A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism-Review by de Jong

{{Article
|ArticleLayout=Academic Layout
|ArticleTitle=A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism-Review by de Jong
|AuthorPage=People/De Jong, J. W.
|PubDate=1968
|ArticleSummary=For several reasons the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' deserves our attention. It is the only text on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' which has been preserved in Sanskrit. There are many problems connected with its place in the history of Mahāyāna philosophy and with its authorship. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to Maitreya and the prose commentary to Asaṅga. This text is held in high regard as one of the five treatises composed by Maitreya. However, the Chinese tradition attributes the whole work to Sāramati. This tradition is mentioned by Yüan-ts'e (613-696) in his commentary on the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra''<ref>P. Demiéville, ''BEFEO'', XXIV, 1-2 (1924), p. 53.</ref> and by Fa-tsang (643-712) in his commentary on the ''Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra''.<ref>N. Peri, ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), p. 350; Takasaki, p. 9.</ref> Probably the earliest reference to Sāramati as author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is to be found in Chih-i's ''Mo-ho chih-kuan'' (''Taishō'', Vol. XLVI, Nr. 1911, p. 31b18-26) which has been dictated by him in 594 (cf. p. 125 of Tsukinowa's article mentioned in note 8). The identity of Sāramati raises many problems. Some scholars have identified him with Sthiramati,<ref>Cf. H. W. Bailey and E. H. Johnston, "A Fragment of the Uttaratantra in Sanskrit", ''BSOS'', VIII (1935), pp. 77-89 (esp. p. 81) and Johnston's foreword to his edition of the Sanskrit text, pp. x-xii. To this Sthiramati the Tibetan tradition attributes a commentary on the ''Kāśyapaparivarta''. The Chinese translation (''Taishō'', 1523) is due to Bodhiruci. According to Chinese catalogues this commentary, just as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', has been translated by both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Cf. A. Staël-Holstein's edition (''A Commentary of the ''Kāśyapaparivarta'', Peking, 1933) and P. Pelliot's review, ''TP'', XXXII (1936), pp. 75-76. According to Chinese traditions both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati have translated also the ''Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra'' (''Taishō'', No. 1522), cf. Noël Peri, "A propos de la date de Vasubandhu", ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), pp. 352-353; Stanley Weinstein, "The concept of ''ālaya-vijñāna'' in pre-T'ang Chinese Buddhism". ''Essays on the History of Buddhist Thought. Presented to Professor Reimon Yūki'' (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 34-35. On the relations between Bodhiruci and Ratnamati see P. Demiéville, "Sur l'authenticité du ''Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen''", ''Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise'', II, 2 (Tōkyō, 1929), pp. 30ff.</ref> others have distinguished two Sāramati's.<ref>See the references given by Ét. Lamotte, ''L'Enseignement de Vimalakīrti'' (Louvain,
1962), pp. 92-93, n. 2. According to Hattori Masaaki, there is only one Sāramati who lived between Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga-Vasubandhu.</ref> There are also many obscurities in the Chinese traditions concerning the translator of the Chinese version. Chinese catalogues mention two translations, one by Ratnamati and the other by Bodhiruci.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 1931 E. Obermiller published a translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan: "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation", ''Acta Orientalia'', Vol. IX, Part II.III, pp. 81-306.<ref>Cf. La Vallée Poussin's interesting review, ''MCB'', I (1931-1932), pp. 406-409.</ref> His interpretation of the text is based upon a commentary by Tsoṅ-kha-pa's pupil and successor rGyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen (1364–1432)<ref>Cf. G. Tucci, ''Tibetan Painted Scrolls'', I (Roma, 1949), p. 119: A ''Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism'' (Sendai, 1953), No. 5434. Ogawa Ichijō, "Butsu (Nyorai) to Busshō (Nyoraizō) — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso o shoe to shite", ''IBK'', XIII (1965), pp. 247-250. Id.: "Indo Daijō Bukkyō ni okeru Nyoraizō-Busshō-shisō ni tsuite — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso no kaidoku o kokoromite —", ''Tōhōgaku'', 30 (1965), pp. 102-116. A complete translation of this commentary would be very welcome.</ref> The Sanskrit text has been edited by E. H. Johnston and published by T. Chowdhury: ''The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' (Patna, 1950). This edition is based upon two manuscripts found in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṁkṛtyāyana. The edition of the Sanskrit text has given a new impulse to the study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Several passages of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have been translated by E. Conze (''Buddhist Texts through the Ages'', Oxford, 1954, pp. 130-131, 181-184 and 216-217). In ''Die Philosophie des Buddhismus'' (Berlin, 1956, pp. 255-264) E. Frauwallner has given a summary of the ideas contained in this text and a translation of several verses.<ref>According to Frauwallner Sāramati lived about 250 A.D.</ref> In 1959 Ui Hakuju published a detailed study on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (''Hōshōron Kenkyū'') which contains a complete translation (pp. 471-648), together with a Sanskrit-Japanese glossary (pp. 1-60 with separate pagination).<ref>For completeness' sake mention must be made of a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text in Roman letters and the Chinese translation by Nakamura Zuiryū: The ''Ratnagotravibhāga-Mahāyānottaratantra-çāstra. Compared with Sanskrit and Chinese, with introduction and Notes'' (Tokyo, 1961) (published originally in ''Ōsaki Gakuhō'', 103-110, 1955-1959). More important are the following articles: Tsukinowa Kenryū, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron ni tsuite", ''Nihon Bukkyō Kyōkai Nenpō'', VII (1935) pp. 121-139; Takata Ninkaku, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron no johon ni tsuite", ''Mikkyō Bunka'', 31 (1955) pp. 9-37; Hattori Masaaki, "'Busshōron' no ichi kōsatsu", ''Bukkyō Shigaku'', IV, 3-4 (1955), pp. 16-36 (I have not been able to consult the last two articles); Takata Ninkaku, "Hōshōron ni okeru tenne (āśrayaparivṛtti) ni tsuite", ''IBK'', VI (1958), pp. 501-504; Ogawa Ichijō, "'Busshō' to 'buddhatva'", ''IBK'', XI (1963), pp. 544-545.</ref> Professor Takasaki's translation was undertaken during his stay in India (1954-1957) and continued afterwards. Apart from this book he has published between 1958 and 1964 ten articles relating to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (a list is given on pp. xii-xiii).<ref>Not mentioned are two articles published in 1953: "Hōshōron ni okeru nyoraizō no igi", ''IBK'', 1, pp. 368-369 ; "Nyoraizō to engi — Hōshōron o tegakari to shite —", ''IBK'', II, pp. 244-247.</ref> . . .<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' by Professor Takasaki is the first to be based on the Sanskrit text and the Chinese and Tibetan translations. Obermiller utilized only the Tibetan version and his translation, excellent as it is, contains a number of mistakes which are obvious in the light of the Sanskrit text. Ui utilized both the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation, but he was unable to consult the Tibetan translation directly. His knowledge of it was based upon a Japanese translation, made for him by Tada Tōkan, and upon Obermiller's English translation. It is clear from many indications that the Chinese translation is closer to the original than both the Sanskrit text and the Tibetan translation. However, as concerns the interpretation of the text, the Chinese translation is now always a reliable guide. There are several places where Professor Takasaki has been too much influenced by it but in general he indicates very well the wrong interpretations which are to be found in the Chinese translation. For the Tibetan translation Professor Takasaki has consulted only the Derge edition. A comparison of the passages quoted in the notes with the corresponding passages in the Peking edition (the only one at my disposal) shows that the Derge edition does not always give a satisfactory text. An edition of the Tibetan translation based on the Derge, Peking and Narthang editions would be highly desirable. In view of the importance of the vocabulary of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' for both Buddhist Sanskrit and Mahāyāna terminology, it would also be very useful to have indexes, on the lines of those compiled by Professor Nagao for the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''.<br><br>

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24650390?seq=1 Read more here . . .]<br><br>

===Notes===
1. P. Demiéville, ''BEFEO'', XXIV, 1-2 (1924), p. 53.<br>
2. N. Peri, ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), p. 350; Takasaki, p. 9.<br>
3. Cf. H. W. Bailey and E. H. Johnston, "A Fragment of the Uttaratantra in Sanskrit", ''BSOS'', VIII (1935), pp. 77-89 (esp. p. 81) and Johnston's foreword to his edition of the Sanskrit text, pp. x-xii. To this Sthiramati the Tibetan tradition attributes a commentary on the ''Kāśyapaparivarta''. The Chinese translation (''Taishō'', 1523) is due to Bodhiruci. According to Chinese catalogues this commentary, just as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', has been translated by both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Cf. A. Staël-Holstein's edition (''A Commentary of the ''Kāśyapaparivarta'', Peking, 1933) and P. Pelliot's review, ''TP'', XXXII (1936), pp. 75-76. According to Chinese traditions both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati have translated also the ''Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra'' (''Taishō'', No. 1522), cf. Noël Peri, "A propos de la date de Vasubandhu", ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), pp. 352-353; Stanley Weinstein, "The concept of ''ālaya-vijñāna'' in pre-T'ang Chinese Buddhism". ''Essays on the History of Buddhist Thought. Presented to Professor Reimon Yūki'' (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 34-35. On the relations between Bodhiruci and Ratnamati see P. Demiéville, "Sur l'authenticité du ''Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen''", ''Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise'', II, 2 (Tōkyō, 1929), pp. 30ff.<br>
4. See the references given by Ét. Lamotte, ''L'Enseignement de Vimalakīrti'' (Louvain,
1962), pp. 92-93, n. 2. According to Hattori Masaaki, there is only one Sāramati who lived between Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga-Vasubandhu.<br>
5. Cf. La Vallée Poussin's interesting review, ''MCB'', I (1931-1932), pp. 406-409.<br>
6. Cf. G. Tucci, ''Tibetan Painted Scrolls'', I (Roma, 1949), p. 119: A ''Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism'' (Sendai, 1953), No. 5434. Ogawa Ichijō, "Butsu (Nyorai) to Busshō (Nyoraizō) — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso o shoe to shite", ''IBK'', XIII (1965), pp. 247-250. Id.: "Indo Daijō Bukkyō ni okeru Nyoraizō-Busshō-shisō ni tsuite — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso no kaidoku o kokoromite —", ''Tōhōgaku'', 30 (1965), pp. 102-116. A complete translation of this commentary would be very welcome.<br>
7. According to Frauwallner Sāramati lived about 250 A.D.<br>
8. For completeness' sake mention must be made of a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text in Roman letters and the Chinese translation by Nakamura Zuiryū: The ''Ratnagotravibhāga-Mahāyānottaratantra-çāstra. Compared with Sanskrit and Chinese, with introduction and Notes'' (Tokyo, 1961) (published originally in ''Ōsaki Gakuhō'', 103-110, 1955-1959). More important are the following articles: Tsukinowa Kenryū, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron ni tsuite", ''Nihon Bukkyō Kyōkai Nenpō'', VII (1935) pp. 121-139; Takata Ninkaku, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron no johon ni tsuite", ''Mikkyō Bunka'', 31 (1955) pp. 9-37; Hattori Masaaki, "'Busshōron' no ichi kōsatsu", ''Bukkyō Shigaku'', IV, 3-4 (1955), pp. 16-36 (I have not been able to consult the last two articles); Takata Ninkaku, "Hōshōron ni okeru tenne (āśrayaparivṛtti) ni tsuite", ''IBK'', VI (1958), pp. 501-504; Ogawa Ichijō, "'Busshō' to 'buddhatva'", ''IBK'', XI (1963), pp. 544-545.<br>
9. Not mentioned are two articles published in 1953: "Hōshōron ni okeru nyoraizō no igi", ''IBK'', 1, pp. 368-369 ; "Nyoraizō to engi — Hōshōron o tegakari to shite —", ''IBK'', II, pp. 244-247.
|DisableDropcap=No
}}