Property:TileDescription
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
A
Articles/A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection +
In the summer of 2007 I had the opportunity to participate in Francesco Sferra’s course on Kamalaśīla’s First ''Bhāvanākrama'' at the University of Hamburg. For his lectures Sferra kindly provided us with digital images of Tucci’s photographs of the Sanskrit manuscript of this text. The 27 extant folios of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' (fols. 2–28), which were used by Tucci for the ''editio princeps'' of the text,<sup>1</sup> have been photographed in three successive multi-folio images together with nine extra folios that appear in two photos only, namely those labelled MT 41 II/01 and MT 42 II/02. My attention was caught by these folios since while the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript is written in Magadhi script, these nine folios are written in Śāradā script — a rather rare phenomenon among the corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in Tibet. They and the rest of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript were originally preserved at Zwa lu Ri phug.<sup>2</sup> The manuscripts preserved there were probably taken to Beijing (The Cultural Palace of Nationalities) in the 1960s, but were returned to Lhasa sometime after 1990 (first to Nor bu gliṅ ka and then to the Tibetan Museum).<sup>3</sup><br>
Of the nine folios, Tucci photographed both sides of seven of them, while he photographed only one side of the remaining two (here labelled 7.2 and 9.2). The two sides not filmed were probably blank or contained title pages (unfortunately, Tucci did not photograph title pages). Some images are out of focus and barely legible, and thus a complete diplomatic transcription is almost impossible. If Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana photographed the same folios, this would be very helpful in deciphering them; however, I have yet to find evidence that he did. Therefore, I have only been able to go through the folios haltingly, and so identify a limited number of them. (Kano, introductory remarks, 381–82)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#The reproduction of these folios will appear together with a new critical edition of the Sanskrit text, a new edition of the Tibetan translation and an annotated English translation in a new issue of Manuscripta Buddhica which is being prepared by Francesco Sferra and Iain Sinclair.
#It should be noted that in the introduction of the ''editio princeps'' of the First ''Bhāvanākrama'', Tucci states: "The manuscript is preserved in the monastery of sPos k’aṅ on a side valley to the right of the Myań c’u, between Gyantse and Shigatse" (Tucci 1956: 6-7). However, this information is most probably wrong for the following reasons: ''a)'' the same manuscript was most likely seen by Sāṅkṛtyāyana in Źwa lu Ri phug in 1936 (1937: 39); ''b)'' the envelope itself containing the negatives of Tucci’s photographs are labelled "Zha lu" (see above, p. 46); ''c)'' in Źwa lu Ri phug there were other manuscripts in Śāradā script, in particular a manuscript containing Sajjana’s ''Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa'', which might be connected with the ''Sūtrālaḿkārapiṇḍārtha'' reproduced together with the first ''Bhavanākrama''.
#Cf. Steinkellner 2004.
A Prolegomena to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha Theory: The Role of Women in Buddhism +
The ''Śrīmālādevī siṁhanāda sūtra'' (''ŚDS'') (''The Treatise on the Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā'') is a Mahāyāna text no longer extant in Sanskrit but preserved in both the Chinese and Tibetan Tripiṭakas. This text is a unique development within the Buddhist tradition because of its egalitarian view concerning women, portraying, on the one band, the dignity and wisdom of a laywoman and her concern for all beings, and on the other, the role of woman as a philosopher and teacher. Doctrinally, the major emphasis is upon the Tathāgatagarbha and Ekayāna.<br> Because of the number of citations and references which are retained in Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' seems to have been widely circulated throughout India. This text is
quoted in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'' (''The Supreme Exposition of Mahāyāna: A Commentary on the Jewel Lineage'')[1] and the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' (''A Compendium on Instruction'')[2] with allusions made in the ''Laṅkāvatāra sūtra''[3] and the ''Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra'' (''The Ornament of the Mahāyāna sūtras'').[4] The ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun'' (''Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi'') by Hsüan-tsang also quotes from the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' but does not identify the ''sūtra'' by name.[5]<br> According to the ''Sung kao seng chuan''[6] Bodhiruci used a Sanskrit text of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' for reference in translating the text into Chinese. From the above evidence, it may be concluded that a Sanskrit original of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' did exist and that this text was part of the Indian Buddhist tradition.<br>
The classical Chinese text is extant in two recensions:<br>
1) ''Sheng-man shih-tzu-hou i-ch'eng ta-fang-pien fang-kuang ching'' (1 ch.) (T.v.12, no. 353, pp. 217-223), translated by Guṇabhadra (394-468) in 435.<br>
2) ''Sheng-man-fu-jen hui'' which is the forty-eighth assembly in the Ratnakūṭa anthology (''Ta-pao chi ching'') (T.v.11, no. 310, pp. 672-678), translated by Bodhiruci[7] (572-727) of T'ang between 706 and 713.<br> Because Guṇabhadra's translation is almost three hundred years older than Bodhiruci's, it has been chosen as the basic text in order to trace the development of Tathāgatagarbha thought in its original form. Bodhiruci's translation is used when Guṇabhadra's translation is ambiguous and when differences in interpretation are indicated.<br> The Tibetan recension, ''Hphags-pa lha-mo dpal-phreṅ gi seṅ-geḥi sgra shes-bya-ba theg-pa chen-poḥi mdo'' (Tōhoku no. 92, Bkaḥ-ḥgyur), which is part of the Ratnakūṭa anthology, will not be used. When significant differences between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions occur, the Tibetan text will be noted also.[8]<br> The commentaries which are extant are few and only in Chinese and Japanese. There are no Tibetan commentaries now extant, which discuss only the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[9] According to the ''Kao seng chuan'',[10] immediately after the translation of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' many commentaries were composed by monks who had studied and memorized the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''. These texts, now lost, were dated between the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. According to Chi-tsang's ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'', monks studied and composed commentaries on the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' from the North-South dynastic periods through the Sui (i.e. from approximately 440-618 A.D.).<br> The major commentaries[11] extant in Chinese are:<br>1) ''Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching'' (T.v.85, no. 2763) - Although the commentator is unknown, this text was probably the composition of a noble woman of Northern Wei, attested to by the calligraphy and literary style of the Tun-huang manuscript. Completed before 500 A.D., it is the oldest extant commentary on the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[12] Only Chapter 5, "Ekayāna" is discussed.<br>2) ''Sheng-man ching i-chi'' (2 ch.) (''Dainihon zokuzōkyō'', v.1, no. 30-1) by Hui-yüan, (523-692) of Sui - Only the first half of the text is extant, corresponding to the first four chapters of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.<br>3) ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'', (3 ch.) (T.v.37, no. 1744) by Chi-tsang (549-623) of Sui.<br>4) ''Sheng-man ching shu-chi'', (2 ch.) (''Dainihon zokuzōkyō'' v.1, no. 30-4) by K'uei-chi (632-682) of T'ang.<br>5) ''Sheng-man ching su-i ssu-ch'ao'', (6 ch.) (''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Ming-k'ung[13] of T'ang in 772.<br> The major commentaries extant in Japanese are:<br>1) ''Shōmagyō gisho'' (1 ch.) (T.v.56, no. 2184) attributed to Prince Shōtoku (573-621) but probably the composition of a North Chinese Buddhist scholar.[14]<br>2) ''Shōmangyō shosho genki'', (18 ch.) (''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Gyōnen (1240-1321). First five chüan are missing. The extant text begins with the chapter "The Ten Ordination Vows".<br>3) ''Shōman-shishikugyō kenshūshō'' (3 ch.) (''Nihon daizōkyō'', v. 5; ''Dainihon bukkyō zensho'', v.4) by Fūjaku (1707-1781)<br> The ''Sheng-man ching pao k'u'' and the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' are the two primary commentaries upon which the present study's interpretation of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is based. These two commentaries have been selected because the former, written by a San-lun master, interprets Tathāgatagarbha from a Mādhyamikan perspective whereas the latter is representative of the North Chinese scholars' interpretation and frequently overshadows the sūtra itself in popularity, particularly in Japan. The ''Sheng-man ching i-chi'' and the ''Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching'' are used as references in analyzing Chapters 4 and 5, "The Acceptance of the true Dharma" and the "One Vehicle" respectively of the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.<br> In Chapter One, a historical analysis will be attempted, suggesting the place and time of composition on the basis of external and internal evidence now available. In Chapter Two, the evolution of the Tathāgatagarbha will be outlined, based upon the first two Tathāgatagarbhan texts, the ''Tathāgatagarbha sūtra'' and the ''Pu tseng pu chien ching'', which predate the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''.[15]<br> In Chapter Three the characteristic format of the
''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is summarized in relation to the ''Tathāgatagarbha sūtra'' and the ''Pu tseng pu chien''. In Chapter Four the Tathāgatagarbha as presented in the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' is analyzed with relation to the text as a whole, and in Chapter Five the annotated translation of the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra'' is presented with notations of key differences between the two Chinese recensions and with references made to the two commentaries, ''Sheng-man ching pao-k'u'' and ''Shōmangyō gisho'', and to the Sanskrit fragments noted above.<br> Appendix I is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a methodology of Buddhist studies which would provide a foundation for the skills needed for a critical analysis and interpretation of Buddhist phenomena. Appendix II is an annotated bibliography for studying the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra''. Appendix I is admittedly limited and will provide only the most general outline of the requisite methodological procedure in analyzing a Buddhist text. (Paul, introduction, 1–6)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#There are two English translations of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'': E. E. Obemiller, ''The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism'' (Rome: ''Acta Orientalia'', 1932), (Shanghai reprint: 1940) and Jikido Takasaki, ''A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism'' (Rome: Series Orientale Rome XXIII, 1966). The Sanskrit text of the ''Ratnagotra-vibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra'', ed., by E. R. Johnston (Patna: Bihar Society, 1950) cites the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'' on pp. 3, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 50, 55, 56, 59, 72, 73, 74, 76, and 79. A portion of these Sanskrit fragments have been noted below, in the translation, wherever differences or ambiguities in the Chinese recensions occur.
#Cf. ''Çikshāsamuccaya (A Compendium on Buddhist Teaching'', ed. by Cecil Bendall (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, (1897-1902), vol. I of ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'', reprinted by ''Indo-Iranian Journal'' (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957), pp. 42 and 43.
#Cf. ''Laṅkāvatāra sūtra'', ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio, (Second edition, Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1956), p. 222 line 19 and p. 223 line 4.
#Cf. ''Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra'', ed. by Sylvain Lévi (Paris: 1907), (Shanghai reprint : 1940), Tome 1 (XI, 59), p. 70. The cited passage, attributed to the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra'', could not be found in either Chinese recension. Lévi also was unable to find the passage but does allude to the citation as being in the ''Çikshāsamuccaya'', ed. by Cecil Bendall, op. cit., but these two citations are not of the same passage.
#The following citations are quoted in the ''Ch'eng wei-shih lun'', translated by Hsüan-tsang (T.v.31, no. 1585, p. 1-60): (The remainder of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.)
#(The first part of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.) In the second year of T'ang emperor Chung-tsung in the reign of Shen-lung (706) he (Bodhiruci) returned to the capital (Loyang) to Chao ch'ung-fu temple to translate the ''Mahāratnakūṭa'' anthology. This anthology bad forty-nine old and new assemblies, totaling 120 ch., which were finished in the fourth month, eighth day of the second year of Hsun-t'ien (713). In the translation hall, the monks Ssu-chung and the Indian director Iśara (?) translated the Sanskrit: while the Indian monks Prajñāgupta (?) and Dharma were consulted concerning the Sanskrit meaning." (T.v.50, no. 2061, p. 720b)<br>The ''Sung kao seng chuan'', 30 ch., was compiled by Chih-lun and Tsang-ning of the Sung dynasty during the period from the beginning of the T'ang dynasty until 967 according to Ui Hakuju, ''Bukkyō jiten'' (''A Buddhist Dictionary''), (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1971), p. 654 and until 988 according to Nakamura Hajime, ''Shin-bukkyō jiten'' (''The New Buddhist Dictionary''), (Tokyo: Seishin shobō, 1972), p. 329.
#According to the ''Sung kao seng chuan'', op. cit., (p. 720c) Bodhiruci died in the fifteenth year of K'ai-yuan (727) of T'ang at the age of 156.
#The differences noted between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions are based upon the ''Shōmangyō hōgatsu dōji shomongyō'' (Kyoto: Kōkyō shoin, 1940) by Tsukinowa Kenryū.
#Tibetan commentaries on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' do interpret the passages which cite the ''Śrīmālādevī sūtra''. These are not discussed within the present study.
#''Kokuyaku-issaikyō hōshaku-bu shichi'', Ono Masao (gen. ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1958), p. 84 lists the monks who attempted to write commentaries now lost. The ''Kao seng chuan'', compiled by Hui-chao of the Liang dynasty, is the record of approximately 253 eminent monks from 67 A.D. through 519 A.D. Cf. Ui, ''Shin-bukkyō jiten'', op. cit., p. 303.
#For a complete listing of all commentaries in both Chinese and Japanese, extant and no longer extant, see below - Appendix II, Annotated Bibliography.
#Fujieda Akira, "Hokucho ni okeru ''Shōmangyō no tenshō''" in ''Tōhō gakuhō'', v.XL, 1973, p. 334. (Journal of the Institute of Humanities) (Jimbun Kagaku kenkyūsho) (Kyoto University).
#According to the ''Bussho kaisetsu daijiten'', Ono Masao {gen.ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1966), vol. V, p. 350, this text was composed by both Prince Shōtoku and Ming-k'ung.
#Prince Shōtoku most probably did not compose the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' since many of the texts which the ''Gisho'' cites were not known to Prince Shōtoku but were introduced to Japan at a much later date. For the transmission of the Chinese commentaries on the ''Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra'', see "Hokucho ni okeru ''Shōmangyō''", op. cit. For the "original" Gisho, composed by a Chinese scholar of the North-South dynastic period, residing in North China, see "Shōman gisho hongi" in ''Shōtoku taishi kenkyū'', v. 5 (Osaka: Shitennoji Joshi Daigaku, 1973) by Koizumi Enjun in which the original Chinese commentary is edited and later almost entirely copied in the ''Shōmangyō gisho''.<br> The research on these commentaries at the time of this writing has been undertaken by members of the Jimbun Kagaku kenkyusho who are affiliated with Kyoto University. From analyzing the Tun-huang manuscripts, two very similar hypotheses have been developed: a) The Gisho itself was written by a Chinese scholar, or b) The original for the ''Shōmangyō gisho'', viz. ''Shōman gisho hongi'' (or, ''Sheng-man i-su ben-i''), was composed by a Northern Chinese scholar and later almost entirely interpolated into the ''Shōmangyō gisho'' by Prince Shōtoku or one of his followers.
#The analysis of Tathāgatagarbha was undertaken in consultation with Professors Yuichi Kajiyama, Chairman of Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University, and Gadjin Nagao, Professor Emeritus in Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University.
A listing of 45 Tibetan commentaries on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. +
Articles/A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan +
Ching Keng’s paper challenges the prevalent assumption that the ''Awakening of Faith'' was composed under the influence of the Dilun School. Keng aims to show that in the representative works of Huiyuan, arguably the most important Dilun master, we do not find the essential doctrinal feature of the ''Awakening of Faith'', namely, the compromise or even the total obliteration of the distinction between unconditioned (''asaṃskṛta'') and conditioned (''saṃskṛta'') dharmas. Keng observes that almost all available studies of Huiyuan focus on a small piece entitled "Bashi yi" (八識義, "On the Meaning of the Eight Consciousnesses"), which shows strong influence from the "Awakening of Faith"; but that other works of Huiyuan outline a very different conceptual scheme. Taking these other works as representing Huiyuan's earlier thought, and therefore Dilun thought, Keng argues that the hallmark of Huiyuan's thought is a dualist scheme, in which the inherently pure aspect is unambiguously unconditioned, with no blending with conditioned dharmas; this inherently pure aspect can adjust to falsity (''suiwang'' 隨妄) and give rise to misconception, but without compromising its unconditioned nature. Upon this basis, Keng contends that the compromise between unconditioned and conditioned in the ''Awakening of Faith'' should be regarded as an innovation, rather than a direct outgrowth from Dilun thought. An important broader implication of Keng's argument is that Huiyuan’s thought, Dilun thought, and even the thought of the ''Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra'' has been anachronistically misinterpreted through the later, typically Chinese lens of the ''Awakening of Faith''. This suggests the sobering possibility that typically "sinitic" (or even "sinified") developments became so pervasive in the later East Asian tradition that their stamp may still lie heavy upon parts of modern Buddhology itself, and that we might therefore overlook both evidence and products of "sinifying" processes, and even the actual features of Indic materials. (Radich and Lin, introduction to ''A Distant Mirror'', 25–26)
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'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' 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'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' 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'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'<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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' 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)<br><br>
[https://ia801608.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.277506/2015.277506.1105_W_O_text.pdf Read more here . . .]
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]) +
'''Abstract'''
This study is an examination of Master Yinshun's hermeneutics. It focuses especially on his interpretation of the Buddhist concept known as the ''tathagatagarbha'', which refers to the idea that all sentient beings intrinsically possess the "womb of the Buddha." In some explanations of this teaching, the ''tathāgatagarbha'' is symbolic of the practitioner's potential for attaining enlightenment. In others, it functions as a synonym for the Ultimate and becomes the eternalistic substrate for all of existence. It is this latter view to which Yinshun takes exception, seeing it as antithetical to the doctrine of emptiness which espouses the notion that all things, including ideas, material objects, and living beings, lack a permanent and independent nature and thus cannot possess an unchanging, eternalistic form.<br> I focus particularly on Yinshun's text ''A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha'', for it serves as a concise statement of his interpretation of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' and its relationship to emptiness. In this text, Yinshun continually asserts the doctrine of emptiness as the definitive expression of Buddhist truth and relegates the ''tathāgatagarbha'' to the category of expedient means. He does this by examining the development of the ''tathāgatagarbha'' emphasizing particularly its evolution within pre-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna textual sources said to have had their genesis in India such as the ''Āgamas'', the ''Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras'' and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. For Yinshun, to regard the ''tathāgatagarbha'' as the ultimate truth rather than as an expedient means can only result in misguided practice and confusion about how to attain enlightenment.<br> I conclude by asking a number of general questions about Yinshun's thought and its relationship to the early to mid-twentieth century intellectual milieu in China. I also inquire about how Yinshun's ideas have contributed to the development of contemporary Chinese Buddhist movements flourishing in Taiwan today. (Source: [https://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-master-yinshuns-hermeneutics-an-interpretation-of-the-tathagatagarbha-doctrine/oclc/1118674801&referer=brief_results Worldcat Library Materials Online])
'''Abstract'''
Through a close examination on three Sanskrit compounds — i.e., tathāgatanairātmyagarbha, tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāvas tathāgatagarbhahṛdayam — in the ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'', this thesis will demonstrate how the tathāgatagarbha thought in the ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' is significantly enriched by Yogācāric influence.<br> First, in regard to tathāgata-nairātmya-garbha, a doctrinal review of the term "nairātmya" is necessary, because its definition differs according to different traditions. In primitive Buddhism, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "anātman" (non-existence of a substantial self), which indicates that in the realm of suffering and the impermanence of life phenomena that arise according to the principle of co-dependent
origination/ pratītyasamutpāda, no eternal and dependent ātman can be found. According to
the Madhyamaka School, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "niḥsvabhāva" (no
intrinsic-nature) which implies that all beings, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are all devoid of an ever-abiding intrinsic nature. For the Yogācāra School, the reality of nairātmya is said to be grasped under the principle of mind-only. That is to say, the imagined self /kalpitātman that is the presentation of mind is unreal, while the indescribable self/ anabhilāpyātman that is the genuine mind itself is real. Finally, it can be said that the tathāgata-nairātmya-garbha in ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' accords well with the Yogācāra teaching. In other words, it is the Yogācāric sense of nairātmya that sheds an influence upon the tathāgatagarbha doctrine.<br> Secondly, in regard to tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna, a doctrinal development is promoted owing to the identification of tathāgatagarbha with ālayavijñāna, which according to the Yogācāra School is also named "sarvabīljavijñāna" (cognition as the seed of everything). This latter synonym references its function of bringing forth all beings just as a giant tree originates from a seed. As a result of its identification with the ālayavijñāna, the tathāgatagarbha is said to be endowed with the function of bringing forth all forms of existence and thus becomes the "producing cause" of all. This interpretation is not seen in earlier scriptures wherein the tathāgatagarbha is described simply as a static substance supporting all beings.<br> Thirdly, in regard to pariniṣpannasvabhāvastathāgata-garbhahṛdayam, the implication of the tathāgatagarbha was expanded substantially by declaring that pariniṣpannasvabhāva is the very essence of tathāgatagarbha. The term "pariniṣpannasvabhāva" according to some important Yogācāra texts is defined as tathatā (ultimate realm of suchness). The combining of pariniṣpannasvabhāva with tathāgatagarbha that had formerly focused on the subjective potential of realizing wisdom, shifts the doctrinal emphasis toward the objective realm of realized perfection.<br> This thesis reveals that, having assimilated the Yogācāric doctrine of dharmanairātmya, ālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāva, the tathāgatagarbha thinking in ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' presents the comprehensive and distinctive features in comparison to the scriptures that preceded it.
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. +
A classic translation and study of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Ratnagotravibhāga, with reference to the Chinese. +
Articles/A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism-Review by de Jong +
For several reasons the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' deserves our attention. It is the only text on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' which has been preserved in Sanskrit. There are many problems connected with its place in the history of Mahāyāna philosophy and with its authorship. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to Maitreya and the prose commentary to Asaṅga. This text is held in high regard as one of the five treatises composed by Maitreya. However, the Chinese tradition attributes the whole work to Sāramati. This tradition is mentioned by Yüan-ts'e (613-696) in his commentary on the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra''[1] and by Fa-tsang (643-712) in his commentary on the ''Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra''[2]. Probably the earliest reference to Sāramati as author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is to be found in Chih-i's ''Mo-ho chih-kuan'' (''Taishō'', Vol. XLVI, Nr. 1911, p. 31b18-26) which has been dictated by him in 594 (cf. p. 125 of Tsukinowa's article mentioned in note 8). The identity of Sāramati raises many problems. Some scholars have identified him with Sthiramati,[3] others have distinguished two Sāramati's.[4] There are also many obscurities in the Chinese traditions concerning the translator of the Chinese version. Chinese catalogues mention two translations, one by Ratnamati and the other by Bodhiruci.<br> In 1931 E. Obermiller published a translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan: "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation", ''Acta Orientalia'', Vol. IX, Part II.III, pp. 81-306.[5] His interpretation of the text is based upon a commentary by Tsoṅ-kha-pa's pupil and successor rGyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen (1364–1432)[6] The Sanskrit text has been edited by E. H. Johnston and published by T. Chowdhury: ''The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' (Patna, 1950). This edition is based upon two manuscripts found in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṁkṛtyāyana. The edition of the Sanskrit text has given a new impulse to the study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Several passages of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have been translated by E. Conze (''Buddhist Texts through the Ages'', Oxford, 1954, pp. 130-131, 181-184 and 216-217). In ''Die Philosophie des Buddhismus'' (Berlin, 1956, pp. 255-264) E. Frauwallner has given a summary of the ideas contained in this text and a translation of several verses.[7] In 1959 Ui Hakuju published a detailed study on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (''Hōshōron Kenkyū'') which contains a complete translation (pp. 471-648), together with a Sanskrit-Japanese glossary (pp. 1-60 with separate pagination).[8] Professor Takasaki's translation was undertaken during his stay in India (1954-1957) and continued afterwards. Apart from this book he has published between 1958 and 1964 ten articles relating to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (a list is given on pp. xii-xiii).[9] . . .<br> The translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' by Professor Takasaki is the first to be based on the Sanskrit text and the Chinese and Tibetan translations. Obermiller utilized only the Tibetan version and his translation, excellent as it is, contains a number of mistakes which are obvious in the light of the Sanskrit text. Ui utilized both the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation, but he was unable to consult the Tibetan translation directly. His knowledge of it was based upon a Japanese translation, made for him by Tada Tōkan, and upon Obermiller's English translation. It is clear from many indications that the Chinese translation is closer to the original than both the Sanskrit text and the Tibetan translation. However, as concerns the interpretation of the text, the Chinese translation is now always a reliable guide. There are several places where Professor Takasaki has been too much influenced by it but in general he indicates very well the wrong interpretations which are to be found in the Chinese translation. For the Tibetan translation Professor Takasaki has consulted only the Derge edition. A comparison of the passages quoted in the notes with the corresponding passages in the Peking edition (the only one at my disposal) shows that the Derge edition does not always give a satisfactory text. An edition of the Tibetan translation based on the Derge, Peking and Narthang editions would be highly desirable. In view of the importance of the vocabulary of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' for both Buddhist Sanskrit and Mahāyāna terminology, it would also be very useful to have indexes, on the lines of those compiled by Professor Nagao for the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''.<br><br>
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24650390?seq=1 Read more here . . .]<br><br>
<h5>Notes</h5>
#P. Demiéville, ''BEFEO'', XXIV, 1-2 (1924), p. 53.
#N. Peri, ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), p. 350; Takasaki, p. 9.
#Cf. H. W. Bailey and E. H. Johnston, "A Fragment of the Uttaratantra in Sanskrit", ''BSOS'', VIII (1935), pp. 77-89 (esp. p. 81) and Johnston's foreword to his edition of the Sanskrit text, pp. x-xii. To this Sthiramati the Tibetan tradition attributes a commentary on the ''Kāśyapaparivarta''. The Chinese translation (''Taishō'', 1523) is due to Bodhiruci. According to Chinese catalogues this commentary, just as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', has been translated by both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Cf. A. Staël-Holstein's edition (''A Commentary of the ''Kāśyapaparivarta'', Peking, 1933) and P. Pelliot's review, ''TP'', XXXII (1936), pp. 75-76. According to Chinese traditions both Bodhiruci and Ratnamati have translated also the ''Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra'' (''Taishō'', No. 1522), cf. Noël Peri, "A propos de la date de Vasubandhu", ''BEFEO'', XI (1911), pp. 352-353; Stanley Weinstein, "The concept of ''ālaya-vijñāna'' in pre-T'ang Chinese Buddhism". ''Essays on the History of Buddhist Thought. Presented to Professor Reimon Yūki'' (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 34-35. On the relations between Bodhiruci and Ratnamati see P. Demiéville, "Sur l'authenticité du ''Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen''", ''Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise'', II, 2 (Tōkyō, 1929), pp. 30ff.
#See the references given by Ét. Lamotte, ''L'Enseignement de Vimalakīrti'' (Louvain, 1962), pp. 92-93, n. 2. According to Hattori Masaaki, there is only one Sāramati who lived between Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga-Vasubandhu.
#Cf. La Vallée Poussin's interesting review, ''MCB'', I (1931-1932), pp. 406-409.
#Cf. G. Tucci, ''Tibetan Painted Scrolls'', I (Roma, 1949), p. 119: A ''Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism'' (Sendai, 1953), No. 5434. Ogawa Ichijō, "Butsu (Nyorai) to Busshō (Nyoraizō) — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso o shoe to shite", ''IBK'', XIII (1965), pp. 247-250. Id.: "Indo Daijō Bukkyō ni okeru Nyoraizō-Busshō-shisō ni tsuite — Darumarinchen-zō Hōshōron Shakuso no kaidoku o kokoromite —", ''Tōhōgaku'', 30 (1965), pp. 102-116. A complete translation of this commentary would be very welcome.
#According to Frauwallner Sāramati lived about 250 A.D.
#For completeness' sake mention must be made of a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text in Roman letters and the Chinese translation by Nakamura Zuiryū: The ''Ratnagotravibhāga-Mahāyānottaratantra-çāstra. Compared with Sanskrit and Chinese, with introduction and Notes'' (Tokyo, 1961) (published originally in ''Ōsaki Gakuhō'', 103-110, 1955-1959). More important are the following articles: Tsukinowa Kenryū, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron ni tsuite", ''Nihon Bukkyō Kyōkai Nenpō'', VII (1935) pp. 121-139; Takata Ninkaku, "Kukyōichijōhōshōron no johon ni tsuite", ''Mikkyō Bunka'', 31 (1955) pp. 9-37; Hattori Masaaki, "'Busshōron' no ichi kōsatsu", ''Bukkyō Shigaku'', IV, 3-4 (1955), pp. 16-36 (I have not been able to consult the last two articles); Takata Ninkaku, "Hōshōron ni okeru tenne (āśrayaparivṛtti) ni tsuite", ''IBK'', VI (1958), pp. 501-504; Ogawa Ichijō, "'Busshō' to 'buddhatva'", ''IBK'', XI (1963), pp. 544-545.
#Not mentioned are two articles published in 1953: "Hōshōron ni okeru nyoraizō no igi", ''IBK'', 1, pp. 368-369 ; "Nyoraizō to engi — Hōshōron o tegakari to shite —", ''IBK'', II, pp. 244-247.
Articles/A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra +
The current of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought that was born in Indian Mahayana Buddhism spread throughout the cultural sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in Asia and has also long held a fascination for people far beyond its geographical confines. The academic foundations for the study of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought in India were laid by Takasaki Jikido, and the task left to us is to repeatedly reexamine each of Takasaki's findings on the basis of existing and newly discovered materials and corroborate or emend them. <br> Takasaki argued that the first extant text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' was the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''. Since Takasaki's research was published, there have been some remarkable advances in research on the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', and in recent years scholars such as S. Hodge and M. Radich have begun to argue that it was the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' that was the first Buddhist text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha''. The question of which of these two sūtras came first has not yet been definitively resolved, but it may be generally accepted that both belong to the oldest stratum of Buddhist texts dealing with ''tathāgatagarbha''.<br> On a previous occasion (Kano 2017), focusing on this point, I collected Sanskrit fragments of both texts containing the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' and discussed differences in the expressions in which it is used. In particular, taking into account the findings of Shimoda Masahiro, I argued that if the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' appearing in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' is interpreted as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound qualifying ''stūpa'', this would accord with the word's usage in this sūtra and with the gist of the chapter "Element of the Tathāgata" (Habata 2013: §§ 375–418). This does not mean, however, that this understanding needs to be applied uniformly to every example of its use in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra''. Because in this earlier article I focused somewhat unduly on the interpretation of ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound, the fact that there are instances of wordplay making use of the multiple meanings of ''garbha'' in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' needs to be added, together with some concrete examples. (In the passages of this sūtra, it is natural to understand the term ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a substantive in the sense of "''garbha'' of ''tathāgata''" or "''garbha'' that is ''tathāgata''," namely, ''tatpuruṣa'' or ''karmadhāraya'', and I do not exclude this possibility as discussed in Kano 2017: 39–42.) In addition, there were some redundant aspects in the structure of my earlier article. In this article I rework these aspects so as to sharpen the focus on the points at issue and add some supplementary points. In the first half I clarify some grammatical characteristics to be observed in examples of the use of ''tathāgatagarbha'' in Sanskrit fragments of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', while in the second half I ascertain the polysemy of the word ''garbha'' on the basis of some concrete examples. (Kano, "A Syntactic Analysis," 17–18)
The Mahāratnakūta Sūtra is one of the five major sutra groups in the Mahāyāna canon. Of the two great schools of Buddhism, Mahāyāna has the greatest number of adherents worldwide—it prevails among the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, and Vietnamese—and contains within it a number of movements, notably Zen, which have been of growing interest in the West in recent decades. Yet despite this increased attention and enormous following, translations of Mahāyāna scriptures have been scarce and fragmentary; clearly, a comprehensive translation of a major work within the canon was called for.
This volume addresses that need. It contains 22 of the 49 Sūtras of the Mahāratnakūta (or "Treasury") Sūtra, many translated for the first time in a Western language, selected and arranged to give the modern reader a progressive introduction to one of the world's major religious traditions. Subjects covered include Māyā and miracles, the teachings on Consciousness, Emptiness, and monastic discipline, the Mystical Light of the Tathāgata, and the devotional practice of Pure Land, making this a comprehensive source book of Mahāyāna Buddhism hitherto unavailable in English. The book also includes an introduction to provide historical and interpretive guidance, annotations that assist in the comprehension of difficult passages, and an extensive glossary that will be valuable to specialist and layman alike. A team of scholars, working in Taiwan, spent eight years translating the Treasury's million words from Chinese, using Tibetan texts for comparison and checking each Sūtra with an international board of scholars. In the course of translating from the original, special effort was made to retain both the devotional style appropriate for religious reading and the precision required by the scholar, while presenting the material with a clarity and flow that would make it accessible to the Western layman. The editors then selected, arranged, and annotated the 22 Sūtras presented here. ([https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-00341-3.html Source Accessed May 20, 2021])
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).
Aaron K. Koseki received his PhD in Buddhist Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1977 under the supervision of Minoru Kiyota. His dissertation is entitled "Chi-tsang's Ta-ch'eng-hsüan-lun: The Two Truths and the Buddha-Nature." Some of his articles include: "Prajñāpāramitā and the Buddhahood of the Non-Sentient World: The San-Lun Assimilation of Buddha-Nature and Middle Path Doctrine," ''Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies'' 3/1 (1980), "Later Mādhyamika in China: Some Current Perspectives on the History of Chinese Prajñāpāramitā Thought," ''Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies'' 5/2 (1982), "Chi-tsang's ''Sheng-man pao-k'u'': The True Dharma Doctrine and the Bodhisattva Ideal," ''Philosophy East and West'' 34, no. 1, (1984), "The concept of practice in San Lun thought: Chi-tsang and the 'concurrent insight' of the Two Truths," ''Philosophy East and West'' 31, no. 4, (1981), and a review of Minoru Kiyota's book ''Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice'', ''Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies'' 1/2 (1979). +
Masao Abe is a leading Buddhist thinker who has spent many years furthering the work begun by D. T. Suzuki. He received his Ph.D. from Kyoto University after postgraduate studies at Columbia University and Union Theological Seminary. Abe has been a visiting professor at several major universities in the United States and has traveled widely in Europe and Asia as well. Author of ''Zen and Western Thought'', he has also contributed to the Macmillan Library of Philosophy and Religion series. ([https://www.shambhala.com/authors/a-f/masao-abe.html Source Accessed Nov 22, 2019]) +
Indian tantric Buddhist master who was born into a brāhmaṇa family in either Orissa or northeast India near Bengal. Sources vary regarding his dates of birth and death, although most agree that he was a contemporary of the Pāla king Rāmapāla, who began his reign during the final quarter of the eleventh century. Abhayākaragupta became a Buddhist monk in response to a prophetic vision and trained extensively in the esoteric practices of tantra, while nevertheless maintaining his monastic discipline (''vinaya''). Abhayākaragupta was active at the monastic university of Vikramaśīla in Bihar and became renowned as both a scholar and a teacher. He was a prolific author, composing treatises in numerous fields of Buddhist doctrine, including monastic discipline and philosophy as well as tantric ritual practice and iconography. Many Sanskrit manuscripts of his works have been preserved in India, Nepal, and Tibet, and his writings were influential both in India and among Newari Buddhists in Nepal. Translations of his works into Tibetan were begun under his supervision, and more than two dozen are preserved in the Tibetan canon. To date, Abhayākaragupta’s writings best known in the West are his treatises on tantric iconography, the ''Vajrãvalī'' and ''Niṣpannayogāvalī'', and his syncretistic abhidharma treatise ''Munimatãlaṃkāra''. (Source: "Abhayākaragupta." In ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 2. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.) +
