J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by DGA » Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:44 pm

Jacqueline Stone's book Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism is referenced quite often in this forum. Because it's called upon to support some wildly divergent claims, it would be worthwhile to examine just what that book puts forward. Here's the publisher's blurb about it.

http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-1108-9780824827717.aspx

And here is a recent claim made about Stone's book:
rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:25 pm
You need to read more about Buddhist intellectual history, I advise J. Stone's " Original Enlightenment". Tathagatagarbha thought "in China would develop would develop into a major Mahayana tradition." p. 5. where on p. 8 she talks about Tiantai and Huayan as a reaction to ideas about the remoteness of buddhahood and alaya-vijnana. You can read it for free in Google Books.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27200&start=120#p421656

bracketing the question of what value "Buddhist intellectual history," as opposed to Buddhist doctrinal systems, may have for the practitioner... I noticed something peculiar in this quotation. Here it is:

1. Does Stone actually make the claim, as implied in the wording of the post above, that Tathagatagarbha developed in China as a "major Mahayana tradition," and not, say, in India, where it actually developed?

2. If the only Dharma book you ever read was J Stone's book on original enlightenment, would you take the view that Tathagatagarbha did not exist prior to its exegesis in China by the likes of Zhiyi?

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:52 pm

DGA wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:44 pm
Jacqueline Stone's book Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism is referenced quite often in this forum. Because it's called upon to support some wildly divergent claims, it would be worthwhile to examine just what that book puts forward. Here's the publisher's blurb about it.

http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-1108-9780824827717.aspx

And here is a recent claim made about Stone's book:
rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:25 pm
You need to read more about Buddhist intellectual history, I advise J. Stone's " Original Enlightenment". Tathagatagarbha thought "in China would develop would develop into a major Mahayana tradition." p. 5. where on p. 8 she talks about Tiantai and Huayan as a reaction to ideas about the remoteness of buddhahood and alaya-vijnana. You can read it for free in Google Books.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27200&start=120#p421656

bracketing the question of what value "Buddhist intellectual history," as opposed to Buddhist doctrinal systems, may have for the practitioner... I noticed something peculiar in this quotation. Here it is:

1. Does Stone actually make the claim, as implied in the wording of the post above, that Tathagatagarbha developed in China as a "major Mahayana tradition," and not, say, in India, where it actually developed?

2. If the only Dharma book you ever read was J Stone's book on original enlightenment, would you take the view that Tathagatagarbha did not exist prior to its exegesis in China by the likes of Zhiyi?
I think the original context of the quote that you provided was attempting to dispel the notion that Yogācāra discourse was completely unknown in China at the time of Ven Zhìyǐ & nascent Tiāntāi, which is why the quote in question mentions 'Tiāntāi' (& Huáyán) as 'reaction to' or perhaps reaction against ālāyavijñāna, that term referring to Yogācāra as a whole via synecdoche, but that was just how I understood the post.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by DGA » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:19 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:52 pm
I think the original context of the quote that you provided was attempting to dispel the notion that Yogācāra discourse was completely unknown in China at the time of Ven Zhìyǐ & nascent Tiāntāi, which is why the quote in question mentions 'Tiāntāi' (& Huáyán) as 'reaction to' or perhaps reaction against ālāyavijñāna, that term referring to Yogācāra as a whole via synecdoche, but that was just how I understood the post.
I think that's probably true, but I'm interested in drilling into a different assumption that was made in that post, and many (many!) others.

Honestly, I can't see how Stone's book would make it through peer review if she actually claimed that Tathagatagarbha was more or less invented by Zhiyi. I find it impossible to believe that she would make such a claim.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by DGA » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:05 am

I was able to track down a fuller version of the quotation rory gave, in context. It's on p. 5 of the Stone book.
In China, tathagata-garbha thought would develop into a major Mahayana tradition, ranking beside those of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
This is given in the context of a discussion of Chinese "apocryphal" sutras, rather than the Indian texts that predate them such as the Ratnagotravibhaga, which was well known in Chinese translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga

I suppose this may be appropriate to a book on doctrinal changes in Medieval Japanese Buddhist traditions, but her language would imply that the teaching of Buddha-nature was newly born in China (it wasn't), rather than the well-established, canonical, and uncontroversial doctrine in Yogacara circles in India that it was.

Which means that if someone read only one Dharma book, that person may well come away with the idea that tathagata-garbha is indeed a Chinese doctrine (with a Sanskrit name?).

This explains a few things.

ItsRaining
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by ItsRaining » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

DGA wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:05 am
I was able to track down a fuller version of the quotation rory gave, in context. It's on p. 5 of the Stone book.
In China, tathagata-garbha thought would develop into a major Mahayana tradition, ranking beside those of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
This is given in the context of a discussion of Chinese "apocryphal" sutras, rather than the Indian texts that predate them such as the Ratnagotravibhaga, which was well known in Chinese translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga

I suppose this may be appropriate to a book on doctrinal changes in Medieval Japanese Buddhist traditions, but her language would imply that the teaching of Buddha-nature was newly born in China (it wasn't), rather than the well-established, canonical, and uncontroversial doctrine in Yogacara circles in India that it was.

Which means that if someone read only one Dharma book, that person may well come away with the idea that tathagata-garbha is indeed a Chinese doctrine (with a Sanskrit name?).

This explains a few things.
I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by DGA » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:05 am
I was able to track down a fuller version of the quotation rory gave, in context. It's on p. 5 of the Stone book.
In China, tathagata-garbha thought would develop into a major Mahayana tradition, ranking beside those of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
This is given in the context of a discussion of Chinese "apocryphal" sutras, rather than the Indian texts that predate them such as the Ratnagotravibhaga, which was well known in Chinese translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga

I suppose this may be appropriate to a book on doctrinal changes in Medieval Japanese Buddhist traditions, but her language would imply that the teaching of Buddha-nature was newly born in China (it wasn't), rather than the well-established, canonical, and uncontroversial doctrine in Yogacara circles in India that it was.

Which means that if someone read only one Dharma book, that person may well come away with the idea that tathagata-garbha is indeed a Chinese doctrine (with a Sanskrit name?).

This explains a few things.
I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.
I think that's probably Stone's intention. However, her wording is flexible enough to allow for plausible alternatives, and one of those alternatives is sometimes mobilized as if it is a hard-and-fast fact here at DW (visible in the link at the top of this thread)

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:22 pm

Some people do consider Tathāgatagarbha its own 'seperate' school/movement in China, but I have never read under which metrics they do so. And AFAIK Tathāgatagarbhavāda/如來藏宗 only exists as a word in "Critical Buddhism".
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26155
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.

Tathāgatagarbha was a separate tradition from Madhyamaka and Yogacāra in India; thus there is no reason why it should not have been introduced to China as an independent tradition as well, prior to the Maitreyan synthesis.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 pm
ItsRaining wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.

Tathāgatagarbha was a separate tradition from Madhyamaka and Yogacāra in India; thus there is no reason why it should not have been introduced to China as an independent tradition as well, prior to the Maitreyan synthesis.
Are there any examples of a work or thinker who is specifically and only/strictly "of the Tathāgatagarbha school" though? One who is not also a Madhyamaka or Yogācāra thinker? I only ask out of my own ignorance on the subject.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26155
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:17 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 pm
ItsRaining wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.

Tathāgatagarbha was a separate tradition from Madhyamaka and Yogacāra in India; thus there is no reason why it should not have been introduced to China as an independent tradition as well, prior to the Maitreyan synthesis.
Are there any examples of a work or thinker who is specifically and only/strictly "of the Tathāgatagarbha school" though? One who is not also a Madhyamaka or Yogācāra thinker? I only ask out of my own ignorance on the subject.

There are the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, and the Uttaratantra. Apart from that, not really.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:54 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:17 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 pm



Tathāgatagarbha was a separate tradition from Madhyamaka and Yogacāra in India; thus there is no reason why it should not have been introduced to China as an independent tradition as well, prior to the Maitreyan synthesis.
Are there any examples of a work or thinker who is specifically and only/strictly "of the Tathāgatagarbha school" though? One who is not also a Madhyamaka or Yogācāra thinker? I only ask out of my own ignorance on the subject.
There are the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, and the Uttaratantra. Apart from that, not really.
That's what I figured. It doesn't really seem to be a "school" in the sense of Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, or at least if it ever was, its distinctiveness is hard to find account of, other than the practice of naming Buddha-nature.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:56 pm

To frame the Tathagatagarbhasūtrāṇi as arising from an established and formalized Buddhist "school", be it a vāda or nikāya, seems presume that these schools are fabricating their sūtrāṇi. This is, to be fair, a common presumption in Buddhology, rather than the reverse, which is more the case, IMO.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26155
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:00 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:54 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:17 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 pm


Are there any examples of a work or thinker who is specifically and only/strictly "of the Tathāgatagarbha school" though? One who is not also a Madhyamaka or Yogācāra thinker? I only ask out of my own ignorance on the subject.
There are the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, and the Uttaratantra. Apart from that, not really.
That's what I figured. It doesn't really seem to be a "school" in the sense of Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, or at least if it ever was, its distinctiveness is hard to find account of, other than the practice of naming Buddha-nature.

I think there is evidence it was a school in India, one to which there is a critical response in both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra sources (such as the Lanka).

It is my opinion that the Uttaratantra shows that it was a distinctive school. Given how much Indian literature was destroyed in the late 5th century by invasions, it is not surprising we have a limited view of Mahāyāna schools in India.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:25 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:00 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:54 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:17 pm


There are the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, and the Uttaratantra. Apart from that, not really.
That's what I figured. It doesn't really seem to be a "school" in the sense of Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, or at least if it ever was, its distinctiveness is hard to find account of, other than the practice of naming Buddha-nature.

I think there is evidence it was a school in India, one to which there is a critical response in both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra sources (such as the Lanka).

It is my opinion that the Uttaratantra shows that it was a distinctive school. Given how much Indian literature was destroyed in the late 5th century by invasions, it is not surprising we have a limited view of Mahāyāna schools in India.
This is very interesting. I presume that they were not a 'sūtra-school' in the East Asian sense (most alleged 'sūtra-schools' aren't), how were they distinctive? I presume they held the Tathāgatagarbhasūtrāṇi in high regard, but why are they named after them? Are they the specific 'school'/'body'/'community' that preserved this specific Buddhavacana, the 'Tathāgatagarbha ones', and proliferated it over the course of the Great Vast-Expansion/Mahāvaipulya?
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26155
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:49 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:25 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:00 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:54 pm


That's what I figured. It doesn't really seem to be a "school" in the sense of Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, or at least if it ever was, its distinctiveness is hard to find account of, other than the practice of naming Buddha-nature.

I think there is evidence it was a school in India, one to which there is a critical response in both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra sources (such as the Lanka).

It is my opinion that the Uttaratantra shows that it was a distinctive school. Given how much Indian literature was destroyed in the late 5th century by invasions, it is not surprising we have a limited view of Mahāyāna schools in India.
This is very interesting. I presume that they were not a 'sūtra-school' in the East Asian sense (most alleged 'sūtra-schools' aren't), how were they distinctive? I presume they held the Tathāgatagarbhasūtrāṇi in high regard, but why are they named after them? Are they the specific 'school'/'body'/'community' that preserved this specific Buddhavacana, the 'Tathāgatagarbha ones', and proliferated it over the course of the Great Vast-Expansion/Mahāvaipulya?
Mahāyāna schools in India were "doctrine" schools, that is, they followed the lead of esteemed commentators like Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha for guidance in how to understand the contents of whole classes of sūtras.

It may be the case that at one time there were sūtra schools, but we have no records of such movements.

Basically, Maitreyanath identified three main streams of Mahāyāna thought, Tathāgatagarbha, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra, and wrote independent commentaries on each main stream. He then synthesized these three streams in his Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. I call this the Maitreyan synthesis, since it was the most radical thing in Mahāyāna since Nāgārjuna. It indelibly stamped how Mahāyāna was studied in Indian Universities after the 6th century; and after these treatises were introduced to Tibet are the major source of controversy in Tibetan Buddhism.

It appears that in India the Uttaratantra received very little attention in India. The most attention was paid to the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, since it treated the Prajñāpāramitā, and proposed to unpack the stages of the path that were present in a hidden form within the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. There is a rich commentarial tradition of debate between Madhyamaka and Yogacāra authors about this text.

Thus, in Tibetan Buddhism, there are three main controversies: 1) how are we to understand the Uttaratantra— is it definitive or provisional; 2) how are we to understand differences among various Indian Madhyamakas, the so-called prasanga/svatantra controversy; and 3) how are we to understand the three natures theory of the Yogacārins.

The texts which are followed in a manner similar to East Asian Buddhists are the tantras: the main exegetical tantra of both the Sakya and Kagyu school is the Hevajra Tantra and its commentaries; the Gelugpas base their exegesis of Vajrayāna on Guhyasamaja, the Nyingmapas on the Guhyagarbha (which can be classified as a tathāgatagarbha influenced text), and the Jonangpas base themselves on the Kalācakra Tantra.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:49 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:25 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:00 pm



I think there is evidence it was a school in India, one to which there is a critical response in both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra sources (such as the Lanka).

It is my opinion that the Uttaratantra shows that it was a distinctive school. Given how much Indian literature was destroyed in the late 5th century by invasions, it is not surprising we have a limited view of Mahāyāna schools in India.
This is very interesting. I presume that they were not a 'sūtra-school' in the East Asian sense (most alleged 'sūtra-schools' aren't), how were they distinctive? I presume they held the Tathāgatagarbhasūtrāṇi in high regard, but why are they named after them? Are they the specific 'school'/'body'/'community' that preserved this specific Buddhavacana, the 'Tathāgatagarbha ones', and proliferated it over the course of the Great Vast-Expansion/Mahāvaipulya?
Mahāyāna schools in India were "doctrine" schools, that is, they followed the lead of esteemed commentators like Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha for guidance in how to understand the contents of whole classes of sūtras.

It may be the case that at one time there were sūtra schools, but we have no records of such movements.

Basically, Maitreyanath identified three main streams of Mahāyāna thought, Tathāgatagarbha, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra, and wrote independent commentaries on each main stream.
You will have to forgive my ignorance, I'm about to cite wikipedia.

The entry on this figure cites these texts:

the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra, the encyclopaedic and definitive text of the Yogacara school
the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakārikā, which presents the Mahāyāna path from the Yogācāra perspective
the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, a short Yogācāra work discussing the distinction and correlation (vibhāga) between phenomena (dharma) and reality (dharmatā)
the Madhyāntavibhāgakārikā, 112 verses that are a key work in Yogācāra philosophy
the Abhisamayalankara, which summarizes the Prajnaparamita sūtras, which the Mādhyamaka school regards as presenting the ultimate truth
the Ratnagotravibhāga, also known as the Uttāratantra śāstra, a compendium of the Buddha-nature literature


Is the aforementioned Tathāgatagarbha-perspective śāstra/commentary one-and-the-same with the Ratnagotravibhāga/Uttāratantaśāstra here?
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgatagarbha, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26155
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:16 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:12 pm


the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra, the encyclopaedic and definitive text of the Yogacara school


This is by Asanga and (probably other authors).


the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakārikā, which presents the Mahāyāna path from the Yogācāra perspective
the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, a short Yogācāra work discussing the distinction and correlation (vibhāga) between phenomena (dharma) and reality (dharmatā)
the Madhyāntavibhāgakārikā, 112 verses that are a key work in Yogācāra philosophy
the Abhisamayalankara, which summarizes the Prajnaparamita sūtras, which the Mādhyamaka school regards as presenting the ultimate truth
the Ratnagotravibhāga, also known as the Uttāratantra śāstra, a compendium of the Buddha-nature literature
These are by Maitreyanatha.
Is the aforementioned Tathāgatagarbha-perspective śāstra/commentary one-and-the-same with the Uttāratantaśāstra here?
Yes.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 4617
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by Queequeg » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:54 pm

Kind of off topic, but my wife informs me that Prof. Stone is retiring next year.

Hey, Religion PhDs... there might be an opening for a Japanese Buddhism specialist at Princeton soon...
“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

"Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in.
Great for solving problems, after it creates the problems."
-Modest Mouse

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world!"
-The Grateful Dead

User avatar
rory
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by rory » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:22 am

ItsRaining wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.
*sigh* thank you. I include the book and page number and repeatedly say "you can read this over at google books" so that people can inform themselves of the argument and have a thoughtful discussion. If DGA had actually bothered to read the page, he'd see the title as " A Geneaology of Original Enlightenment Thought" and then Indian Yogacara mentioned but a big big discussion of the Chinese apocryphon "The Awakening of Faith", Hua-yen, li and shih , Zongmi and Chengguan on p. 6 and finally the Buddhahood of non-sentient beings or in Japanese somoku jobutsu that's page 8!

It's a super boiled down clearly explained potted history that's very useful to share when having such discussions, but if people cannot be bothered to read they only have themselves to blame when they get it completely wrong.
gassho
Rory
Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58
https://www.tendai-usa.org/

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: J. Stone's book on Original Enlightenment

Post by DGA » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:14 am

rory wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:22 am
It's a super boiled down clearly explained potted history that's very useful to share when having such discussions, but if people cannot be bothered to read they only have themselves to blame when they get it completely wrong.
On this point, we agree completely.

:cheers:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests