Property:ArticleAbstract
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
&
No abstract given. Here is the first relevant paragraph:<br><br>
From ancient times, the origin of "''tathāgata''", which has been usually translated as 如 來 (one who comes thus), is not unknown. This has been used as the title of Buddha, chiefly in Buddhism from the start.<br> Now, I will consider the meaning of "''tathāgata''" in the ''Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā Prajñāpāramitā-vyākhyā'' of Haribhadra (ed. by Wogihara) (W.). This includes the ''Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra'' (''As.''), Maitreya's ''Abhisamayālaṃkāraśāstra-kārikā'' (''A.'') which is a summary of the ''Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra'' (''P.''), and Haribhadra's commentary which is based on the ''P.'' and the ''As.'' Accordingly at first, I point out sentences of "''tathāgata''", which I think as the etymological explanations, and then survey the character of it. (Mano, "'Tathāgata' in Haribhadra's Commentary," 22) +
''Hongaku shisō'', the idea that all beings are "inherently" enlightened, is an almost universal assumption in the Japanese Buddhist tradition. This idea also played an important role in the indigenization of Buddhism in Japan and in the development of the syncretistic religious ethos that underlies Japanese society. Through most of Japanese history, the idea of the inherent enlightenment (including non-sentient beings such as plants and rocks—which expanded to include assumptions such as the non-differentiation between "indigenous" kami and the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the transcendence of all dualities (including good and evil) as an ideal—was pervasive and unquestioned in much of Japanese religious activity and thought. Recently some Japanese Buddhist scholars, notably Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō of the Sōtō Zen sect [at] Komazawa University, have questioned the legitimacy of this ethos, claiming that it is antithetical to basic Buddhist ideas such as ''anātman'' ("no-self"), and that it is the source of many social problems in Japan. They call for a conscious recognition and rejection of this ethos, and a return to "true Buddhism." After presenting a brief outline of the history and significance of these ideas in Japan, Hakamaya and Matsumoto's critique is explained and examined. Some of the academic and social reactions to this critique are also explored. +
Articles/'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Dharmatā Chapter of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakārikās +
'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's (1392-1481) commentary on the second chapter of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' (RGVV) is introduced by a detailed explanation of the ''dharmatā'' chapter in the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakārikās'' (DhDhVK). This is, according to gZhon nu dpal, because the detailed presentation of ''āśrayaparivŗtti'' in the DhDhV is a commentary on the ''bodhi'' chapter of the RGV. In both texts, ''āśrayaparivŗtti'' refers to a positively described ultimate which is revealed by removing adventitious stains. Whereas in the RGV this is the Buddha-element (or ''tathāgatagarbha'') with its inseparable qualities, it is the ''dharmatā'', suchness or natural luminosity (''prakŗtiprabhāsvaratā'') in the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavŗtti'' (DhDhVV). This luminosity is compared to primordially pure space, gold and water which must have their adventitious stains removed before they can be discovered. From this gZhon nu dpal concludes that the DhDhVV belongs to the Madhyamaka tradition. Consequently, the typical Yogācāra negation of external objects is taken as referring to the latters' non-existence in terms of ''svabhāva''.<br> What makes gZhon nu dpal's DhDhV-commentary so interesting is his ''mahāmudrā'' interpretation of a central topic in the DhDhV, i.e., the abandonment of all "mentally created characteristic signs" (''nimittas''). The latter practice plays a crucial role in the cultivation of non-conceptual wisdom, which is taken as the cause or the foundation of ''āśrayaparivŗtti'' in the DhDhV. Based on Sahajavajra's (11th century) ''Tattvadaśakaţīkā'' gZhon nu dpal explains that the ''nimittas'' are abandoned by directly realizing their natural luminosity which amounts to a direct or non-conceptual experience of their true nature. To be sure, while the usual Mahāyāna approach involves an initial analysis of the ''nimittas'', namely, an analytic meditation which eventually turns into non-conceptual abiding in the same way as a fire kindled from rubbing pieces of wood bums the pieces of wood themselves (gZhon nu dpal explains this on the basis of Kamalaśīla's commentary on the ''Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraņī''), ''mahāmudrā'' pith-instructions enable a meditation of direct perceptions right from the beginning. In view of the fact that such direct perceptions of emptiness (or ''dharmatā'' in this context here) usually start from the first Bodhisattva-level onwards, gZhon nu dpal also tries to show that the four yogas of ''mahāmudrā'' are in accordance with the four ''prayogas'' of the DhDhV. It should be noted that such a ''mahāmudrā'' interpretation must have already existed in India, as can be seen from Jñānakīrti's (10th/11th-century) ''Tattvāvatāra'', in which a not-specifically-Tantric form of ''mahāmudrā'' practice is related with the traditional fourfold Mahāyāna meditation by equating "Mahāyāna" in ''Lańkāvatārasūtra'' X.257d with ''mahāmudrā''. The ''pādas'' X.257cd "A yogin who is established in a state without appearances sees Mahāyāna" thus mean that one finally sees or realizes ''mahāmudrā''.<br> To sum up, the DhDhV plays an important role for gZhon nu dpal in that it provides a canonical basis for his ''mahāmudrā'' tradition, and by showing that the ''dharmatā'' portion of the DhDhV is a commentary on the second chapter of the RGV, gZhon nu dpal skillfully links his ''mahāmudrā'' interpretation to the standard Indian work on Buddha-nature, and thus to a concept which considerably facilitated the bridging of the Sūtras with the Tantras. ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29770680_Gos_Lo_tsa_ba_gZhon_nu_dpal's_Commentary_on_the_Dharmata_Chapter_of_the_Dharmadharmatavibhagakarikas Source Accessed April 1, 2020])
Articles/'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long)-Review by Hugon +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
This book contains a critical edition of a Tibetan commentary composed by 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481) on the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''. The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', attributed to Maitreya, and its ''vyākhyā'', attributed to Asaṅga, are of special significance in Buddhism for the discussion of the 'buddha-nature' (''tathāgatagarbha''), i.e. the idea that the nature of a buddha is inherent in every human being. gZhon nu dpal's commentary (hereafter: ZhP), which has never been published before, provides an account on this issue which is imposing both in view of its size as well as its historical and philosophical importance. Mathes' edition thus provides an important and valuable contribution to future studies on the subject.<br> The edition proper (pp. 1-576) is preceded by a brief introduction (pp. ix–xvii) which, besides editorial remarks, deals with gZhon nu dpal's life and education on the basis of an unpublished biography by his disciple Zhwa dmar Chos kyi grags pa (1453-1524), and of the ''bKa' gdams chos 'byung'' of Las chen Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (b. 1440), another of his disciples.[1] This information adds to the preliminary observations by Mathes in an article entitled '"Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Extensive Commentary on and Study of the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā" (Mathes 2002)[2], which gives a more detailed biographical account and discusses the position that gZhon nu dpal holds in ZhP.<br> 'Gos Lo tsā ba Yid bzang rtse ba gZhon nu dpal is well known to Tibetologists for his work entitled ''The Blue Annals'' (''Deb ther sngon po''), composed a few years earlier than ZhP.[3] This mine of biographical, bibliographical and historical information already gives us an idea of the mastery that this remarkable scholar had of all fields of Buddhist studies. Mathes' introduction informs us of the key elements of gZhon nu dpal's thorough education in all the major religious traditions with the most important masters of the time, such as Tsong kha pa (1357-1419), the Fifth Karmapa De bzhin gshegs pa (1384-1415), the rNying ma pa teacher sGrol ma ba Sangs rgyas rin chen (1350-1430), or the Sa skya master Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (1367-1449). gZhon nu dpal distinguishes himself by his open-minded and non-sectarian approach, which is reflected in his ZhP, where he combines the commentarial tradition of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109) with sGam po pa's (1079- 1153) "Great Seal" (''mahāmudrā'') interpretation. The introduction also deals with the circumstances of the redaction of ZhP — composed in 1473 as gZhon nu dpal was nearly blind and had to dictate his work from memory over a period of four months — and of the carving of the printing blocks as described in the colophon. Mathes notes that gZhon nu dpal obviously had access to the Sanskrit original of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' as he frequently discusses Sanskrit words from this text and occasionally mentions or (politely) criticizes the existing translation by rNgog Lo tsä ba Bio ldan shes rab, which is the one found in the canon (sDe dge ''bsTan 'gyur'' 4024–4025).[4] Mathes (p.xv) also mentions a translation by Nag tsho Lo tsā ba which gZhon nu dpal occasionally discusses, but gives no specifics about this translator.[5] By comparing the quotations of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' in ZhP with the Sanskrit text (edited by E.H. Johnston)[6] and the Tibetan translation found in the canon (edited by Z. Nakamura on the basis of Sde dge, Narthang and Peking ''bsTan 'gyur'')[7], Mathes establishes that gZhon nu dpal's version, in several cases, better fits the original (p. xiv).
[https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=ast-002%3A2006%3A60%3A%3A248#252 Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Other bigraphical sources mentioned in Mathes 2002:80 (see n.2) include the ''Kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i rnam thar'' of Situ and 'Be lo, the ''Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod'', and Khetsun Sangpo's ''Bibliographical Dictionary''.
#Published in: ''Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet'', Tibetan Studies II, PIATS 2000, ed. by H. Blezer with the assistance of A. Zadoks. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library Vol. 2/2. Leiden: Brill, pp. 79-96.
#For a translation of this work, see George N. Roerich, ''The Blue Annals'', reprint Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass [First ed. Calcutta, 1949; second ed. Delhi, 1976; reprints Delhi, 1978, 1988, 1995, 1996].
#Mathes (p.xv n.44) gives two references of such passages in ZhP; in the first one, gZhon nu dpal says that rNgog Blo ldan shes rab's translation is "somewhat incorrect" (''cung zad mi legs te'') (ZhP 94,4).
#It is most probably Nag (')tsho Lo tsä ba Tshul khrims rgyal ba (1011-1064), who was a student of Atisa. According to gZhon nu dpal's ''Blue Annals'' (''Deb ther sngon po''), Nag tsho Lo tsā ba and Atiśa were asked by rNgog Byang chub 'byung gnas of Yer pa to translate Asaṅga's commentary on the ''Mahāyāna-Uttaratantra'', i.e. the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''. See George N. Roerich, op. cit., p. 259. In ZhP 4,19-20, gZhon nu dpal refers to a translation by Dīpaṃkara and Nag tsho. A discussion of Nag tsho's translation appears for instance in ZhP 482,16.
#The ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'', Patna, 1950: The Bihar Research Society.
#''Zōwa-taiyaku Kukyōichijōhōshōron-kenkyū'', Tokyo, 1967: Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>’Gos Lo-tsa-ba gZhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481) was one of the most brilliant scholars in Tibet and is famous for his religious history, the ''Blue Annals'' {''Deb thersngon po''). He is also known as a translator (''lo tsa ba'') and for his contributions to Buddhist doctrine and philosophy. However, except for the ''Blue Annals'' his own work has not been available until now. For this reason this first publication of a doctrinal commentary, ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long'' (''ZhP''), is most welcome. In this commentary he presents a unique interpretation of the teaching of the Buddha-nature (''tathagatagarbha'') in the ''Ratnagotravibhaga/vyakhya'' (''RGV/V'') following the ''mahāmudrā'' tradition. Of more than fifty commentaries on the ''RGV'' known to have been written in Tibet, the ''ZhP'' is one of the most extensive and remarkable.<br> The editor, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, has previously contributed to the study of the Tibetan hermeneutical traditions of Yogācāra works such as the ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāga''. He has already published a survey of this ''RGV'' commentary (p. xviii), and has also studied this commentary for his Habilitation, currently being prepared for publication (p. xi). In the introduction to the book under review, Mathes presents a brief biography of gZhon-nu-dpal and sketches his general philosophical position (pp. ix-xi). He then discusses the sources on which his edition is based (pp. xi-xiv), selected particular features of the ''ZhP'' (pp. xiv-xv), and his editorial method (pp. xv-xvi), ending with technical notes (pp. xvi-xvii) and bibliography (pp. xviii-xix).<br> The main part of this book consists of a critical edition of the ''ZhP'' in 576 pages, based on a manuscript in ''dbu-med'' script (A) and a block print (B). The block print was completed in 1479, soon after the composition of the ''ZhP'' in 1473 (pp. xii-xiii). Regarding the relationship between the manuscript and block print, Mathes states: "This leaves us with the probable case that A and B share a common source" (p. xii). As to the editorial method, he states, "My editing policy has been to compare gZhon nu dpal’s quotations with the Derge and Peking editions of the Kanjur and Tanjur, but to leave the original reading wherever possible." He also states, "Unusual or wrong spellings have been adapted to the usage of modern Tibetan," and he provides a list of emended spellings (pp. xv-xvi). Mathes has thus "corrected" the old orthography found in the two manuscripts into modern spellings. Though this allows a smoother reading for modern Tibetan readers, it might have been better to retain as much as possible the spellings current in the late fifteenth century, if they can be identified as such. (Kano, "Review of '''Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''," 143)<br><br>
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20064310?seq=1 Read more here . . .]
Articles/'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Extensive Commentary on and Study of the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In this paper I present some preliminary observations on 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal's (1392-1481) commentary on the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'', which I am editing and evaluating as a part of my habilitation project. Three years ago I gained access to a photocopy of a 698-folio-long handwritten ''dbu med'' version of this text.[1] Like the Indian ''vyākhyā'', the commentary is divided into five chapters. Their headings are listed together with the folio numbers on a cover page, which bears the seal of the Zhva dmar pa and assigns the letter ''ha'' to the volume containing Gzhon nu dpal's commentary. It is thus reasonable to assume that the original was kept in the library of the Shamarpas in Yangpacan, probably already from the time of the famous Fourth Shamarpa Chos kyi grags pa (1453-1524), who was a disciple of Gzhon nu dpal. After the war with Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1792, Yangpacan was seized by the Gelug government and the text found its way to Drepung, where many other Kagyu texts were kept. Recently I received a photocopy of a Yangpacan block-print from Tibet with the same text on 463 folios. This could be the text described by A khu ching Shes rab rgya mtsho as having 461 folios.[2] The numbering starts anew with each chapter; thus a small calculation mistake could explain the difference of two folios. (Mathes, introductory remarks, 79)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#'Gos ''Lo tsā ba'' Gzhon nu dpal: ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long'', 698 fols. (''dbu med''), unpublished.
#See Lokesh Chandra (1963.1:523.11341), l am indebted to B. Quessel, British Library, for this reference. +
A
Articles/A Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith: "Śikṣānanda's" Redaction of the Word "Nien" +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The text, ''Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun''<sup>f</sup> (The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, henceforth abbreviated as AFM), has been the center of a long controversy in the field of Buddhist studies. It has been suspected by Mochizuki Shinkō<sup>g</sup>[1] and others to be a Chinese fabrication, while Tokiwa Daijō and others defend its alleged Indian origin. The present short article will not review the past and present scholarship on the AFM or bring in my own studies on the matter.[2] It will be devoted to one tiny but crucial issue: the fate of a key concept in the two "translations"—Paramārtha's original (AFM) and Śikṣānanda's version (AFMS for short). The concept is ''nien'' and ''wu-nien''. To state the conclusion here so as to simplify our discussion: the ''nien'' complex, in my opinion, cannot be understood without reference to a pre-Buddhist (Han Chinese) usage of the term. It is foreign or jarring enough to the person responsible for the AFMS that it has been systematically modified or outright substituted so as to bring the AFM in line with the Yogācāra (Wei-shih,<sup>i</sup> Vijñaptimātratā) philosophy. By showing the sinitic character of the ''nien'' ideology, its centrality in the AFM, and the redaction of it by the AFMS, we can come one step closer to resolving the long controversy over the authorship of the AFM. From the limited evidence in this one short study, it would appear that the AFM was authored in China and the AFMS was a conscious redaction of the AFM in China (or Korea?[3]) to bring this work into line with the demands of Hsüan-tsang's<sup>j</sup> Wei-shih philosophy.<br> We will begin with a survey of modern Sanskritists' attempts at identifying ''nien'' and why such attempts have ultimately failed. Then we will look at a similar attempt by the AFMS to edit off the ''nien'' ideology and how by so doing it violated the integrity of the original AFM message. The sinitic meaning of the term ''nien'' and ''wu-nien'' will be demonstrated with precedents in Han thought, usages in the Six Dynasties and in Ch'an.<sup>k</sup> I will conclude with a word on why AFMS was produced. (Lai, "A Clue to the Authorship of the ''Awakening of Faith''," 34–35)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Mochizuki, ''Daijo kishinron no kenkyu<sup>cn</sup> (Kyoto, 1922).
#Ongoing project since my dissertation (Harvard, 1975).
#Mochizuki suggests Korea because of the discovery of the AFMS in Korea.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>The term ' ''ārambaṇa'' ' is one of the technical terms unique to Buddhism. Being equivalent to Pali ' ''ārammaṇa'' ' and Cl. Skt. ' ''ālambana'' ' it is usually used in the sense of 'basis of cognition' or 'sense-object', e.g. ''rūpa'' as ''ārambaṇa'' of ''cakṣurvijñāna'', or ''dharma'' as that of ''manovijñāna''. The usual equivalent to this term in Tibetan and Chinese language is ' ''dmigs pa'' ' and '所 縁', respectively.<br> What I am going to examine here is whether or not the same meaning mentioned above can be applied to this term used in the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV), I, 9.<br><br>
[https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/10/2/10_2_757/_pdf/-char/en Read more here . . .] +
Articles/A Comparative Study of Taehyŏn, Wŏnhyo, and Fazangs’ Views on Ālayavijñāna and Tathāgatagarbha +
The concept of ''ālayavijñāna'' has been accepted in East Asia by either demonstrating its association to ''tathāgatagarbha'' or negating it, since Bodhiruci (fl. 508-35) introduced it by translating the ''Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra''. It was in this context that the ''Awakening of Faith'' (C. ''Dasheng qixin lun'' 大乘起信論) drew East Asian Buddhist scholiasts’ attention. The central message of the ''Awakening of Faith'' that ''tathāgatagarbha'' is synthesized to ''ālayavijñāna'' in neither-identical-nor-different condition is directly associated to the contemporary issue of how ''ālayavijñāna'' serves as the basis of sentient being’s enlightenment. Silla Yogācāra exegete Taehyŏn 大賢 (ca. 8th century) is one of the East Asian monks who noted the ''Awakening of Faith'' and articulates the relationship between ''tathāgatagarbha'' and ''ālayavijñāna'' in the ''Taesŭng kisillon naeŭi yak t’amgi'' 大乘起信論內義略探記, his commentary of the ''Awakening of Faith''. This article explores Taehyŏn’s views on ''ālayavijñāna'' and ''tathāgatagarbha'' in his commentary of the ''Awakening of Faith'' in comparison to those of other exegetes, such as Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Fazang 法藏 (643–712). This article seeks to demonstrate on the basis of this examination that there were distinct doctrinal positions on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' of the ''Awakening of Faith'', which are also associated to their understandings of consciousness system. +
Articles/A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Āmnāyamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr.259b +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
An encyclopedic author active during the reign of King Rāmapāla (ca. 1084–1126/1077–
ca. 1119) of the Pāla Dynasty, Abhayākaragupta is renowned for his erudition in a vast range of subjects in Buddhism.[1] His expertise is especially prominent in, though not limited to, the area of Tantric Buddhism, as attested by the well-known "Garland Trilogy" (''phreng ba skor gsum''), i.e. his three major works on Tantric ritual (''Vajrāvalī'', ''Jyotirmañjarī'', and ''Niṣpannayogāvalī''), which exercised a great influence on the Buddhism of the later period in Nepal and Tibet.<br> The Peking bsTan 'gyur includes twenty-six works ascribed to Abhayākaragupta, of which twenty-three are in the domain of Tantra; the other three deal with non-Tantric Buddhism.[2] Though most of these works are only available through Tibetan translation, some important texts of Abhayākaragupta are preserved in Sanskrit. The following works in Sanskrit have hitherto been edited: ''Niṣpannayogāvalī''; ''Vajrāvalī''; ''Jyotimañjarī''; ''Ucchuṣmajambhalasādhana''; ''Svādhiṣṭhānakramopadeśa''.[3] In addition, Sanskrit manuscripts are known to exist of the ''Pañcakramatātparyapañjikā Kramakaumudī'', ''Kālacakrāvatāra'', and ''Abhayapaddhati''.[4] According to some recent information, furthermore, Sanskrit manuscripts of the ''Āmnāyamañjarī'', ''Munimatālaṅkāra'' and ''Madhyamakamañjarī''[5] have been discovered in Tibet [6]<br> The ''Amnāyamañjarī'', which may be called the magnum opus of Abhayākaragupta, is a commentary on the ''Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra'' and an encyclopedic compendium of Indian Tantric Buddhism. According to Bühnemann, Abhayākaragupta undertook the composition of the ''Amnāyamañjarī'' before 1101 or 1108 C.E. (twenty-fifth regnal year of Rāmapāla) and completed it in 1113 or 1120 C.E (thirty-seventh year of Rāmapāla). As has been remarked,[7] the ''Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra'', though traditionally considered to be an Explanatory Tantra (''vyākhyātantra'') of the ''Hevajra'' and ''Saṃvara'' cycles, integrates many doctrinal and ritual elements adopted from several heterogeneous textual traditions such as that of the ''Guhyasamāja''. Because of this "ecumenical" character of the ''Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra'', the ''Amnāyamañjarī'' as its commentary also encompasses a great variety of subjects relating to the doctrine and ritual of Tantric Buddhism. The ''Amnāyamañjarī'' is referred to several times by Abhayākaragupta himself in his other works, such as the ''Munimatālaṅkāra'',
''Abhayapaddhati'', ''Pañcakramatātparyapañjikā'', and ''Vajrāvalī''.[8] In turn, the ''Āmnāyamañjarī''
refers to his other works [9]<br> Though, as remarked above, the existence of a presumably complete Sanskrit manuscript of the ''Āmnāyamañjarī'' has been reported, it still remains inaccessible to us. However, a single folio fragment of this text has been recently identified in the collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in Göttingen. In this paper, we describe this manuscript fragment and present a critical edition and an annotated translation of the text contained in it. We also include as appendices an edition of the corresponding part of the Tibetan translation as well as parallel passages found in Kamalanātha's ''Ratnāvalī'' and Abhayākaragupta's ''Abhayapaddhati''. (Tomabechi and Kano, Abhayākaragupta and the ''Āmnāyamañjarī'', 22–23)<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#For the dates and works of Abhayākaragupta, see Erb 1997: 27–29: Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: Bühnemann 1992.<br>
#For bibliographical information on these works, see Bühnemann 1992: 123–125.<br>
#The ''Svādhiṣṭhānakramopadeśa'' (or ''Dvibhujasaṃvaropadeśa'') was edited by Okuyama (1993).<br>
#The Centre for Tantric Studies at University of Hamburg is currently working on a joint project to the ''Abhayapaddhati'' in collaboration with CTRC (China Tibetology Research Centre). Tomabechi is preparing a critical edition of the ''Kramakaumudī'' based on the manuscript copy preserved at CTRC.<br>
#The latter text is not included in the bsTan 'gyur, but is mentioned by Abhayākaragupta himself in the ''Munimatālaṅkāra'', D 145v6; P 179r8: ''mdor bsdus pa ni kho bos dbu ma'i snye mar phul du byung bar rnam par bshad do; Āmnāyamañjarī'', D 28r1; P 31r2–3: '' 'di'i skye ba dang 'jig pa de dag kyang dbu ma'i snye mar nges par dpyad zin pas'' (P: ''pa'i'') ... ; D 76v7–77r1; P 86v2-3: ''thsad ma gang gis 'di rang bzhin med pa nyid du bsgrub pa de ni bdag cag gis rgyas pa dang bcas par dbu ma'i snye mar nye bar bkod cing; D 162r5–6; P 179v1: bzlog pa kho na las de kho na nyid 'di rnams so zhes dbu ma'i snye mar nges par dpyad zin to (P: ''te''). See also Isoda 1984: 3 n. 14.<br>
#These texts are registered in the (unpublished) catalogue of microfilms kept at the CTRC in Beijing. Tomabechi confirmed the existence of the copies of these manuscripts during his visit to Beijing in May–June 2007.<br>
#Noguchi 1984 and Skorupski 1996: 201.<br>
#See ''Munimatālaṅkāra'', D 89r4; P 93v2, D 218r7; P 287r4, ''Kramakaumudī'', fol. 22v4, 27r1, 53v4. For the ''Abhayapaddhati'' see Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: xiv and Bühnemann 1992:123; and for the ''Vajrāvalī'', see Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: xvi and Bühnemann 1992: 125.<br>
#''Vajrāvalī'' (in ĀM D 72v3; P 82r2, D 97r1; P 108r7, D 188v7; P 208r5, D 24Or2; P 266v4, D 257v2; P 288r4, D 260r4; P 291r5–6), ''Jyotirmañjarī'' (in ĀM D 24Or2; P 266v3, D 260r3; P 291r4), ''Madhyamakamañjarī'' (in ĀM D 28r1; P 31r2–3, D 76v7-77r1; P 86v2–3, D 162r6; P 179v1; See note 6 above), ''Munimatālaṃkāra'' (in ĀM D 12r3; P 13v3, D 24v5; P 27v2, D 24v6; P 27v4, D 33v4; P 37v1–2, D 41v7–42r1; P 47r2, D 52r1; P 56r6, D 77r1; P 86v3, D 112v5–6); P 125r3, D 174v7; P 193r8, D 225v3; P 249r2, D 270r1–2; P 302v6), ''Abhayapaddhati'' (in ĀM D 77r1; P 86v2, D 209r2; P 229v8), ''Cakrasaṃvarābhisamaya'' (in ĀM D 172v6; P 191r6–7, D 242v3; P 269v7).
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Sanskrit text, unearthed by Dr. Bailey, contains a passage from which important deductions may be drawn on a vexed question of the history of Buddhist dogma. It falls into two parts, the first of which consists of the opening verses of several works. Two of these, the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra'' and the ''Mūlamadhyamakārikās'', are too well known to need comment, though the copyist distinguishes himself by transposing the authors' names. Of the remainder, the first is from an unnamed work, which I cannot identify but which dealt perhaps with the "false views", and the third is attributed to the ''Mahāyānasamāsa'', a title apparently unknown to the Tibetan and Chinese translations; the application of the epithet ''nirmala'' to ''dharma'' suggests the possibility that it is a work of the Prajñāpāramitā school. The last verse in this part is described as opening the ''Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra'' of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, that is, the ''Uttaratantra'', the crabbed Tibetan version of which has recently been rendered into English with remarkable skill by Dr. Obermiller in ''Acta Orientalia'', ix. The Chinese translation (Taisho Issaikyo ed., No. 1611) is usually styled the ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'', despite the fact that the title literally translated, as pointed out long ago by Nanjio, is ''Uttaraikayānaratnagotraśāstra'', where ''ekayāna'' should presumably be taken as the translator's interpretation of the significance of the term ''tantra''. According to P. C. Bagchi, ''Le Canon bouddhique en Chine'', p. 249, a Chinese catalogue of A.D. 597 knows an alternative title, of which the first part is ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', in agreement with the roll. The second part of the text is an excerpt of nine verses from the same work, chapter iii, 1-7 and 9, according to Dr. Obermiller, who has amalgamated the two verses, 5 and 6, into one; the copyist has also numbered the verses, but wrongly, treating the ''Śārdūlavikrīḍita'' verse, number 7, as two, by reason of the transcription dividing each ''pāda'' into two parts at the cæsura. (Bailey and Johnson, "A Fragment of the ''Uttaratantra'' in Sanskrit," 76–78)
Buddha-nature theory, the idea that all beings possess in some way the potential for enlightenment, is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions. First appearing in India around the third or fourth century CE, it spread to China beginning in the fifth century with the translation of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' and other buddha-nature scriptures, where it inspired the concept of original enlightenment, most famously articulated in the ''Awakening of Faith''. Tibetans received the teaching first in the eighth century with the translations of the sūtras, but it only began to have an impact in the eleventh century with the translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Conforming to neither Madhyamaka nor Yogācāra, buddha-nature has been incorporated somewhat uneasily into both, although as a positivistic theory of reality it has been more easily accepted by Yogācārin traditions. +
Articles/A Late Proponent of the Jo nang gZhan stong Doctrine: Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho (1880–1940) +
Although the doctrines and leading early figures of the Jonang tradition have been the focus of increasing scholarly attention over the past thirty years, much has yet to be written about developments in the tradition during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The goal of this paper is to shed light on this later period by focusing on one particular Jo nang thinker, Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho (1880-1940). In order to contextualize his distinctive view and style, I will begin by sketching the historical evolution of the Jo nang tradition across Central and Eastern Tibet, and by providing some biographical and doctrinal information about Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s main teacher, ’Ba’ mda’ Thub bstan dge legs rgya mtsho (1844-1904). +
This article introduces two studies by classical Tibetan Buddhist scholars that explain the range of meanings of the term ''zhentong''. The two texts—one by Pema Bidza (twentieth century), the other by Tāranātha (1575–1634)—are analytical studies that summarize and compare the various views of previous scholars who wrote on zhentong. Such interpretive studies are valuable in that they present us with different ways of interpreting the heterogeneous material classified under the rubric "zhentong." They also suggest ways of contextualizing the different levels of discourse found within this material. +
Articles/A Luminous Transcendence of Views: The Thirty Apophatic Topics in dPal dbyangs's Thugs kyi sgron ma +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
The constructed nostalgia of the later Great Perfection, or rDzogs chen, tradition gazes backward temporally and geographically toward eighth-century India, reminiscing an era in which the subcontinent is thought to have served as generous benefactor of Dharma gifts to the fledging Buddhist empire of Tibet. Insistence on the familiar Buddhist requirements for true transmission—authenticity and legitimacy founded in lineage and longevity—certainly inspired many of its textual "revelations" beginning in the eleventh century. Many of those nostalgic constructions of rNying ma history have been well documented by modern scholars.<br> It would be rash to assert, however, that despite all those imaginings, there were no historical primordia of the Great Perfection in the preceding centuries. The textual roots of the Mind Series (''sems sde'') texts are testament to these early stirrings, as are the Dunhuang manuscripts identified by Sam van Schaik as expressing a form of “Tibetan Zen.”[1] A third seed was planted via the Tibetan Mahāyoga tantra tradition, and within it, germinations of Great Perfection gnoseology, observable prominently in the ninth-century works of dPal dbyangs, who in some colophons and later histories is designated gNyan dPal dbyangs. His works include six canonical verse texts retrospectively entitled ''sGron ma drug'', or ''Six Lamps'',[2] and the ''rDo rje sems dpa’ zhus lan'' (''Vajrasattva Questions and Answers'') catechism found at Dunhuang in three manuscript copies. I have discussed these texts and their most likely Indian inspirations elsewhere. Here, I highlight a particular text within the ''Six Lamps'', his ''Thugs kyi sgron ma'' (''Lamp of the Mind''), as intending to establish, quite early on, a standard set of topics we see well developed in systemizations of the early Great Perfection tradition a few centuries later, and perhaps even before that, in Mind Series texts such as those attributed to Mañjuśrīmitra like the ''Byang chub kyi sems rdo la gser zhun'' and the ''Byang chub sems bsgom pa''.[3]<br> Of all dPal dbyangs’s texts, the ''Thugs kyi sgron ma'' is the ideological, linguistic, and practical hinge to his Mayājāla corpus as a whole, linking the other five of the ''Six Lamps'' texts and providing convincing evidence for accepting those ''Six Lamps'' as a collection, as well as offering insight to the later interpretations of his catechism. The ''Thugs kyi sgron ma'' displays dPal dbyangs’s full range of presentation. It includes, on the one hand, dPal dbyangs’s direct recommendations to Mahāyoga tantra, and on the other hand, his depictions of the realization of reality as utterly unstructured, unmediated, and transcendent of any dichotomization or reification, using the apophatic language sprinkled throughout the rest of the ''Six Lamps'' texts. Thus, by emphasizing these two elements—the transgressive and the transcendent—within a single text, the ''Thugs kyi sgron ma'' may have served as a valuable field guide to early Tibetan Mahāyoga and at least to some degree as a useful strategic plan for the cultivation of something more sustainable and vibrant on Tibetan soil, the Great Perfection. As I hope to show, dPal dbyangs’s very deliberate indexing of these topics appears to have been intended to standardize them as interpretive categories even while undercutting the value of reliance upon them as such, redefining Mahāyoga tantra as it found its earliest shape in Tibet. (Takahashi, introductory remarks, 159–60)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Sam van Schaik, “The Early Days of the Great Perfection,” ''Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies'' 27.1: 167 and 201.
#''The Six Lamps'' texts are as follows: ''The Lamp of the Mind'' (''Thugs kyi sgron ma''), ''The Lamp of the Correct View'' (''lTa ba yang dag sgron ma''), ''The Lamp Illuminating the Extremes'' (''mTha'i mun sel sgron ma''), ''The Lamp of Method and Wisdom'' (''Thabs shes sgron ma''), ''The Lamp of the Method of Meditation'' (''bsGom thabs kyi sgron ma''), and ''The Lamp of the Precious View'' (''lTa ba rin chen sgron ma''). These are P5918, P5919, P5920, P5921, P5922, and P5923, respectively. There are other ''Lamp'' collections in both Nyingma and Bön traditions, usually comprising four or six texts. The most prominent example of these is from the Bönpo Great Perfection lineage, the ''sGron ma drug gi gdams pa''. See Christopher Hatchell's "Advice on the Six Lamps" in ''Naked Seeing: The Great Perfection, the Wheel of Time, and Visionary Buddhism in Renaissance Tibet'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), and Jean-Luc Achard’s English translation in the ''Six Lamps: Secret Dzogchen Instructions of the Bön Tradition'' (Boston: Wisdom, 2017).
#See Namkhai Norbu and Kennard Lipman’s ''Primordial Experience: An Introduction to rDzogs-chen Meditation'' (Boston: Shambhala, 2001). Karen Liljenberg has discovered parallel passages to dPal dbyangs’s ''Lamp'' text the ''Thabs shes sgron ma'' in the ''rTse mo byung rgyal'', a text she has identified as belonging to the ''sems sde'' corpus the ''Sems sde lung chen po bco brgyad''. Karen Liljenberg, “A Critical Study of the Thirteen Later Translations of the Dzogchen Mind Series” (doctoral dissertation, SOAS, 2012), 57-60. I suspect there are further discoveries to be made of such borrowings between early Tibetan Mahāyoga texts and those of the early Mind Series. See also Liljenberg's paper elsewhere in this issue.
This essay deals with how the Sanskrit term ''tathāgatagarbha'' is used in the Mahāyāna text to which it gave its name, the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''. Whether the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' is the oldest text in which the term appears or not, the particular way in which it is applied there documents that the authors created or made use of it while associating it with many diverse aspects, less in a philosophical or ''abhidharma''-like way but rather in a loose and associative style, opening the door to incorporate the different connotations described metaphorically in the sūtra. The rich illustrations found in the sūtra help us understand the early context in which the
term was coined and took shape. It will become evident that it is impossible to reduce the genesis and meaning of the term ''tathāgatagarbha'' by way of a monoexplanatory model. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
=====A Philosophy of Plants=====
The philosopher Tomonobu Imamichi (1922–2012) pointed out that most Japanese family crests are based on plant designs, indicating that, compared with cultures that employ dragons and eagles, or lions and tigers in their heraldry, Japanese cultural patterns show a strong tendency toward adaptability and harmony. Plants survive not as individuals but by species adaptation. This means that they grow where their seed randomly falls, existing within a pattern of dramatic change as their branches and leaves grow. Imamichi wrote, "In the very workings of their life, plants are a reiteration of elegant beauty as they bud, bloom, fall, proliferate, fruit, and change color, all within an intense yet inconspicuous struggle for life" (''Tōyō no bigaku'' [Aesthetics of the East], TBS Britannica, 1980). Plants take root in that space where their seed falls and form a community with other plants. They maintain harmony with their surroundings and continually transform themselves, adapting to changes in their environment. As Imamichi stated, the workings of their life are inconspicuous, but there is no doubt a severity of struggle to survive and flourish.<br>
=====Are Plants and Trees Nonsentient?=====
Mahayana Buddhism in general does not consider trees and plants to be capable of sensation and, with the exception of the Lotus and Śūraṅgama sutras, does not hesitate to place them on a par with tiles and stones. For example, the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra (Sutra of the Great Accumulation of Treasures) says, "Plants and trees, tiles and stones, like shadows, are not sentient" (Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, 78, Discourse to Pūrṇa, 17.2.4). Why is this so?<br> The geographer Yutaka Sakaguchi reports that recent research has shown that from the middle of the third century to around the sixth or seventh century the world experienced severe climate change in the form of cooling, drier conditions (see "Kako ichiman sanzennen no kikō no henka to jinrui no rekishi" [Climate change and the history of human beings
during the past thirteen thousand years], ''Kōza, bunmei to kankyō, 6: Rekishi to kikō'' [Lecture series, 6, Civilization and the environment: History and climate] [Asakura Shoten, 1995 (revised edition, 2008)], 1–11). The Mahayana sutras, with their prohibition of meat eating, were compiled at this time. Why this prohibition was added to the small simple meals demanded by asceticism can thus be explained in ecoreligious terms. In all probability, the acceptance of ascetic behavior in relation to food and the rejection of meat by religious practitioners and the societies that supported them derived from severe and long-term food shortages. At such a time, rather than rearing pigs and other animals on plant food and then eating their meat, many more human lives could be sustained by a considerably lesser volume by eating vegetable foodstuffs directly. "Hence, in order to keep both monks and lay followers free from what was deemed unnecessary inconvenience and qualms, the sentience of plants was, by and large, ignored [in the precept against the taking of life]" (Lambert Schmithausen, ''Buddhism and Nature: The Lecture Delivered on the Occasion of the EXPO 1990'' [International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1991], 7).<br>
=====Plants and the Lotus Sutra=====
Chapter 5 of the Lotus Sutra, "The Parable of the Herbs," likens the teachings of the Buddha benefiting all beings equally to the rain that falls on all trees, shrubs, herbs, and grasses, enabling them to grow and blossom, producing fruits. This chapter was to have an important influence on the Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai schools of Buddhism. Whereas the Chinese Huayan school held that plants are not sentient and cannot achieve enlightenment, in commentaries such as Fazang's (643–712) ''Huayanjing tanxuanji'' (Records of the search for the profundities of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), Tiantai scholars advocated plants' capability of attaining buddhahood. This must have been because of the image presented in "The Parable of the Herbs." (Read the entire article [https://rk-world.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DW18_7-12.pdf here])
No abstract given. Here is the appendix in full:<br><br>
Common throughout the De bźin bśegs pa’i sñiṅ po’i mdo (Tathāgatagarbha sūtra) of the Lang Kanjur are several features which are generally assumed to be archaic, such as the ''ya btags'' in all words beginning with ''m''- followed by the vowel ''i'' or ''e'' (e.g. ''myi'', ''myed'', etc.), the usage of the ''da drag'', the ''tsheg'' placed before ''śad'', the ''mtha’ rten ’a'' (e.g. ''dpe’ ''), occasionally a reversed ''gi gu'', ''la''(''s'') (''b'')''stsogs pa'' for ''la sogs pa'', the omission of genitive particles and, in the verses, the reading '' ’i'' instead of ''yi'' ('' ’i'' counting as a full syllable).<br> The version of the ''sūtra'' represents the canonical transmission (and not the translation found in the “Kanjur from Bathang”).[85] Stemmatically, the text in the Lang Kanjur is very close to the three Phug brag versions of the ''sūtra'', which have been shown to derive from one and the same archetype.[86] It shares mistakes with this archetype. In other instances it is, however, free of the secondary readings found in all three of the Phug brag versions. In all the cases where Phug brag shares a
mistake with the representatives of the Tshal pa-line, the Kanjur version from Dolpo also has this secondary reading. Its use for establishing the stemma of the canonical versions of the De bźin gśegs pa’i sñiṅ po’i mdo is therefore restricted primarily to evaluating the readings of the Phug brag Kanjur in the instances where Phug brag deviates from the Tshal pa-transmission. In all the cases where the Chinese translations of the ''sūtra'' could be used to decide on the originality of a reading in the Tibetan, it turned out that whenever the variant in the Lang Kanjur was identical with the one of Tshal pa as against Phug brag, the latter variant was secondary. (Zimmermann, appendix, 104–5)
<h5>Notes</h5>
85. For more details on this paracanonical translation see Zimmermann 1998.<br>86. See Zimmermann 2002: 173–177.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
By the 12th century at least nine commentaries on The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' had been written in Tibet, of which apparently only one has been preserved and reproduced. In the following two centuries at least 16 ''RGV'' commentaries were composed, of which ten, perhaps more, have been preserved. In the 15th and 16th centuries it seems that only eight ''RGV'' commentaries were written, of which at least five have been preserved. Only two commentaries were written in the 17th and 18th centuries, one of which has been preserved and in the 19th and 20th centuries seven ''RGV'' commentaries were written, all of which are preserved.
Here 45 Tibetan commentaries on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (''RGV''), better known in Tibet as the ''Mahayanūttaratantrāśāstra'', ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma bstan bcos'' or ''Rgyud bla ma'' are introduced as an attempt at charting all Tibetan ''RGV'' commentaries. A short presentation of their authors and their bibliographical references are given. The listing is in chronological order and the key data are provided in a chart in the appendix representing the result of research into various catalogues, hand lists and other accounts. It is my hope that some of those texts, which here are listed as lost, eventually will turn out to have been preserved. [1]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Since ''Tathāgatagarbha'' in its various interpretations appear in a wide variety of literary compositions, the delimiting factor for compiling this list has been Tibetan commentaries that in their title explicitly state that they are commentaries on ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. (Burchardi, preliminary remarks, 1) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The reign of the King Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen (Khri-sroṅ-Idehu-btsan, VII century) represents a period of the greatest importance in the early history of Tibet in general and of the spread of Buddhism in that country in particular. The activity of the great Śāntirakṣita ("Ācārya Bodhisattva") and of Padma-sambhava. the selection of the first seven Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin (''sad-mi mi bdun''), the foundation of numerous sites of Buddhist learning in Tibet, and the intense literary activity of the Tibetan learned translators (''lo-tsa-ba'')—Pal-tseg (dPal-brtsegs) and others by whom a great number of Buddhist canonical and scientific works were rendered into Tibetan,—all this has been described by Bu-ston in his History of Buddhism and in other Tibetan historical works<br> There is, however, one subject relating to the spread of Buddhism in Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen's reign, to which the Tibetan historian devotes his special attention and on which he dwells in detail. This is the strife between two parties into which the Buddhists of Tibet were at that time split. One of these parties consisted of the pupils and followers of Ācārya Śāntirakṣita who professed that form of Mahāyāna Buddhism which was generally acknowledged in India and Nepal, ''viz''. the teaching of the Path to Enlightenment through the practice of meditation connected with the dialectical analysis peculiar to the Mādhyamika school of the Buddhists and with the practice of the six Transcendental Virtues (''pāramitā'').<br> The leader of the other party was a Chinese teacher (''hwa-śaṅ'' or ''ho-shang'') known by the Sanskrit name Mahāyānadeva, who preached a doctrine of complete quietism and inactivity. According to him every kind of religious practice, the meditative exercises and all virtuous deeds as well were completely useless and even undesirable: the liberation from the bonds of phenomenal existence was to be attained merely through the complete cessation of every kind of thought and mental activity,—by abiding perpetually in a state analogous to sleep. Bu-ston[1] relates how this party grew very powerful and found numerous adherents among the Tibetans, how the followers of Śāntirakṣita suffered oppression from it, and how the king who was an adherent of Śāntirakṣita's system, invited Śāntirakṣita's pupil, the teacher Kamalaśīla in order to refute the incorrect teachings of the Chinese party. The dispute between Kamalaśīla and the Chinese Ho-shang in which the latter was defeated is described by Bu-ston[2] in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties[3] assembled in the presence of the king, that the Ho-shang was the first to speak in favour of his theory of quietism and inactivity and was answered by Kamalaśīla who demonstrated all the absurdity of the theses maintained by the Ho-shang and showed that the teachings of such a kind were in conflict with the main principles of Buddhism and were conducive to the depreciation and rejection of the most essential features of the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We read further on how the chief adherents of Kamalaśīla[4] likewise refuted the theories of the Ho-shang, how the latter and his party acknowledged themselves vanquished and were expelled from Tibet by order of the king who prescribed to follow henceforth the Buddhist doctrines that were generally admitted,—the teaching of the six Virtues as regards religious practice and the Mādhvamika system of Nāgārjuna as regards the theory.[5]<br> Thus the influence of the Chinese Ho-shang’s teachings over the minds of the Tibetans suffered a complete defeat and with it perhaps some political influence of China.[6] This is certainly a most important event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism which has been duly appreciated by Bu-ston. It is therefore quite natural that we should be interested in finding out the sources of Bu-ston's historical record. But the text of Bu-ston's History which, as a rule, contains references to the works on the foundation of which it has been compiled, does not give us any information here. At the first glance the account of the controversy looks like the reproduction of an oral tradition and there is nothing that could make us conjecture the presence of a literary work upon which the record could have been founded- The following will show that it has now become possible to trace out this work, to compare with it the account given by Bu-ston and to ascertain its historical importance. (Obermiller, "A Sanskrit MS. from Tibet," 1–3)
[https://ia801608.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.277506/2015.277506.1105_W_O_text.pdf Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Cf. my ''Translation'', Vol. II. p. 192
#''Ibid'': pp. 192, 193.
#Known by the Chinese names Tön-mün (sTon-mun, the party of the Ho-shong) and Tsen-min (rTsen-min, the adherents of Kamalaśīla).
#Śrīghoṣa (Tib. dpal-dbyaṅs) and Jñānendra (Tib, Ye-śes-dbaṅ-po).
#Henceforth the Mādhyamika has become the predominant school in Tibet.
#Kamalaśīla was subsequently murdered by the Ho-shang's adherents.
Articles/A Second Tibetan Translation of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra in the Newark Manuscript Kanjur from Bathang: A Translation of the Early Period (snga dar) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
Among the Tibetan Collection of the Newark Museum in Newark (New Jersey) there is an incomplete manuscript Kanjur from Bathang in Khams (East Tibet). In spite of the fact that this
Kanjur was already donated to the museum as early as 1920 it is surprising that it has only recently become the object of a scholarly treatment of some length.[1] In his critical edition of the ''Mahāsūtras'' (cp. n. 1), Peter Skilling has used internal criteria to prove that the Bathang Kanjur is affiliated to neither the ''Tshal pa'' lineage nor to the ''Them spangs ma'' lineage of textual transmission. Its independent character can also be ascertained by external kanjurological
criteria: the collection of the texts, its grouping and its order within the volumes are unique. It becomes, therefore, very plausible that "the Newark Kanjur belongs to an old and independent textual transmission that predates the compilation of the ''Tshal pa'' and ''Them spangs ma'' collections."[2]<br> Contained in the ''ta'' volume of the sūtra section (''mdo bsde ta'') of this Kanjur is the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' (''TGS'').[3] In the process of editing the Tibetan text of this important Mahāyāna work, of which no Indic copies have come down to us, I used most of the available, historically relevant Kanjurs.[4] Among these 13 versions alone the ''TGS'' found in this Kanjur from Bathang represents a different, second translation (''Bth''). As the existence of two independent Tibetan translations of the same Indic text are of rare occurrence, this study intends to throw light on the differences between the two Tibetan texts, to describe the particular features of ''Bth'' and finally to classify it within the history of Tibetan translation activities. (Zimmermann, introductory remarks, 33–35)<br><br>
[https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/zimmermann/tohoku-gakkai-1998-tathagatagarbha.pdf Read more here . . .]<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#For a description of the Kanjur cp. Eleanor Olson, ''Catalogue of the Newark Museum Tibetan Collection'', Vol. III, Newark 1971, p. 114, dating it to the 16th century; the most detailed analysis of the 23 volumes of the Kanjur can be found in Peter Skilling's unpublished article ''Kanjur Manuscripts in the Newark Museum: A Preliminary Report'', Nandapurī 1995; the only study including some texts of this Kanjur in a textcritical edition is Peter Skilling's (ed.) ''Mahāsūtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha'', Vol. I: Texts, Oxford 1994 (The Pali Text Society, Sacred Books of the Buddhists Vol. XLIV).
#Skilling, ''Kanjur Manuscripts''. . . . , p. 4.
#Vol. ''ta'', folios 245b1–258a8. The title at the beginning of the volume reads ''de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po zhes bya ba'i mdo' ''. The title at the beginning of the sūtra itself runs: ''de bzhin gshyes <pa'i> snying po zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo''. It seems remarkable that the Tibetan equivalent for Skt. ''ārya'', '' 'phags pa'', does not appear in the titles of the Bathang translation whereas it is common to all the other major Kanjurs. The spelling ''mdo bsde'' can be found "consistently on all tags" (Skilling, ''Kanjur Manuscripts''. . . , p. 6, n. 16).
#The critical edition of the ''TGS'' is part of a Ph.D. thesis to be submitted at the University of Hamburg. The collation comprises the versions of the ''TGS'' as contained in the Kanjurs from Berlin, Derge, Lithang, London, Narthang, Peking (Ōtani reprint), Phug brag (three versions), Stog, Tabo (fragmentary) and Tokyo (Toyo Bunko) compared with the two Chinese translations. ''Bth'' will be appended as a diplomatic edition.
This article concerns the Indian ''tathāgatagarbha'' literature: Mahāyānist works, produced no later than the early fifth century, which assert that all sentient beings possess already the qualities of a Buddha. Early works of this tradition—perhaps even the earliest that are available to us—explain possession of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' to constitute the existence of the self (''ātman''). These sources, foremost the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', show evidence that their authors faced strong opposition from audiences committed to the more conventional Buddhist doctrine of ''anātman'', but contend defensively that the ''ātman'' that they teach is nothing like any notion of selfhood found in non-Buddhist religious traditions.<br> With reference to two of these '' 'ātmavādin’ '' ''tathāgatagarbha'' works, I present evidence that authors of this tradition used the idea of a Buddhist doctrine of the self to undermine non-Buddhist accounts of liberation: not only describing them as deficient, but as having been created (''nirmita'') by the Buddha himself. Such claims expand the boundaries of the Buddha’s sphere of influence, after the description of his activities found in the ''Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra'': a clear influence upon these ''tathāgatagarbha'' sources. Other Mahāyānist literature of an ‘ekayānist’ orientation used this strategy also: i.e. that any teaching regarding liberation from ''saṃsāra'' finds its origin in the activities of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, but has its definitive expression in the Buddhist dharma. The ''tathāgatagarbha'' presented as a Buddhist doctrine of the self can hence be understood as a complement to a certain understanding of the Mahāyāna, here the archetype of all paths that claim to deliver an end to ''saṃsāra'', and to an account of the Buddha as the architect of all ostensibly non-Buddhist accounts of liberation. +
Buddhanature, or tathagatagarbha: some say it is not Buddhist, some say it is quintessentially so. I do not want to push either judgment upon you; there is more than one way to be a Buddhist! Instead, I want to provide a roundup of some formative buddhanature texts and allow you to see what is unique about them, in the hope that you might explore these fascinating works for yourself.
In the texts outlined below, we see innovative steps taken away from the philosophical preoccupation with emptiness (sunyata) and not-self (anatman) with which much early Buddhist scholasticism was concerned, with a focus instead on a type of liberative phenomenology that allows us to uncover our “true” nature and realize liberation. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/a-short-guide-to-key-buddhanature-texts/ Read more here]) +
Articles/A Study of the Early-Stage Translations of Foxing 佛性 in Chinese Buddhism: The Da Banniepan Jing 大般涅槃經 Trans. Dharmakṣema and the Da Fangdeng Rulaizang Jing 大方等如來藏經 Trans. Buddhabhadra +
The ''Da fangdeng rulaizang jing'' 大方等如來藏經 (Skt. ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra''), translated by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 (358–429) is one of the early Chinese Buddhist canon texts where the term ''foxing'' 佛性 (Jp. ''busshō''; Buddha-nature) is clearly used to express Buddha-nature. However, the term ''foxing'' cannot be confirmed in other extant translations of the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra''. Another early text in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the ''Da banniepan jing'' 大般涅槃經 (Skt. ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra''), translated by Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (385?–433), also used the term ''foxing'', which cannot be correspondingly confirmed in the surviving Sanskrit fragments of this scripture. Some significant differences in ''foxing'' between the Sanskrit fragments and Dharmakṣema's translation of this sutra belong to the
first twelve fascicles of Dharmakṣema's translation completed under his collaborators' support when he had not mastered the Chinese language. It is very likely that Faxian 法顯 (337–422) translated a version of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' that featured ''buddhadhātu'' as ''foxing''. Buddhabhadra, in the same period, translated a version of the ''Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra'', in which he favoured the term ''foxing'' over a literal translation of the Sanskrit. As another contemporary monk with these two, Dharmakṣema translated the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'', going further than Faxian by using the term ''foxing'' regularly. These texts influenced the Dilun monastic tradition 地論宗. Among these, the term ''foxing'' and its Sinicism explanations played the most significant role, influencing the whole of the Chinese and even East Asian Buddhist thought. +
In this paper, historical materials are employed to point the reader toward scriptural sources for the tathāgatagarbha traditions of India and Tibet, including their relationship with theories of the mind-basis-of-all (kun gzhi rnam shes, ālayavijñāna). In addition, three primary tathāgatagarbha traditions in Tibet are described and compared: those of the Jo-nang-bas following Döl-bo-ba Shay-rap-gyel-tsen (dol bo pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361), the Sa-ḡyas following Bu-don (bu ston, 1290–1364), and the Ge-luk-don following Dzong-ka-ba (tsong kha pa, 1357–1419). Doctrines concerning the basic constituent (khams, dhātu) and three buddha bodies are examined insofar as these doctrines shed light on theories of tathāgatagarbha. Since Dzong-ka-ba extensively refuted the Jo-nang position─often called Other Emptiness (gzhan stong)─in his Treatise Differentiating Interpretable and Definitive Meanings: The Essence of Eloquence (drang ba dang nges pa'i don rnam par phye ba'i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po) and other works on the philosophical view of emptiness, this paper examines Dzong-ka-ba's discussion and critique of the Jo-nang Other Emptiness. Ten specific criticisms of Other Emptiness made by Dzong-ka-ba and his followers are compared with presentations of Other Emptiness by Jo-nang authors. Two Jo-nang texts recently translated by Professor Jeffrey Hopkins are employed in this comparison: Döl-bo-ba Śhay-rap-gyel-tsen’s Mountain Doctrine, Ocean of Definitive Meanings (ri chos nges don rgya mtsho) and Tāranātha’s Essence of Other Emptiness (gzhan stong snying po). These comparisons show that Dzong-ka-ba's critique does not always accurately reflect the Jo-nang philosophical view. +
No abstract given. The following are the first relevant paragraphs. Japanese characters following the transliteration for names and works are unavailable.<br><br>
La question n'est pas nouvelle; plusieurs fois déjà elle a été étudiée, et diverses solutions lui ont été données. Kern, dans son ''Histoire du bouddhisme dans l'Inde'' (<sup>1</sup>), rejetant l'opinion communément admise en Extrême-Orient, plaça Vasubandhu au VI<sup>e</sup> siècle de notre ère. Buhler (<sup>2</sup>) essaya vainement de le ramener au IV<sup>e</sup> : la thèse de Kern conserva la faveur des indianistes. En 1890, M. Sylvain Lévi, dans son remarquable ouvrage sur ''Le théâtre indien'' (<sup>3</sup>), tentait d'établir que la période d'activité de Vasubandhu couvrait toute la première moitié du VI<sup>e</sup> siècle ; et dans une note sur ''La date de Vasubandhu'' (<sup>4</sup>), il la reportait même jusqu'au milieu et à la fin de ce siècle. Depuis lors à diverses reprises, notamment dans ses ''Donations religieuses des rois de Valabhī'' (<sup>5</sup>) et dans ses ''Notes chinoises sur l'Inde parues ici même'' (<sup>6</sup>), il s'est efforcé d'étayer sa thèse de nouvelles considérations. M. Takakusu Junjirō, après avoir proposé les limites de 450–550 pour l'« àge moyen » (<sup>7</sup>) dans lequel Yi-tsing range Vasubandhu et Asaṅga, essaya ensuite de les préciser davantage en ce qui concerne le premier et d'établir qu'il avait vécu de 420 à 500 environ de notre ère (<sup>8</sup>). En 1908, M. Wogihara (<sup>9</sup>) démontrait en détail ce que les anciens catalogues chinois du Tripiṭaka, ''Nei tien lou'', ''K'ai-yuan lou'', etc., des écrivains comme Touen-louen des T'ang dans son ''Yeou-kia louen ki'' (<sup>1</sup>), еt M. Nanjio Bunyu (<sup>2</sup>) avaient déjà dit sommairement, à savoir qu'un ouvrage d'Asaṅga, le ''Yogācāryabhūmi çāstra'' (<sup>3</sup>), avait été partiellement traduit en chinois par Dharmarakṣa entre 414 et 421, soit dès le commencement du V<sup>e</sup> siècle (<sup>4</sup>).<br>
Enfin dans l'introduction de sa traduction du ''Mahāyāna-Sutrālaṃkāra'' (<sup>5</sup>) parue en 1911, M. S. Lévi, abandonnant sa première opinion, écrit à propos d'Asaṅga : « Son activité couvre toute la première moitié du V<sup>e</sup> siècle, en débordant de part et d'autre sur les deux extrémités de cette période. » C'est peutêtre un peu long, car si Asaṅga a vécu soixante-quinze ans, les documents à notre connaissance nous disent qu'il chercha sa voie un certain temps. N'oublions pas d'ailleurs que le ''Yogācāryabhūmi çāstra'', l'œuvre maîtresse d'Asaṅga, est de dimensions considérables: la traduction chinoise compte 100 ''kiuan''. Son importance dogmatique n'est pas moindre. Il est l'expression d'une pensée maîtresse d'elle-mème, qui a dépassé la période des incertitudes et des tàtonnements. Il est assez peu vraisemblable, mème sans tenir compte des indications données par Paramārtha dans sa vie de Vasubandhu, qu'il ait été écrit par un tout jeune homme. En tout cas, quelque différence d'àge qu'on veuille admettre entre Asaṅga et Vasubandhu, — et il faut tenir compte de l'existence d'un troisième frère, Viriñcivatsa (<sup>6</sup>) — celui-ci, bien qu'il ait vécu quatre-vingts ans, n'aurait pu, dans ces conditions, dépasser ni mème atteindre la fin du V<sup>e</sup> siècle.<br>
D'une manière générale, il semble que dans les études qui ont porté sur ce sujet, quelques documents aient été ignorés et que d'autres aient été délibérément écartés de la discussion comme douteux. En bonne logique, ce simple doute qui ne parait pas avoir jamais été sérieusement éclairci, suffirait à enlever toute sécurité aux conclusions que l'on a cru pouvoir formuler sans en tenir compte, ou si l'on préfère, elles ne sauraient ètre que provisoires tant que la menace qu'il laisse planer sur elles n'a pas été définitivement écartée. La question me parait donc devoir ètre reprise, les documents déclarés douteux soumis à un nouvel examen, et mis en œuvre aussi ceux qui n'ont pas encore été utilisés. Je n'ai pas d'ailleurs la prétention d'ètre complet. C'est à peu près uniquement à la première série, (missing characters), du Supplément du Tripiṭaka de Kyōto, œuvres hindoues et chinoises, que sont empruntés les textes qu'on trouvera au cours de cette étude. Les quelque 700 fascicules déjà parus de cette admirable publication, d'une importance capitale pour les études bouddhiques, en contiennent sans doute d'autres encore, qu'une recherche plus approfondie et plus complète ferait découvrir. Je n'ai pu que feuilleter les œuvres qui m'ont paru devoir ètre les plus intéressantes pour mon sujet par leur date, leur auteur ou leur genre. (Péri, preliminary remarks, 339–41)<br><br>
[https://www.persee.fr/doc/befeo_0336-1519_1911_num_11_1_2695 Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
1. T. II, p. 414; ''Annales du Musée Guimet'', t. XI, p. 450; il parle principalement d'Asaṅga, et se basant sur la date de l'avènement de Çīladitya (610, propose les dates de 485 à 560. C'est évidemment à cet ouvrage que la ''Chronology of India'' de Mrs. Mabel Duff les emprunte, et non au ''Buddhismus'' de Vassilieff, auquel elle renvoie. Celui-ci ne dit rien de tel; si je ne me trompe, il donne seulement la date bouddhiste de 900 ans, dont je parlerai plus loin.<br>
2. ''Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunst-Poesie'', dans ''Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften'', Wien, 1890, p. 79 sqq.<br>
3. Cf. I, 165, et II, 35.<br>
4. ''Journal Asiatique'', 1890, II, p. 552–553.<br>
5. ''Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes-Etudes''. Sciences religieuses, vol. VII. ''Etudes de critique et d'histoire'', p. 97.<br>
6. ''La date de Candragomin. BEFEO'', III (1903), 47-49.<br>
7. ''A Record of the Buddhist religion.... by I-tsing'', p. VIII.<br>
8. ''La Sāṃkhyakārikā étudiée à la lumière de sa version chinoise, BEFEO'', IV (1904), p. 37-56; et ''A study of Paramārtha's life of Vasubandhu and the date of Vasubandhu'', dans ''Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society'', 1905.<br>
9. ''Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi, ein dogmatischer Text der Nordbuddhisten'', Leipzig. B. E. F. E.-O. T. XI. —22.<br>
1. Grand ouvrage en 48 k., publié dans le supplément au Tripiṭaka de Kyoto, 1<sup>re</sup>
série, boites LXXV, fasc. 4 et 5, et LXXVI, fasc. 1 à 4. Le passage cité se trouve boite LXXV, fasc. 4, p. 308.<br>
2. Cf. Nanjio, ''Catalogue'', n<sup>os</sup> 1083, 1086, etc.<br>
3. Nanjio, ''Catalogue''. n<sup>o</sup> 1170.<br>
4. Le canon chinois contient sept ou huit traductions partielles de cet ouvrage, faites à des époques parfois très voisines les unes des autres, sous des titres différents ; encore n'avons-nous pas toutes celles qui le furent: le ''K'ai-yuan lou'', k. 12, en cite une dizaine pour le mème texte. Le fait qu'il en existait des extraits si nombreux, assez différents pour que des contemporains les traduisissent séparément à quelques années de distance, permet de croire qu'un intervalle assez long sépare la composition de l'ouvrage des premières traductions d'extraits faites en Chine.<br>
5. B. E. H. E. Sciences historiques et philologiques, fasc. 190, p. *2.<br>
6. (Characters not available). Watters, ''On Yuan Chwang's travels'', I, p. 210, propos Bilindibhava qui paraît inadmissible. ''Bilindi'' est inconnu, tandis que ''viriñci'' est employé dans la composition de plusieurs noms ; ''bhava'' ne concorde pas avec le sens de « fils, enfant », que Paramārtha attribue aux deux dernières syllabes et qu'il expose avec beaucoup de précision, représente d'ailleurs un mot à ancienne finale dentale; quant à (missing character), c'est sùrement ici une simple faute de copiste, très fréquente du reste pour (missing character).
This is a compilation of several sources that speak about buddha-nature. These include:
Pabhassara Sutta<br>
Kevaddha Sutta<br>
Nibbana Sutta<br>
Ashtasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra<br>
Samdhinirmochana Sutra<br>
Mahaparinirvana Sutra<br>
Shrimaladevi Sutra <br>
Tathagatagarbha Sutra <br>
Lankavatara Sutra<br>
Bodhidharma’s Breakthrough Sermon<br>
Sengcan’s Song of the Trusting Mind<br>
Hongren’s Treatise on the Supreme Vehicle<br>
Huineng’s Platform Sutra<br>
Yongjia’s Song of Realizing the Way<br>
Shitou’s Record<br>
Shitou’s Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage <br>
Dongshan’s Song of the Jewel Mirror Samadhi <br>
Caoshan’s Verse<br>
Guishan’s Record<br>
Mazu’s Record<br>
Baizhang’s Record<br>
Huangbo’s Transmission of Mind <br>
Linji’s Record<br>
Nanquan’s Record<br>
Changsha’s Record <br>
Yunmen’s Record <br>
Yuanwu’s Letters <br>
Hongzhi’s Record<br>
Dogen’s Treasury of the True Dharma Eye<br>
Ejo’s Absorption in the Treasury of Light<br>
Keizan’s Transmission of Light<br>
32nd Ancestor Hongren<br>
34th Ancestor Qingyuan<br>
38th Ancestor Dongshan <br>
40th Ancestor Dongan <br>
46th Ancestor Tanxia<br>
49th Ancestor Xuedou<br>
52nd Ancestor Dogen<br>
53rd Ancestor Ejo <br>
Chinul’s Complete Sudden Attainment of Buddhahood<br>
Chinul’s Secrets of Cultivating the Mind<br>
Bassui’s One Mind<br>
Bankei’s Record<br>
Hakuin’s Four Cognitions<br>
Menzan’s Self-Enjoyment Samadhi<br>
Shunryu Suzuki’s Mind Waves (from "Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind")<br>
Shunryu Suzuki’s Resuming Big Mind (from "Not Always So")<br>
Padmasambhava’s Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness<br>
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s Clarifying the Natural State<br>
Karma Chagmey’s Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen<br>
Jamgon Mipham’s Lamp that Dispels Darkness +
The following preface was added by Aurel Stein to Appendix F, which was prepared for this publication by A. F. Rudolf Hoernle:
[NOTE. The materials embodied in this list were received in a final form from Dr. Hoernle. early in 1918. The typed press copy prepared from them was after his death in November of that year checked with the original under the kind supervision of Dr. F. W. Thomas.
Owing to various reasons difficulty was experienced about verifying the exact reading of all extracts quoted by Dr. Hoernle from particular MSS., mainly in Khotanese language. It being thus impossible to assure in this respect the degree of accuracy which that most painstaking collaborator would have aimed at, I have thought it advisable to reduce the reproduction of such quotations within narrow limits. For convenient reference by future students the original Inventory ' slips' as received from Dr. Hoernle's hand, as well as a typed copy of them, have been deposited at the India Office Library.—A. STEIN.]<br><br>
[http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/VIII-5-B2-9/V-3/page/0402.html.en Read more here . . .] +
B
Articles/Beings, Non-Beings, and Buddhas: Contrasting Notions of Tathāgatagarbha in the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta and *Mahābherī Sūtra +
This article concerns a little studied text of the Mahāyānist ''tathāgatagarbha'' literature, namely the *''Mahābherī Sūtra'', and its relation to other Indian texts which advance forms of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine. Its focus will be the contrast between the content of this ''sūtra'' and the only other text of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' tradition which discusses a particular issue: the unchanging mass of existing sentient beings, without the possibility of any decrease or increase in their number. This is an issue addressed also by the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'', which I shall argue presents a more sophisticated and likely later consideration, both of this matter and of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine, than that exhibited by the *''Mahābherī Sūtra''. Though it is not clear that either text knew of the other, their different treatments of how one should understand the nature and number of existing sentient beings casts light on their respective places in two distinct strains—one very likely older than the other—of Indian ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>Buddhism has a profound and thoroughly developed set of teachings on human being. One might well argue that the question of human being is the question ''par excellence'' with which the Buddhist tradition as a whole struggles. According to the traditional account, for example, the point of departure for the Buddha's own search, discoveries, and teachings was the dilemma of the human condition. Moreover, vast numbers of Buddhist texts speak out of or address human experience as such, consciously focusing upon it as the source of both question and answer. Nonetheless, many questions a modern Westerner asks as a matter of course about human being are not directly addressed in the Buddhist texts. There are of course important reasons for this. Our concept of and assumptions about human individuality are profoundly different from Buddhist views of the same. Our two worlds of discourse about the value and meaning of finite bodily existence, the course of history, the meaning of suffering, and the nature of possible human greatness are set up on entirely different foundations. Thus, for a contemporary Westerner to ask the question "What is a person? What is a human being?" of a Buddhist text is to set oneself up to receive an answer that does not satisfy the intent of the question. Yet, while Buddhist views and assumptions differ so markedly from our own, Buddhist texts reveal in their own way a preoccupation with the human condition as intent as that of our own hyperindividualistic, anthropocentric culture.<br> With such a shared fixation, it is inevitable that persons on both sides of the cultural boundaries will attempt to gain light from the other side on this subject, despite the incommensurability of each other's questions and answers. The present essay is one such attempt: not an East-West comparison, but an effort to address a Buddhist text from the perspective of cross-cultural philosophy (still, despite the name, a thoroughly Western enterprise) . Herein I will engage in dialogue the ''Buddha Nature Treatise'' (Chinese: ''Fo Hsing Lun''<sup>a</sup>; hereafter, ''BNT''), a text representative of the Buddha nature tradition that contains an extensive discussion of the concept of Buddha nature, a crucial component, if not the most crucial component, of the East Asian Buddhist concept of human being. I will attempt to wrest from the text answers to two categories of questions-it s view of the ontological nature of human being and its view of the existential status of human beings. In the course of the discussion I will ask such questions as: What roles do individuality and freedom play in the view of human being portrayed in this text? What value, if any, does an individual human personality possess? Is there anything of value in human history? Clearly, the text itself does not speak in these terms; these are the questions of a twentieth-century, philosophically inclined American. In order to bridge the cultural gap, I will first give a summary account of the text's concept of Buddha nature in its own terms and in its own format. Then, acknowledging that the text itself neither speaks this language nor shares my concerns, I will put my questions to the text and attempt to extract from the text its implications for the subject of my concern. In other words, I cannot claim that the author of the ''BNT'' does make the statements I will give as responses to my questions about human being, but I do claim that these views are implicit in and follow from the statements he does make about Buddha nature. Granting that human freedom requires us to expect the unexpected, nonetheless, I believe that if the author of the ''BNT'' were here today and could engage in dialogue with me, as long as my interlocutor remained consistent, something close to the views I will articulate in the course of this essay would emerge. (King, "Buddha Nature and the Concept of Person," 151–52)
Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche explained how we can attain the state of the omniscient mind at the 14th Kopan Course in 1981. This is an edited excerpt from Lecture 3, Section One of the course. [https://www.lamayeshe.com/article/chapter/section-one-lectures-1-5 Click here] to read more. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs
To understand what is meant by “Buddha Nature,” we can look at the story of the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma taught by Shakyamuni Buddha. The first turning of the Dharma wheel is the four noble truths: that discontent arises from grasping the ever-changing phenomena of body and mind as “me,” and that freedom from this discontent is revealed through the path of not grasping anything as truly me. The
four noble truths is a kind of deconstruction method. However, in this first turning, all the different elements that we can deconstruct this person into really do exist. Earth, wind, fire and water, for example: those kind of physical elements, when you break them down into their smallest bits, are indestructible elemental energies or physical matter, atoms. Early Buddhists, who were first turning exponents, had this kind of theory—that the world is made up of atoms—several centuries B.C., long before modern scientists discovered atoms. We don’t really exist as independent “persons”; we are a conglomeration of all this stuff that we think is a real “me,” but if we look closely, we only find atoms. This turning of the Dharma wheel was only the first.
Read more [https://kokyohenkel.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/7/4/127410773/buddha_nature.pdf here] +
Articles/Buddha in the Storehouse: Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and Ālayavijñāna +
This paper addresses the age-old question of how buddha nature (''tathāgatagarbha'') relates to Yogācāra psychology, focusing on the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje’s (1507-1554) responses to this question. In the centuries following the first appearance of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrines in India (circa 2nd c. CE), opinions became divided over whether buddha nature should be identified with or distinguished from the Yogācāra idea of a substratum consciousness (''ālayavijñāna''). The topic attracted a great deal of discussion and debate among Buddhist scholars, both within and beyond the borders of India. At stake were a set of specific doctrinal issues as to whether and how the Yogācāra ''ālayavijñāna-vāsanā'' model could be reconciled with [1] buddha nature theory [2] tantric buddha nature proxies such as the unconditioned ground (''gzhi'') and causal continuum (''rgyu rgyud'') [3] Indian and Chinese Buddhist conceptions of an immaculate consciousness (''amalavijñāna'') and [4] certain anti-foundationalist strains of Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy that rejected any transcendental basis of consciousness. The Karma pa’s repeated forays into these contested subject areas reveal time and again his commitment to reconcile two contrasting lines of Buddhist thought and praxis: [1] the affirmative appraisal of the nature of mind and reality emphasized in Yogācāra and ''tathāgatagarbha'' classics, the tantras, and the songs and writings of the Buddhist ''mahāsiddhas'' and [2] the metaphysically disinclined stance of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy that avoided extremes of affirmation and denial, existence and nonexistence. To adequately appreciate his contributions to such issues, I will first sketch in rough strokes the historical evolution of the ''ālayavijñāna'' doctrine and its complex confrontations with ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine in India. Against this backdrop, attention will turn to the Karma pa’s contextualist framing of the ''ālayavijñāna-tathāgatagarbha'' relationship in terms of a progressive understanding that begins with differentiation and culminates in unity. His is a view that stresses the need to initially distinguish between conditions of spiritual awakening (such as ''tathāgatagarbha'') and delusion (such as ''ālayavijñāna'') in order to eventually realize their underlying unity (''zung ’jug'') by recognizing buddha nature as an ever-present continuum (''rgyud'') of awareness that is a precondition of the substratum consciousness that derives and deviates from it. In his attempts to strike a balance between traditional differentiation and unity models, we encounter a thinker who was as confident about the mind’s ability to discover its own unborn and nonconceptual nature as he was skeptical about its ability to discover any underlying metaphysical foundation. (Source: [https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=3287479&journal_code=JIABS Peeters Online Journals])
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
====Emulating Never Disrespectful Bodhisattva====
'''''The Quest of the Monk Sōō to Practice Revering Buddha-Nature'''''
The "marathon monks" of Japan are one of the iconic images of Japanese Buddhism, familiar to people the world over. These monks walk excruciating mountain circuits on Mount Hiei near Kyoto and Mount Kinpu in Nara Prefecture for a summer retreat of one hundred days. A handful in the posar period have performed the insufferable thousand-day version of this retreat, and also completed additional ascetic practices to gain the title of Great Acarya. Having achieved the humanly impossible, they are sometimes referred to as living buddhas.<br> Hagiographic sources tell us that the founder of this practice, the Tendai monk Sōō (831-918), was motivated to seek enlightenment when as a novice monk he studied the part of the Lotus Sutra that tells the story of Never Disrespectful Bodhisattva. Sōō set his heart on emulating Never Disrespectful's way of practice, walking about making obeisances to other people as future buddhas. Unfortunately, Sōō's responsibilities to look after his teacher, and the daily task of going into the mountains to harvest anise-tree leaves for the offerings at the monastery's central hall, prevented him from dedicating himself solely to the reverence of other people's buddha-nature. According to tradition, however, Sōō's daily forays into the mountain became the origin of today's marathon-monk practice, in which ascetic monks revere the shrines of Buddhist deities and places where Japanese divinities abide in the mountains. It is often said that the marathon monk's true object of reverence is the buddha-nature of the natural world.<br> The Lotus Sutra's Never Disrespectful Bodhisattva is an archetype of respect for the inherent dignity of sentient beings. As told in chapter 20 of the Lotus Sutra, one time in the past there was a monk who did not practice by chanting sutras but instead went around making obeisance to every person he met, telling them, "I would never dare to disrespect you, because surely you are all to become buddhas!" As the reader can probably anticipate, the Lotus Sutra tells us that Never Disrespectful was oftentimes ridiculed, even physically attacked, but he bore it all patiently and through this practice not only purified his mind and body but also transformed the hearts and minds of the people around him. The Lotus Sutra tells us that performing this practice leads to quickly attaining the Buddha Way. (Scarangello, "Buddha-Nature (1)," 28-29) (Read entire article [https://rk-world.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DW18_7-12.pdf here])
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
In the last installment of this column we explored the concept of buddha-nature—its meaning, the Lotus Sutra's teaching of revering buddha-nature, and how Buddhists can reveal the buddha-nature of themselves and others by demonstrating respect for people and discovering their goodness. This time we will consider another way of realizing buddha-nature that is inspired by the stories of the Lotus Sutra. Rissho Kosei-kai members speak of awakening to buddha-nature as attaining the conviction that both oneself and others are, in the allegorical language of the Lotus Sutra, "children of the Buddha." Rev. Nikkyo Niwano, the founder of Rissho Kosei-kai, held that feelings of worthlessness thwarted people's ability to improve their own lives and brought them much suffering, and for this reason he employed the sutra's allegory of the parent-child relationship to help people see themselves as future buddhas and heirs to all the qualities that the Buddha Shakyamuni possessed. The belief that living beings are children of the Buddha also encourages the appreciation of all human life. As members of the human family, all people are our brothers and sisters, possessing the same inherent dignity and human potential as the Buddha. Today some people may not be entirely comfortable with the gendered language of the Lotus Sutra's allegory, but a close reading of the text can open pathways to an understanding appropriate to contemporary society and twenty-first century social norms. (Scarangello, "Buddha-Nature (2)," 35) (Read the entire article [https://rk-world.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DW19_Spring.pdf here]) +
Articles/Buddha-Nature and Personality as the Ground of Ethics: A Metaethical Dialogue between Dōgen and Berdyaev +
This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing Buddhist-Christian dialogue by bringing together the teachings of Zen Master Dōgen and the Russian Christian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. This dialogue discusses a metaethical question: What is the foundation of ethical practice? I aim to show that Dōgen's idea of "buddha-nature" and Berdyaev's idea of "personality" can be understood as the foundations of ethical practice in ways that are similar and mutually clarifying in their total affirmation of human temporal existence. We begin by discussing the general contours of Dōgen's practice-realization and Berdyaev's creative ethics, and then proceed to a comparative examination of the foundation of ethics found in Dōgen's notion of Buddha-nature and Berdyaev's notion of personality. The comparison considers four facets of Buddha-nature and personality: being, time, nothingness, and impermanence. First, we show how both thinkers consider the ground of ethics to be something inseparable from the entire being of an individual and the being of all existence as a whole. This refutes the tendency to see the foundation of goodness as a mere fragment of human existence or as restricted to particular existents. Second, we show how both thinkers consider this foundation to be manifest not merely in the future or the past, but in every moment seen as a whole in itself. Third, we examine the collision between this immanent foundation and individuality, and show how the non-substantiality of Buddha-nature and God make room for creative and individual expressions of authenticity. Finally, we consider the problem of impermanence, and show how the ground of ethics is not an escape from impermanence but an acceptance and embracing of this impermanence as the ground of the efficacy and dynamism of ethical practice. (Source: [https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/3 Budhi]) +
The topic on what the compound ''tathāgata-garbha'' means has indeed a long history of research in the !eld of Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, despite a good number of studies so far executed on this topic, it is most unfortunate for us to recognize that the above question remains unsolved. The present paper, therefore, tries again to solve the question through an analytical inquiry into the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (RGV) in rather a wide perspective. +
This article begins with a reflection on why medieval Chinese Buddhist thought has not been more conspicuous in recent comparative work on Buddhism and Western philosophy. The Japanese proponents of "Critical Buddhism" (''hihan bukkyō'' 批判仏教), Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗 and Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭, would see this neglect as merited since, in their view, East Asian Buddhism in general, and Chinese Chan in particular, is philosophically crippled owing to its embrace of ''tathāgatagarbha'' and buddha-nature thought. Indeed, Matsumoto singles out Shenhui 荷澤神會 (670-762), one of the architects of the Southern School of Chan, as an example of the early Chan advocacy of buddha-nature doctrine.<br> This article is not concerned with whether buddha-nature and ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought is actually deleterious to critical philosophical work. Rather, the concern is to demonstrate that, far from embracing buddha-nature doctrine, the eighth-century founders of Southern Chan had serious concerns with it. Evidence for this is found in: (1) the writings of Shenhui, notably in his opposition to the doctrine of the "buddha-nature of insentient objects" (''wuqing foxing'' 無情佛性); and (2) the ''Platform Scripture of the Sixth Patriarch'' (''Liuzu tanjing'' 六祖壇經), particularly in the variant versions of Huineng's famous "enlightenment verse." Thus the Southern School may be viewed as a forerunner of the Critical Buddhist anti-''dhātuvāda'' polemics. The article closes with comments on the ongoing problems Chinese Buddhist exegetes had in marrying the metaphysical monism of Yogācāra and ''tathāgatagarbha'' teachings with the anti-foundationalist thrust of Madhyamaka and ''Prajñāpāramitā'' literature. +
Buddhist traditions express our potential for awakening in diverse ways: natural luminous mind; suchness; nondual awareness; basic goodness; ''dharmakaya''; the unity of emptiness, self-existing wakefulness; unconfined capacity; and so forth, all under the rubric of "buddhanature" (''tathagatagarbha''). Mahayana Buddhists understand this dimension of our mind to be an innate source of joy, compassion, courage, and wisdom. It is always operative and always available. ([https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhanature-beyond-mere-concept/ Read more here]) +
The primary aim of this article is to outline the Buddhist idea of a pure, luminous mind. First, the conception of a “luminous mind” (''pabhassara citta'') from the Pāḷi Nikāyas is considered. Two functions ascribed to this idea are examined: its soteriological role, i.e. pure mind as a enlightenment-enabling factor, and its role as a “link” between consecutive ''saṃsāric'' existences. Next comes the examination of the Theravāda idea of ''bhavaṅga'', which is seen as being related to the pure mind in its diachronic function. Main part of the article deals with combining the notion of a pure mind with Mahāyāna Buddhism by showing the role of the “innate mind” (''cittaprakṛti'') in tathāgatagarbha tradition. +
C
This essay is an investigation into the concept of insentient things possessing Buddha-nature with a focus on [[Jingxi Zhanran]]’s thoughts. In the history of Chinese Buddhism, Zhanran was not the originator of such a concept; however, he was the first Tiantai thinker to advocate this idea. He strongly argues that according to the Tiantai Perfect Teaching, Buddha-nature certainly extends to insentient things, which refers to inanimate objects without a nervous system, i.e., tangible or formless nonliving existents. This essay therefore aims at revealing this intent of Zhanran by exploring his argument of insentient things’ Buddha-nature. For Zhanran, the key quality of Buddha-nature is all-pervasiveness, and thus naturally, not only animate beings but also inanimate things are imbued with Buddha-nature. According to the principle of mutual inclusion, each dharma realm includes the other nine realms. Also, because body and land are mutually identical, the bodies and lands of Buddhas are interfused with those of the dwellers in the other nine realms. Thus, the inanimate lands also have Buddhanature. Lastly, mutual inclusion reveals a two-way relationship between the sentient and the insentient, thereby giving the possibility of reversing the positions of the subjective observer and the objective phenomenon. As such, it is conducive to my conclusion that insentient things can also take up an active role on the path of Buddhahood, as Zhanran contends that they inherently possess the threefold Buddha-nature. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
Critical Buddhism was inevitable. That it was given voice by prominent Japanese scholars noted for their work in non-East Asian Buddhism was also inevitable. That it has provoked strong, even hostile, reactions was inevitable as well. Inevitable means that the causes and conditions that gave rise to Critical Buddhism can be analyzed and understood to show that it has a context, a history, and a necessity. Critical Buddhism is necessary. Thinking about what arises through causes and conditions, especially in terms of how that impacts on cultural and social realities, is a principal component of both Critical Buddhism and Buddhism properly practiced.<br> This essay will examine some—but certainly not all—of the factors that have contributed to Critical Buddhism. Some arguments and observations will be offered that, while not retellings from the writings of the Critical Buddhists, run parallel to them. These parallels, which I offer as supplements, recast some of their arguments and focus on issues and areas germane to their undertaking. After discussing the inevitability of Critical Buddhism in the context of twentieth-century Japanese Buddhist scholarship, I will turn to some of the events that took place in China during the seventh and eighth centuries that were decisive for the prevalence in East Asia of the type(s) of Buddhism they criticize. This will be followed by a critique of what has happened to the notion of enlightenment in East Asian Buddhism, particularly in the Ch’an and Zen traditions, with reference to the problem of ''hongaku'' (original enlightenment) and the authority of lineage transmission. Then, stepping back into a wider context, I will suggest that, far from being the idiosyncratic, misguided departure depicted by its detractors, Critical Buddhism is the inevitable revisiting of a theme that has been central to Buddhism since its onset. All the above points concern inevitabilities: the trajectory and accomplishments of Japanese scholarship in this century coupled with the crisis of Buddhism in the modern world; the decisive historical events that have established a pervasive ideological underpinning in East Asian Buddhism that Matsumoto and Hakamaya have labeled ''dhātu-vāda'', combined with the exclusion of other, counteracting Buddhist tendencies found elsewhere in the Buddhist world, such as Buddhist logic; the undermining of certain foundational Buddhist notions, such as enlightenment, as a result of or in tandem with the growth of ''dhātu-vāda'' ideology; the persistent self-criticism and self-reevaluation that Buddhism has subjected itself to, often glorifying the critique and the critics (Nāgārjuna being the most famous example)—all these points have made it inevitable that Critical Buddhism appear today in Japan (and elsewhere). Finally, while examining an aspect of Matsumoto’s critique of ''The Record of Lin-chi'', I will suggest some tactical distinctions that should be considered by those critical of Critical Buddhism (Lusthaus, "Critical Buddhism and Returning to the Sources," 30–31)
Articles/Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text of the Munimatālaṃkāra Chapter 1 (fol. 58r5–59v4): Passages on Caturāryasatya and Trisvabhāva Borrowed from Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka +
The ''Munimatālaṃkāra'' of Abhayākaragupta (composed 1113) is an encyclopedic overview of the entire system of non-tantric Buddhist doctrines and practices. Recently the existence of a Sanskrit manuscript was reported by Li Xuezhu (China Tibetology Center), and the textual study of the ''Munimatālaṃkāra'' is drastically evolving. The present paper is a part of results of our on-going project that deals with a critical edition of the Sanskrit text of the ''Munimatālaṃkāra''. In the text portion edited in this paper, Abhayākaragupta establishes the Four Truths of Noble ones and the Three Characteristics by borrowing passages from Kamalaśīla’s ''Madhyamakāloka'', which still lacks a Sanskrit original. We can recover parts of the Sanskrit original of the ''Madhyamakāloka'' on the basis of the Sanskrit text of the ''Munimatālaṃkāra''. The Appendix provides ''Bodhicittavivaraṇa'' verses 51, 67, 68, 88–93, and 108 cited in the newly available Sanskrit-Tibetan bilingual manuscript of Abhayākaragupta’s ''Āmnāyamañjarī''. +
D
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
Valley sounds are the long, broad<br> tongue.<br>Mountain colors are not other than<br> the unconditioned body.<br>Eighty-four thousand verses are<br> heard through the night.<br>What can I say about this in the<br> future?<br><br>
This poem is almost a thousand years old. It was presented to a Chinese Zen master by a follower, Su Shi, who went on to become one of China's greatest poets. In Zen these four lines are considered to be Su's enlightenment verse. In addition to being a poet, Su Shi (1037–1101) was a statesman, an essayist, a painter, and a calligrapher. He practiced Zen as a layperson, not a monk, receiving instruction from Donglin Changcong, a leading master. In China, Su is still honored as one of "the four greats" in several fields, including cooking.<br> Let’s take a look at the poem, using the above translation by Kazuaki Tanahashi (''Treasury of the True Dharma Eye: Zen Master Dōgen’s Shōbō Genzō'' [Shambhala, 2012], 86)<br> ''Valley sounds are the long, broad tongue''. "Valley sounds" are the sounds of a stream.<br> "Long, broad tongue" refers to the Buddha and his teachings, known as the Dharma. Restated unpoetically: natural phenomena such as streams are capable of expressing the highest truth. (Read entire article [https://rk-world.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DW18_7-12.pdf here]) +
Articles/Does a Dog See into Its Buddha-Nature? Re-posing the Question of Animality-Humanity in Zen Buddhism +
Using as his point of departure the well-known koan that asks whether or not a dog has Buddha-nature, Bret Davis traces the background of this question in his demonstration of the complexity of the relation between humans and animals as conceived during the development of East Asian Buddhism. In his analysis, he argues that on the one hand, Buddha-nature becomes ever more inclusive in this history, while on the other, it tends to remain firmly, albeit somewhat paradoxically, anthropocentric with regard to the capacity to "realize" this spiritual inclusivity. The issue arising from this analysis in Davis' chapter, "Does a Dog See Into its Buddha-Nature? Re-posing the Question of Animality in Zen Buddhism," is whether only humans have the potential to "see into" their Buddha-nature. His project throughout is to show how the question of animality is inseparable from the question of humanity, and how it emerges continuously and in various intertwined ways for those who inherit the weave of Buddhist texts and contexts for thought and practice. (Jones, ''Buddha Nature and Animality'', 9) +
In "The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism," Yasuo Deguchi, Jay Garfield, and Graham Priest (hereafter DGP) claimed that in certain parts of the Buddhist tradition contradictions are to be accepted as literally true. I shall confine my remarks to the case of Indian Madhyamaka, more specifically the Madhyamaka of the ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' of Nāgārjuna (''MMK'') and its four extant Indian commentaries. About East Asian Buddhism I am not qualified to speak. The DGB thesis might also be thought to apply to Indian Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha thought, but those cases would require separate treatment. What I shall claim is that the Madhyamaka of Nāgārjuna and his commentators is best interpreted as rejecting the claim that a contradiction might be true. More recently DGP seem to have conceded that the interpretation of Madhyamaka that I favor is "orthodox" while their own is "heretical." So apparently we do not disagree as to which interpretation was more commonly accepted in the tradition. There remains a disagreement as to which is the more philosophically defensible. In defending the view I favor I shall be engaging in a considerable amount of textual exegesis, for which I feel I should apologize in advance. What I seek to show is not only that no Madhyamika accepted the dialetheist view that contradictory statements can be true, but also that their position makes good philosophical sense when understood within the confines of classical logic. My working assumption (which I believe I share with DGP) is that the Madhyamikas under discussion were astute philosophers who were well aware of the further implications of the methods they used. Given this assumption, textual exegesis becomes an important component in the investigation of the question at issue between us. +
Articles/Does a Table Have Buddha-Nature? A Moment of Yes and No. Answer! But Not in Words or Signs! A Response to Mark Siderits +
Siderits argues that Nāgārjuna is not committed to the paradoxical claim that emptiness is the lack of intrinsic nature and that it is the intrinsic nature of all things, on the ground that the apparently paradoxical claims Nāgārjuna makes are simply admonitions to recuse oneself from the project of ontology. We argue that to recuse oneself from that project is to do ontology and so is no route out of paradox. We dispute Siderits' reading of several crucial passages, demonstrating that his readings are unattested in the commentarial literature and that they are implausible. Siderits argues on the basis of these readings that Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna are not committed to paradoxes. We show that more plausible readings that are better attested in the commentarial literature do so commit them. Siderits and we agree that the ultimate nature of reality is to lack any ultimate nature. He thinks that this is consistent; we think that it is paradoxical. +
Articles/Dolpopa and Gyaltsab Debate Tathāgatagarbha: Two Distinct Interpretations of Buddha-Nature in Tibet +
Buddhists have discussed the concept of enlightenment since the time of the Buddha, but the notion that all sentient beings have buddha-nature is found in Mahāyāna Buddhism. For the Mahāyāna thinkers, one of the crucial questions at the center of how all beings can achieve enlightenment is this apparent paradox: frailty, ignorance, and delusions presumably exist concomitantly with buddha-nature in all sentient beings. This article provides a brief survey of the textual history of the buddha-nature literature followed by an in-depth discussion of buddha-nature in the terms set out by two influential Tibetan thinkers, Dolpopa and Gyaltsab; the debate between these thinkers is set in relation to extant discourses of Buddhist ontology, epistemology, and enlightenment within the Tibetan Buddhist scholastic tradition. +
This article provides an introduction to Dzogchen. Dzogchen refers to an integrated set of texts, practices, philosophical perspectives, and theories of subjectivity unique to the most esoteric Buddhist and Bon traditions of Tibet. The philosophical core of Dzogchen is its emphasis on experiencing mind-nature and understanding its relationship to ordinary mental states. To be fully and nonconceptually aware of one's nature is called open presence. Dzogchen philosophy elaborates the issues and conundrums raised by this core tenet. Among Tibet's Buddhist traditions, it is only Nyingma, the most ancient school, that explicitly takes Dzogchen as its esoteric tradition. Both Nyingma and Bon see Dzogchen as the highest in a ninefold system known as the Nine Vehicles. ([https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328998.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195328998-e-24 Source Accessed July 24, 2020]) +
Roger Jackson reviews ''Heart of the Great Perfection: Dudjom Lingpa’s Visions of the Great Perfection, Vol. 1'', by B. Alan Wallace. +
