Post-16
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
On buddha-nature, Sakya Paṇḍita held a clear ''rangtong'' view and attacked the Tibetan thinkers who took the buddha-nature teachings to be ultimate. In his ''Sdom gsum rab dbye'' [[Texts/Sdom_gsum_rab_dbye|(''Distinguishing the Three Vows'')]], he alleges that asserting an absolute buddha-nature in sentient beings would amount to a heretical philosophical view like that of the Saṃkhya school. Buddha-nature, according to him, is a designation for ''dharmatā'', the luminous nature which is free from all extremes and elaborations. The doctrines on buddha-nature such as those showing buddha-nature as a latent buddha quality in sentient beings, like a statue hidden in a rag, are to be understood only as provisional teachings to help beings enter the path of enlightenment. Should there be such an innate buddha-nature, it would be equivalent to the non-Buddhist ''ātman''. He also criticized those who understood buddha-nature as emptiness or as the buddha-element exclusively in sentient beings. | On buddha-nature, Sakya Paṇḍita held a clear ''rangtong'' view and attacked the Tibetan thinkers who took the buddha-nature teachings to be ultimate. In his ''Sdom gsum rab dbye'' [[Texts/Sdom_gsum_rab_dbye|(''Distinguishing the Three Vows'')]], he alleges that asserting an absolute buddha-nature in sentient beings would amount to a heretical philosophical view like that of the Saṃkhya school. Buddha-nature, according to him, is a designation for ''dharmatā'', the luminous nature which is free from all extremes and elaborations. The doctrines on buddha-nature such as those showing buddha-nature as a latent buddha quality in sentient beings, like a statue hidden in a rag, are to be understood only as provisional teachings to help beings enter the path of enlightenment. Should there be such an innate buddha-nature, it would be equivalent to the non-Buddhist ''ātman''. He also criticized those who understood buddha-nature as emptiness or as the buddha-element exclusively in sentient beings. | ||
| + | |WkQtContent=What is known as buddha-nature is the expanse of nirvāṇa. | ||
| + | |WkQtSource=Ghanavyūhasūtra | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 07:55, 29 January 2021
Sakya Paṇḍita and His Critique of Absolute Buddha-Nature[edit]
[[ |300px|thumb| ]] Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (1182–1251) is certainly one of the most influential Tibetan scholars. Enumerated as one of the three Mañjuśrīs of Tibet for his intellectual brilliance and learning, his writings continue to influence Tibetan Buddhist thought and culture. It was his scholarly stature which eventually led to the Sakya rule over Tibet. He also enjoys unique acclaim in being the only Tibetan to debate and defeat a non-Buddhist challenger and the only Tibetan author whose work was translated into Sanskrit. He is said to have defeated Harinanda in debate and had his Tshad ma rigs pa’i gter (Treasury of Logic and Epistemology) translated into Sanskrit.
On buddha-nature, Sakya Paṇḍita held a clear rangtong view and attacked the Tibetan thinkers who took the buddha-nature teachings to be ultimate. In his Sdom gsum rab dbye (Distinguishing the Three Vows), he alleges that asserting an absolute buddha-nature in sentient beings would amount to a heretical philosophical view like that of the Saṃkhya school. Buddha-nature, according to him, is a designation for dharmatā, the luminous nature which is free from all extremes and elaborations. The doctrines on buddha-nature such as those showing buddha-nature as a latent buddha quality in sentient beings, like a statue hidden in a rag, are to be understood only as provisional teachings to help beings enter the path of enlightenment. Should there be such an innate buddha-nature, it would be equivalent to the non-Buddhist ātman. He also criticized those who understood buddha-nature as emptiness or as the buddha-element exclusively in sentient beings.
Weekly quote[edit]
What is known as buddha-nature is the expanse of nirvāṇa.
