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.
