Search by property

From Buddha-Nature

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "BookEssay" with value "Michael Radich argues that the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'' was the first appearance of the term ''tathāgatagarbha''. Previous scholars have assumed that the term first appeared in the ''[[Tathāgatagarbhasūtra]]'', although as Radich's thesis advisor [[Michael Zimmermann]] has argued, the term was possibly added to the scripture that uses it in its title only in later versions. Radich's argument in this way buttresses Zimmerman's, which has been disputed by other scholars. His thesis rests partly on the <i>[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]</i>'s unique exposition of the term, one that was not repeated elsewhere. In this scripture, tathāgatagarbha is not an exhortation to practice, or a means to soothe fears of nihilism. Instead, it is an explanation of how a perfectly pure being such as a buddha could arise out of a polluted and degraded human being. It would seem that early Mahāyāna Buddhists had a misogynistic crisis similar to that of early Christians: an inability to accept that their spanine hero could have been born from a woman. Radich places this intellectual struggle within a context of "docetic Buddhism," meaning the attempt to explain that what one sees—the Buddha in a body—is not what is ultimately real; appearances are always deceiving. Similar to the way Yogācāra built on emptiness-theory with positive descriptions of the ultimate, the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'', Radich argues, offered a positive solution to the origin of buddhahood: because buddhas could not be generated out of a human womb, they were given metaphorical wombs—garbha —that are present in all sentient beings. Radich presents his argument alongside meticulous and extensive textual analysis to support his dating of the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'' to earlier than the ''[[Tathāgatagarbhasūtra]]''.". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 2 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


    

List of results

    • The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine  + (Michael Radich argues that the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'' waMichael Radich argues that the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'' was the first appearance of the term ''tathāgatagarbha''. Previous scholars have assumed that the term first appeared in the ''[[Tathāgatagarbhasūtra]]'', although as Radich's thesis advisor [[Michael Zimmermann]] has argued, the term was possibly added to the scripture that uses it in its title only in later versions. Radich's argument in this way buttresses Zimmerman's, which has been disputed by other scholars. His thesis rests partly on the <i>[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]</i>'s unique exposition of the term, one that was not repeated elsewhere. </br></br>In this scripture, tathāgatagarbha is not an exhortation to practice, or a means to soothe fears of nihilism. Instead, it is an explanation of how a perfectly pure being such as a buddha could arise out of a polluted and degraded human being. It would seem that early Mahāyāna Buddhists had a misogynistic crisis similar to that of early Christians: an inability to accept that their divine hero could have been born from a woman. Radich places this intellectual struggle within a context of "docetic Buddhism," meaning the attempt to explain that what one sees—the Buddha in a body—is not what is ultimately real; appearances are always deceiving. Similar to the way Yogācāra built on emptiness-theory with positive descriptions of the ultimate, the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'', Radich argues, offered a positive solution to the origin of buddhahood: because buddhas could not be generated out of a human womb, they were given metaphorical wombs—garbha —that are present in all sentient beings. Radich presents his argument alongside meticulous and extensive textual analysis to support his dating of the ''[[Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra]]'' to earlier than the ''[[Tathāgatagarbhasūtra]]''.)