in three other places; but Kaṇāda also is quoted in X, 548. . . .<br> But to which school did the Laṅkāvatāra originally belong? It is in general believed that it represents Yogācāra ideas. But, of course, we cannot learn very much from this mere name, because Yogācāra has certainly a very wide meaning. It is also considered as a synonym of Vijñānavāda, and therefore even the ''vijñaptimātratā'' theory of Vasubandhu is put under that same item.<br> In fact, according to the Chinese tradition the book is considered as one of the six ''sūtras'' of the Lakṣaṇa school. But if we read these volumes it will be easy to recognize that, though there are some fundamental notions that can be found all throughout, each text or group of texts presents its own peculiarities.<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501828/page/n607/mode/2up Read more here . . .]<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
1. J. W. Hauer, Das Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra und das Sāṅkhya (eine vorläufige Skizzeo, Stuttgart, 1927.<br> Id, Die Dhāraṇī im nördlichen Buddhismus und ihre parallelen in der sogennannten Mithrasliturgie. Ibid.<br> Beitrage zur Indischen Sprachwissenschaft und Religionsgeschichte.<br>1. See. my Studio comparative fra le tre versioni cinesi ed il testo sanskrito del i capitolo del Laṅkāvatāra, Memorie della R. Accademia dei Lincei, serie v, vol xviii, fasc, 5; and Una nuova edizione del Laṅkāvatāra in Studi Mahāyanici, Rivista di studi Orientali, vol. X.<br>2. In Studi Mahāyanici, pp. 574 ff., I have given a list of the verses inserted in the text, which have been repeated in the tenth chapter. This fact makes me rather doubtful whether many of the other verses collected there are not taken from some Mahāyāna text belonging to the same current of thought. Prof. Hauer thinks that the first Chapter belongs to the most ancient redaction of the book. I can hardly believe that; in fact, it cannot be found in the translation of Gunabhadra, and it has but very little relation with the rest of the book. On the other hand, I think that the gāthās represent the most ancient nucleus of the book, as it is shown by the numerous Prakritisms that have survived and that the redactors of the present vulgata could not avoid: e.g., desemi, pp. 76, 176, 181; vibhāvento, p. 95 ; vikalpenti, pp. 185 186; nāśenti, p. 190 ; deśyante for deśyamāne, p. 201.<br>1. For other references see Ui’s, Vaiśeṣika philosophy.<br>2. See my English translation of the Nyāyamukha in "''Materiailen zur Kunde des Buddhismus''" edited by Prof. Walleser, Heidelberg, to be published shortly.<br>
