A Comparison of the Concepts of Buddha-Nature and Dao-Nature of Medieval China
< Books
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* {{i|5. The definition of "sentient beings"|25}} | * {{i|5. The definition of "sentient beings"|25}} | ||
* {{i|6. Chapter summaries|32}} | * {{i|6. Chapter summaries|32}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Chapter 1: An Examination of the Relationship between Human Nature and the Nature of Inanimate Things in Chinese Thought'''|36}} | * {{i|'''Chapter 1: An Examination of the Relationship between Human Nature and the Nature of Inanimate Things in Chinese Thought'''|36}} | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
* {{i|3. The taxonomy of Daoism|81}} | * {{i|3. The taxonomy of Daoism|81}} | ||
* {{i|4. Conclusion|84}} | * {{i|4. Conclusion|84}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Chapter 2: A Discussion of Dao-Nature in Practical Daoism'''|87}} | * {{i|'''Chapter 2: A Discussion of Dao-Nature in Practical Daoism'''|87}} | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
* {{i|2. The discussion of dao-nature in the Tang dynasty (618–907 A.D.)|114}} | * {{i|2. The discussion of dao-nature in the Tang dynasty (618–907 A.D.)|114}} | ||
* {{i|3. Conclusion|128}} | * {{i|3. Conclusion|128}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Chapter 3: A Discussion of Jizang's 吉藏 Argument that Grasses and Trees Have Buddha-Nature'''|130}} | * {{i|'''Chapter 3: A Discussion of Jizang's 吉藏 Argument that Grasses and Trees Have Buddha-Nature'''|130}} | ||
| Line 39: | Line 42: | ||
* {{i|4. A comparison of Jizang's discussion of buddha-nature with the dao-nature of Daoism|182}} | * {{i|4. A comparison of Jizang's discussion of buddha-nature with the dao-nature of Daoism|182}} | ||
* {{i|5. Conclusion|184}} | * {{i|5. Conclusion|184}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Chapter 4: An Examination of Zhanran's 湛然 Discussion of Buddha-Nature'''|189}} | * {{i|'''Chapter 4: An Examination of Zhanran's 湛然 Discussion of Buddha-Nature'''|189}} | ||
| Line 49: | Line 53: | ||
* {{i|3. An investigation of Chinese thought in Zhanran's Fuxing 輔行 (止觀輔行傳弘決) and its association with Zhanran's discussion of buddha-nature|223}} | * {{i|3. An investigation of Chinese thought in Zhanran's Fuxing 輔行 (止觀輔行傳弘決) and its association with Zhanran's discussion of buddha-nature|223}} | ||
* {{i|4. Conclusion|243}} | * {{i|4. Conclusion|243}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Conclusion: A Comparison of Buddha-Nature and Dao-Nature'''|247}} | * {{i|'''Conclusion: A Comparison of Buddha-Nature and Dao-Nature'''|247}} | ||
| + | |||
* {{i|'''Bibliography'''|266}} | * {{i|'''Bibliography'''|266}} | ||
Revision as of 13:38, 5 June 2019
Abstract
This thesis, a comparison of the concepts of buddha-nature and dao-nature in the medieval period (from the 5th to the 10th centuries) of China, presents a historical investigation of the formation of the idea that insentient things are able to possess buddha-nature in medieval Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism. In Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, the concept of buddha-nature was originally defined as a potential possessed by sentient beings that enabled them to achieve buddhahood. From the 6th century, the concept was reinterpreted within the Chinese Buddhist tradition so that insentient things were also able to possess buddha-nature. Recent scholarship has pointed out that the idea of insentient things having buddha-nature is a combination of Buddhist and Daoist ideas based on the concept of the all-pervading Dao found in the Zhuangzi 莊子. In this sense, buddha-nature seems to be interpreted as equivalent with the Dao of Daoism. My project suggests that the reinterpretation of buddha-nature in association with the insentient realm should be elucidated in a more nuanced way than the idea of all-pervasiveness of the Dao. A historical, doctrinal investigation of the intellectual formation of the concept of buddha-nature in Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism demonstrates a new interpretation of buddha-nature in the context of insentient things having buddha-nature. Further, through a historical investigation of intellectual exchange between Buddhism and Daoism, some evidence provided in this project illustrates that the idea of insentient things having dao-nature in Daoism was not inherited from Buddhism, but drawn from Daoist tradition. This new perspective is different from that of some contemporary scholars who have claimed that the idea of insentient things having dao-nature was borrowed from Chinese Buddhism. A chronological investigation of the discussion of nature in Chinese thought demonstrates that the idea of insentient things having buddha-nature incorporates earlier Daoist traditions found in Arcane Study.
| Citation | Tseng, Chih-Mien Adrian. "A Comparison of the Concepts of Buddha-Nature and Dao-Nature of Medieval China." PhD diss., McMaster University, 2014. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/15419/1/Chih-mien%20Adrian%20Tseng%27s%20dissertation%202014-07.pdf |
|---|---|
