Property:ArticleAbstract
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
I
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Trikāya doctrine of Buddhism, i.e., the doctrine that the Buddha has three "bodies," is notorious for its complexities. Attributed to the Yogācāra, but regarded as typical of the Mahāyāna in general, it is customarily cited in books on Buddhism in terms of the triad ''dharma-kāya'', ''saṃbhoga-kāya'' (or ''saṃbhogika-kāya'') and ''nirmāṇa-kāya'' (or ''nairmāṇika-kāya''). Taking these in ascending order of abstraction, the ''nirmāṇa-kāya'', usually translated "apparitional body," "phantom body," "transformation body," etc., is the physical manifestation of Buddhahood, the ordinary perishable human form, as exemplified by the "historical Buddha," Siddhartha Gautama. The ''saṃbhoga-kāya'' ("body of bliss," "reward body," "enjoyment body," etc.) is a more exalted and splendid manifestation of the enlightened personality, still in the realm of form, but visible only to bodhisattvas, those of advanced spiritual capabili-ties. By contrast, the ''dharma-kāya'' ("''Dharma''-body," "Body of Truth," "Cosmic Body," "Absolute Body," etc.) is both formless and imperishable, representing the identification of the Buddha with the truth which he revealed, or with reality itself. As such the ''dharma-kāya'' is often linked with various terms for reality, such as ''dharmatā'', ''dharma-dhātu'', and so on, and has even been regarded as a kind of Buddhist absolute, or at least at one with it.[2] In this light the ''dharma-kāya'' is understood as the primal "source" or "ground" from which the other two types of bodies emanate.[3] While many scholars are content to describe this in purely abstract terms, others impute personal characteristics to it;[4] and at least one writer has gone so far as to compare it to the Christian idea of Godhead.[5]
As a summary of the Trikāya doctrine this is, of course, over-simplified. We are dealing here with a complex theory which underwent many accretions and refinements, as Buddhists continued down through the centuries to speculate on the nature of Buddhahood, on the nature of reality, and on the relationship between them.[6] It is hardly surprising, then, that attempts to plot the course of such arcane speculations have not always been entirely successful in reaching a clear consensus, although the arguments advanced, even in recent writing on the subject, do tend to follow similar lines. A good example of this is the authoritative treatment by Nagao, "On the Theory of Buddha-body (''Buddha-kāya'')" first published in English in 1973.[7] Generally Nagao distinguishes three phases: an initial one-body theory, a two-body theory, and the three-body theory elaborated by the Yogācāras. According to him (p. 104), the two-body theory (i.e., ''rūpa-kāya'' and ''dharma-kāya'') "became stabilized in a variety of earlier sūtras,[8] and in early Mahāyāna sūtras, the ''Prajñāpāramitā'', the ''Saddharmapuṇḍarīka'', and so forth. The ''rūpa-kāya'' is the Buddha seen in a human body, while the ''dharma-kāya'' is the Buddha's personality seen in the dharma or dharma-nature." Elsewhere (pp. 106-7) Nagao states that the two-body theory was the one held "until the time of the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra'' and the time of Nāgārjuna," even though the raw materials for the third body, the ''saṃbhoga-kāya'', were also to hand before the time of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, as a consequence of the ''bodhisattva''-concept and the idea that a ''bodhisattva''<i>'</i>s performance of meritorious actions produced a body which was their manifest "reward." Nagao's article contains many valuable observations, but, as we shall see, some of its assertions are rather too imprecise, both chronologically and philosophically, to be of much use in unravelling the early development of the doctrine at issue. Another recent treatment of the subject by Makransky (1989) also describes certain features of the putative earlier two-body theory before the Yogācāras remodelled it (see esp. pp. 51-53), and distinguishes it sharply from the previous Mainstream[9] (in this case, Sarvāstivādin) formulations. This analysis, too, is open to question in certain respects, as I shall show. In these and other articles on the subject[10] there is a general tendency to postulate a one-body/two-body/three-body progression, in terms of which a single personality is divided into a physical and a "spiritual" body, and then the physical body is further split in two, yielding the final complement of three. Some writers, however, point to the existence of three bodies even in the Pāli sources, what one scholar has called the "primitive triad," i.e., ''pūti''- or ''cātur-mahābhūtika-kāya'', ''mano-maya-kāya'', and ''dhamma-kāya''.[11] The first is the corruptible physical body formed out of the four elements, while the second is the mind-made body with which the Buddha visits the celestial realms (believed by some to be a forerunner of the ''saṃbhoga-kāya''); the third is the so-called "''Dhamma''-body." Now, although both these ways of approaching the subject—the assumption of a linear process, and the belief that the Pāli Canon contains an embryonic Trikāya schema—raise certain difficulties, I do not propose in this paper to discuss the evolution of the Trikāya theory in its entirety, since that would be a mammoth undertaking. What I wish to do is address one aspect of it only, viz., the early development of the idea of ''dharma-kāya'', in the hope that clarifying this will open the way to a better understanding of Mahāyāna buddhology as a whole. (Harrison, introduction, 44–46)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#(From the title) A preliminary version of this paper was presented at Berkeley and at the 10th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies in Paris in July, 1991. I wish to thank all those friends and colleagues who either heard or read this first draft and made helpful comments on it, in particular Rolf Giebel, Richard Gombrich, Kevin Lee, Jan Nattier, David Seyfort Ruegg, Lambert Schmithausen, Gregory Schopen and Jonathan Silk.
#See, e.g., Murti 1955: 284-287.
#See, e.g., Reynolds and Hallisey 1987: 330-331.
#See, e.g., Murti 1955: 285: "The Dharmakāya is still a Person, and innumerable merits and powers etc. are ascribed to him."
#See Suzuki 1930: 308-338. Suzuki's discussion of the whole subject has a distinctly "theological" flavour (see especially pp. 308, 310), to which we shall return later.
#For example, sometimes the ''dharma-kāya'' is also referred to as the ''svābhāvika-kāya'' or "essential body," sometimes this latter is said to constitute a fourth body. The dispute over this issue is the focus of the article by John Makransky (1989).
#This article was reprinted with inconsequential changes in Nagao 1991: 103-122. All citations are from this later version.
#Presumably Nagao means Mainstream Buddhist scriptures here. "Mainstream Buddhism" is the term I employ to refer to non-Mahāyāna Buddhism, in preference to the other terms in current use, none of which is totally satisfactory. "Theravāda" is patently inaccurate and anachronistic, "Hīnayāna" is pejorative and potentially offensive, "Śrāvakayāna" is more subtly pejorative, and also makes it hard to place the Pratyeka-buddhayāna (whatever that was), while "Nikāya" or "Sectarian Buddhism," although neutral, are historically misleading, given the fact that the Mahāyāna was a pan-Buddhist movement running across Nikāya or Vinaya school/ordination lineage boundaries. This means that monks and nuns converted to the Mahāyāna continued to belong also to the Nikāya in which they had been ordained, to uphold its Vinaya, and so on. However, they remained in the minority, at least in India. The term "Mainstream" reflects this situation.
#See above, n. 8.
#Other valuable recent contributions are by Kajiyama (1984/1989) and Williams (1989: 167-184). The lengthy discussion by Dutt (1977: 141-177) cannot be recommended. For an excellent survey of earlier scholarly work on this question and of the Buddhist sources themselves, see de La Vallee Poussin 1929: 762-813.
#See Lancaster 1968: 92; see also de La Vallee Poussin 1929: 764.
J
In this conversation with ''Buddhadharma'', the Insight Meditation Society cofounder applies the "harmonized understanding" approach championed in his book ''One Dharma'' to the idea of buddhanature. In the end, it's not about who's right or wrong about it. It's about what leads us to less clinging.
BUDDHADHARMA: Thanks for talking with us, Joseph. We're hoping you might talk about buddanature from your unique perspective as a Buddhist primarily trained in Theravada, but then in other modes, too. JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN: It's not a term that I've come across a lot in early Buddhist teachings; it seems to come about more in Mahayana and in Vajrayana. And so it would be helpful to find a common definition that would make sense in terms of early Buddhism. Basically, the Pali texts talk about the enlightened mind, free of defilements. That would, I think, be a good cross-tradition term.
In ''One Dharma'', you list some of the names for the ultimate freedom that buddhanature represents: the unconditioned, dharmakaya, the unborn, pure heart, mind essence, nature of mind, ultimate bodhicitta, nirvana. Some of those terms are used more often in the later traditions. I think a popular understanding of some of the later traditions is that we're already enlightened, and we simply have to realize it. That might imply that it's more accessible than it actually is. Whether we phrase it in terms of "we're already enlightened and we just need to realize it," or "we're not yet enlightened and we have to get there," the task is formidable. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/joseph-goldstein-its-not-either-or/ Read more here]) +
L
No abstract given. Here is the first relevant paragraph:<br><br>
Du III au VII siècle de notre ère, selon la chronologie la plus souvent admise, la pensée bouddhique en Inde a trouvé une expression particulièrement brillante dans l'école dite du Vijñānavāda «doctrine de la connaissance». Les premiers ouvrages ressortissant à cette école en tant que telle peuvent être datés du début du Ill siècle. Au cours de ce siècle et du suivant, elle constitue peu à peu ses thèses, notamment à travers les ouvrages de Maitreya-nātha, d'Asaṅga et de Vasubandhu l'ancien. Je désignerai les développements de cette période sous le nom de Vijñānavāda ancien. Au V siècle, Vasubandhu le jeune cherche à fixer et à synthétiser la doctrine; ses travaux ouvrent la période de ce que j'ai appelé le Vijñānavāda classique, caractérisée par une abondante littérature de commentaires qu'illustrent en particulier les noms de Sthiramati, Dharmapāla et Hiuan-tsang. Le present exposé s'attachera à retracer brièvement l'histoire du Vijñānavāda, puis à exposer la doctrine classique. (May, "La philosophie bouddhique idéaliste," 265)<br><br>
English Translation:<br><br>
From the third to the seventh century AD, according to the most commonly accepted chronology, Buddhist thought in India found a particularly brilliant expression in the school known as the Vijñānavāda "doctrine of knowledge". The first works coming out of this school as such can be dated to the beginning of the 11th century. During this century and the following, it gradually built up its theses, notably through the works of Maitreya-nātha, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu the Elder. I will designate the developments of this period under the name of ancient Vijñānavāda. In the fifth century, Vasubandhu the Younger sought to fix and synthesize the doctrine; his works open the period of what I have called the classical Vijñānavāda, characterized by an abundant literature of commentaries that illustrate in particular the names of Sthiramati, Dharmapāla and Hiuan-tsang. This presentation will focus on briefly recounting the history of Vijñānavāda, then explaining classical doctrine.
It’s surprisingly easy to achieve lasting happiness — we just have to understand our own basic nature. The hard part, says Mingyur Rinpoche, is getting over our bad habit of seeking happiness in transient experiences. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra consists of ten chapters, named respectively —(1) Rāvaṇādhyeṣaṇā parivarta, (2) Sarvadharmasamuccaya parivarta, (3) Anityatā parivarta, (4) Abhisamaya parivarta, (5) Tathāgata - nityānityatva, (6) Kṣaṇika parivarta, (7) Nairmāṇika parivarta, (8) Māṃsabhakṣaṇa parivarta, (9) Dhāraṇīparivarta, and (10) the Parisamāpti parivarta, which bears no special name.<br> Throughout the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra the speaker is Buddha himself. The first chapter of the book is addressed to Rāvaṇa, while the person spoken to in the remaining nine chapters is Mahāmati. Rāvaṇa prayed to Buddha for the solution of two questions, viz. : (1) what is the distinction between ''dharma'' and ''adharma'', and (2) how could one pass beyond both ''dharma'' and ''adharma''? Buddha’s answers to these questions form the subject-matter of the first chapter. Thereafter 108 questions were asked by Mahāmati, and
Buddha’s answers to these questions form the topics of the remaining nine chapters. (Vidyābhūṣaṇa, para 10–11, 833)<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70554/page/n863/mode/2up Read more here . . .] +
Articles/Lost in Translation? The Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun) and Its Modern Readings +
The ''Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith'', an indigenous Chinese composition written in the guise of an Indian Buddhist treatise, is one of the most influential texts in the history of East Asian Buddhism. Its outline of the doctrines of buddha nature (''foxing''), buddha bodies (''foshen''), and one mind (''yixin''), among others, served from the medieval period onwards as one of the main foundations of East Asian Buddhist thought and practice. The ''Treatise'' is putatively attributed to the Indian writer Aśvaghoṣa, and its current Chinese version was traditionally conceived of as a translation from an original Sanskrit text. In the course of the twentieth century, however, many important scholars of Buddhism have called into question the textual history of the ''Treatise''. Even if the specific circumstances of its creation are still largely unknown, the view that the ''Treatise'' is an original Chinese composition (not necessarily written by a native Chinese) is now prevalent among scholars. Meanwhile, and for more than one hundred years, the text has also become a source of knowledge of Buddhism in the West thanks to a number of English translations. After examining the early textual history of the two existing versions of the text, this article will offer some examples of its modern appropriation by a novel group of readers and interpreters, an appropriation that took place during the first decades of the twentieth century amidst efforts to re-envision Chinese and East Asian Buddhist history and the place of Buddhism in modern society. +
M
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
The present paper provides an annotated translation of Sajjana’s ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa'' along with a reading text of this Sanskrit work (a critical edition of which is under preparation for publication). I started to work on this text in 2005 when I received a copy of a photographic image of a manuscript containing it from Professor Jikidō Takasaki. I published a study dealing with this manuscript in 2006 (Kano 2006b) and provided a critical edition of the Sanskrit text in my doctoral thesis, submitted to Hamburg University in 2006 (Kano 2006a). I also prepared a preliminary annotated translation of this text in 2006 and gave the draft to Karl Brunnhölzl together with my unpublished doctoral thesis.<br> It came as a surprise for me to learn that Brunnhölzl copied and published the draft of my translation under his name in his book ''When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra'' (Boston/London: Snow Lion, 2014), pp. 461–472. Brunnhölzl (p. 1121, n. 1718) says in his book: “All topical headings are inserted by the translator (corresponding to my outline above). Though my translation sometimes differs from Kano’s, I am indebted to both his translation and his Sanskrit edition of the text with critical apparatus (Kano 2006, 513–35), which in turn owe much to Profs. Schmithausen and Isaacson as well as Dr. Diwakar Acharya.” The fact is, however, that he has in many cases simply copied my earlier work.<br> Since the translation used by Brunnhölzl was an unpublished draft, my earlier mistakes found their way into his book, inasmuch as that draft was based in turn on an early draft of my Sanskrit edition, which itself contains serious misreadings, especially in verses 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15, along with a number of errors in the interlinear glosses. All his striving to make sense of my misreadings of the Sanskrit have been to no avail; his interpretations and analysis (Brunnhölzl, ''ibid''. pp. 288–300 ) based on these errors need to be fundamentally revised. I have since made improvements to the Sanskrit edition and translation, and this is reflected in the differences between his published translation and the one I offer here.[1] (Kano, preface, 1–2)<br><br>
===Notes===
1. I am grateful for a number of suggestions and improvements of my critical edition of Sajjana's ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa'' to Prof. Harunaga Isaacson, Prof. Diwakar Acharya, Prof. Lambert Schmithausen, Dr. Pascale Hugon, and all participants of a workshop “From Kashmir to Tibet: A set of proto-Śāradā palm leaves and two works on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''” held on 21. April 2015 at Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Institut für Kultur-und Geistesgeschichte Asiens. I would like to thank to Dr. David Reigle and Mr. Philip Pierce for much valuable information regarding difficult points of the text and English proof-reading of my translation.
Connecting with our buddhanature, our enlightened nature, often feels very far away, like it's not even possible. But it is much closer than we think. For example, when we are suddenly moved to compassion for someone, right then our buddhanature is shining through us. If we tune into ourselves at that moment, we can feel our innate goodness, our unconditioned pure being. Or when someone
looks at us with complete love, we can allow it in and feel the same.
Tonglen, which means taking and sending, is a meditation practice that cultivates unconditional compassion and love. In Tonglen, as we open to our own or others' suffering and allow it to be transformed into compassion, we awaken to the compassion and love that is at the core of who we are. We first bring loving awareness to ourselves, and then we exchange self for others. Taking and sending for ourselves can unearth feelings of self-hatred, low self-worth, deficiency, and unworthiness, among others. As we gradually work through these feelings and open to increased kindness and compassion for ourselves, it helps heal our core wounds and loosens our self-fixation, facilitating a deeper opening into compassion and love. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/meditations-on-buddhanature/ Read more here]) +
The approach to cutting our ties to samsara in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra meditation traditions of Vajrayana Buddhism is to allow samsara to manifest and immediately recognize that it is the expression or display of primordial wisdom.
In Dzogchen practice, the most important thing is the recognition of inner space or emptiness. If you can practice this, then whatever phenomena of samsara arise are dissolved into wisdom mind. For this to happen, your recognition of mind nature has to be unwaver-ing. If you can achieve this, then anything that arises in your mind-stream-any emotions, thoughts, likes, dislikes, perceptions of good and bad, and so on-is naturally released without effort.
The problem is, when phenomena arise from confusion and igno-rance, they dominate your perception and result in suffering. However, habitual negative emotions like fear can be naturally liberated by allowing them to dissolve into the inner space of mind. You can do this because the essence of these habitual emotions is actually wisdom.
The key point is to let go of the grasping within the emotion and see its true nature. When habitual emotions arise, you neither sup-press nor get caught up in them. You do not get carried away by clinging to self and other. If you just allow the emotion to dissolve, the energy trapped within it is released and blossoms as wisdom. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/recognizing-clarity-a-dzogchen-meditation/ Read more here]) +
The only way to acquire all the great qualities of Enlightenment is to repeat many times the short moment of recognising mind essence.
There is no other method.
One reason for short moments is that, as there is no stability right now, the recognition of awareness doesn't last for more than a brief moment, whether we like it or not.
By practicing many times, we get used to it. (From ''Vajra Speech'', published by Rangjung Yeshe Publications.) ([https://www.lionsroar.com/meditations-on-buddhanature/ Read more here]) +
It was early morning at the turn of the millennium, and I was in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, with a sangha friend for a week of rest from our demanding work. On a little shelf on the wall of my bedroom, I had placed a picture of my root teacher, Kalu Rimpoche, which I always traveled with. While I was still in bed, the thoughts began to form: I will brush my teeth, light some incense, and sit. Suddenly, wayward thoughts came through: ''Why do you have to brush your teeth? Why do you need to light incense? Why not just sit?''
From some deeper knowing, I'd realized that all the content in my mind was made up, all based on conventions and determined by the culture I was embedded in. I felt my whole conceptual scaffolding fall down. I was left with a profound openness, without content, yet filled with the deepest peace, wonder, tenderness, and vulnerability. I completely lost all sense of time. For the remainder of that week, I continued to be filled with awe and wonder, unable to do much of what was planned.
On a visit to a pink stone cathedral built by indigenous people, I watched an elderly indigenous man come in to pay respect to the Virgin. He knelt on one knee and bent his whole body forward in a bow of surrender and reverence that seemed to offer everything, with nothing held back. My heart was deeply touched and I recognized how this level of surrender and devotion made a new stage of practice possible. It then took me four years to find my precious Dzogchen teacher.
Dzogchen (Dzogpachempo/Great Perfection/Ati Yoga) is a tradition of teachings within the Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Its teachings are centered on the direct recognition of our intrinsic timeless, nonconceptual awareness, which lies beyond the intellect and its frameworks. This is referred to as "The View." This recognition is most often brought about by an accomplished teacher pointing it out to the student. This "pointing out" can happen in many different ways. It may be done through specific instructions, symbols/gestures, or mind-to-mind transmission. We may be instructed to look directly at our mind, noticing that behind the thoughts, there is an empty cognizance that is timeless, pervasive, and lucid. Or the teacher may say a word, make a gesture, or hold an object that suddenly opens the view. It may also happen by being in the presence of a realized teacher whose field of timeless awareness is so powerful that there is a mind-to-mind transmission for students whose devotion opens the door. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/meditations-on-buddhanature/ Read more here])
The Bka’ brgyud lineage tradition of Nā ro pa (c.956-1040), Mar pa lo tsā ba chos kyi blo gros (1002/1012-1097), and Sgam po pa rin chen dpal (1079-1153) is broadly characterized by the transmission tradition of tantric teachings and practices outlined in Nā ro pa’s six doctrines (''nā ro’i chos drug''). This tantric framework along with direct pointing-out instructions (''ngo sprod kyi gdams pa'') to the nature of one’s mind (''sems kyi rang bzhin'') within the context of Mahāmudrā teachings are the primary methods to liberation employed by Bka’ brgyud practitioners. The doctrine of luminosity (''’od gsal ba'') is fundamental to both methods since the nature of one’s mind is pointed out as luminosity and the yogic practice of inducing meditative states where one is able to recognize luminosity is a central doctrine for Nā ro pa’s tantric system, especially during the time of sleep (''gnyid kyi ’od gsal''). These methods eventually become synthesized into a cohesive soteriological program, as exemplified by instructions on merging ignorance (''gti mug'') and luminosity as found within Bka’ brgyud merging (''bsre ba'') literature, the focus of this study. (Source: [https://www.academia.edu/22793746/_Merging_Ignorance_and_Luminosity_in_Early_Bka_brgyud_Bsre_ba_Literature_Zentralasiatische_Studien_44_35_50._2015 Academia.edu]) +
A simple three-word koan. Or just a one-word koan: buddhanature. So deceptively simple, so easy to leave in the realm of concept, yet it penetrates to the very heart of the matter. Here’s Geoffery Shugen Arnold, Sensei, on Case 30 of the Gateless Gate, “Mazu’s ‘Mind is buddha.'” +
The Tibetan teacher Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche offers instruction on key verses from one of the Mahamudra’s seminal texts, A Song for the King by the Indian sage Saraha. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>The Chan tradition is renowned as the “meditation” school of East Asia. Indeed, the Chinese term ''chan'' 禪 (Jpn: ''zen'') is an abbreviated transliteration of ''dhyāna'', the Sanskrit term arguably closest to the modern English word “meditation.” Scholars typically date the emergence of this tradition to the early Tang dynasty (618–907), although Chan did not reach institutional maturity until the Song period (960–1279). In time, Chinese Chan spread throughout East Asia, giving birth to the various Zen, Sŏn, and Thiê`n lineages of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, respectively. Today these traditions continue to promote, at least in theory, meditation practices, and these have been the subject of considerable scholarly interest.[1]<br> It may then come as a surprise to learn just how little is known about the meditation techniques associated with the “founders” of this tradition—the masters associated with the nascent (or proto-) Chan lineages of the seventh and eighth centuries. It was during this fertile period—which, following scholarly convention, I will call “early Chan”—that the lineage myths, doctrinal innovations, and distinctive rhetorical voice of the Chan, Zen, Sŏn, and Thiê`n schools first emerged. Although hundreds of books and articles have appeared on the textual and doctrinal developments associated with early Chan, relatively little has been written on the distinctive meditation practices, if any, of this movement.<br> This essay emerged from an attempt to answer a seemingly straightforward question: what kinds of meditation techniques were promulgated in early Chan circles? The answer, it turned out, involved historical and philosophical forays into the notion of “mindfulness”—a style of meditation practice that has become popular among Buddhists (and non-Buddhists) around the globe. Accordingly, I will digress briefly to consider the roots of the modern mindfulness movement, and will suggest possible sociological parallels between the rise of the Buddhist mindfulness movement in the twentieth century and the emergence of Chan in the medieval period. (Sharf, "Mindfulness and Mindlessness in Early Chan," 933)<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#The literature is vast; on modern Japanese Zen and Korean Sŏn meditation practice in English see, for example, Buswell 1992, Hori 2000, and Hori 2003. On the history of these practices see Bielefeldt 1988, Buswell 1987, Collcutt 1981, Foulk 1993, and Schlütter 2008.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br>
<br>
The different philosophies of the Buddhist tradition are chiefly concerned with the understanding of mind, consciousness, and mental states. In Buddhist literature, the relative nature of mental phenomena are described in a rather detailed manner, but more interestingly certain sections contain significant hints pointing to the so-called true nature of the mind and, in particular, how to access it. One of the terms referring to this true nature of mind is ''Buddha-nature'', describing a quality of potential awakening inherent to the mind of everyone.<br>
In ''Mipam on Buddha-Nature'', Douglas S. Duckworth seeks to illustrate the Tibetan contexts in which this so-called Buddha-nature is variously described, conceptualized, and experienced. In doing so, he draws on approximately twenty-eight different Tibetan texts written by Mi pham ('' 'jam mgon mi pham rgya mtsho'', 1846–1912) that he quotes; translating and paraphrasing the quotes in order to discuss their purport in relation to a significant number of interpretations of the issue by earlier Tibetan Buddhist authors, all of which are based on the explanations found in the earlier Indian Buddhist literature. However, the main text selected and translated in full is Mi pham’s ''Bde gshegs snying po’i stong thun chen mo seng ge’i nga ro''. Duckworth also cites later masters commenting on Mi pham’s writings, notably Bötrul (''Bod sprul mdo sngags bstan pa’i nyi ma'', 1898–1959).<br>
His work primarily contributes insight into textual discussions taking place over centuries within the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist tradition and, secondarily, attempts to position the issues discussed within a comparative philosophical dialogue. However, the aim of the book—in the words of its author—is “to provide a holistically-oriented account of Mipham’s view of Buddha-nature” (xvii). Duckworth’s book represents a valuable presentation that seeks to define and summarize the philosophical and ideological views of this significant and influential Tibetan Buddhist master. (Burchardi, Review of ''Mipam on Buddha-Nature'', 734)
N
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])
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>
Buddhists often talk about suffering, emptiness, interdependence, and other philosophies and practices, but behind all of it is one simple teaching: buddhanature. Buddhism is notoriously complex, and sometimes it seems difficult for people to know where to start. From my perspective, we should always start with buddhanature.
Simple, yet profound, the teachings on buddhanature are relatable for contemporary audiences, but more importantly it is this most fundamental seed that precedes the entire path of Buddhist practice. Buddhanature is what makes Buddhist practice possible. . . .
When Tsadra Foundation decided to launch a series of online resource projects for education about Buddhism, we had many years of translation and publications on the most advanced philosophies and practices of Tibetan Buddhism to draw from. However, instead of focusing on the 84,000 other topics we could have begun with, we started with buddhanature, developing the most complete multimedia resource library on the topic, conducting interviews and supporting conferences, meetings, translation projects, and ongoing writing on the subject. Many people were surprised by the choice of topic, and I in turn was surprised by some of the derisive reactions to the topic as a whole, as if Madhyamaka or Dzogchen were so much higher and more important.
Nothing is more important than your buddhanature. The teachings on it form the basis for Mahamudra, Dzogchen, and the entirety of Tantric practice in any tradition.
While undoubtedly making it easier to connect with people around the world, most of our media these days primarily tells us that we are not good enough, we don't have enough, or that there is something wrong with us, and this has inspired an epidemic of mental distress and self-loathing on a scale never seen before. What if, instead of being told we are not good enough, we were brought up with the knowledge that each one of us is by nature capable of complete freedom from suffering, and that we possess wisdom and compassion on a nearly
unthinkable scale? What if we knew that fundamentally our deepest self is actually a wellspring of goodness and wisdom that is always present?
When I asked my friend Karl Brunnhölzl, a practitioner, scholar, teacher, and master translator of Buddhist texts, what he thought buddhanature is, he said, off the cuff: "Buddhanature is the innate primordial freedom of the mind, which is naturally imbued with wisdom, compassion, power, and bliss."
If we pause a moment and try to unpack that statement, the entirety of Buddhist teachings falls out of it. And if we take issue with it, and say, "yes, but emptiness ... ," the same will occur. The history of Buddhism is filled with debates about what exactly buddhanature means, and it is through investigating its meaning, and the arguments around it, that I have learned so much, and gained so much personally in my own life.
Having spent many years working with Tsadra Foundation on projects that support the balanced study and practice of Tibetan Buddhism, I am so pleased that this website is focused on this essential topic. I hope the creation of this website will inspire you to explore these teachings further via the many online resources we at Tsadra have made available here at buddhanature.org.
D. S. Ruegg, in his ''La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra'' and other works,[1] has mentioned the need for further study of the various Tibetan exegetical traditions involved in the controversies surrounding the ''tathāgata-garbha'' doctrine. He has relied extensively on the exegesis developed by dGe lugs-pa scholars. This paper is an initial attempt to address this need voiced by Ruegg, by presenting the views of a bKa'-brgyud-pa and two rNying-ma-pa scholars. In particular, the focus will be on elucidating how they applied the interpretive devices of ''nītārtha'' (''nges-don'', certain, definitive meaning) and ''neyārtha'' (''drang-don'', indirect meaning which is to be established) to texts dealing with the tathāgatagarbha.[2] One of the basic philosophical problems the Tibetans faced in this regard was the relationship between the concepts of ''sûnyatā'' and ''tathāgatagarbha'' emphasized in the second and third "turnings of the wheel of Dharma" (''dharmacakra-pravartana'') respectively. +
