July 18, 2019 – Tsadra Conferences

The impact of a Shentong interpretation of Tathāgatagarbha doctrine from the point of view of a western Buddhist practitioner

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:28:11 +0000

This paper briefly contrasts a Rangtong (rang stong) and Shentong (gzhan stong) interpretation of Buddhism and looks at how the Shentong interpretation of Tathāgatagarbha doctrine impacts on the understanding and practice of westerners, taking into account the way the translation of key terms into English is affecting the way they are understood and used. Some consideration is given to how Tathāgatagarbha doctrine relates to the earliest accounts of what the Buddha taught and how the seeds of the controversy around Tathāgatagarbha and the Shentong interpretation of Buddhism was present even at the time of the Buddha. This relates to how the tradition has interpreted the Buddha’s teaching on not-self over the millennia up until today. We have ended up with two very different versions of what Buddhism is about and what Tathāgatagarbha means and this relates to the impact Buddhism as a whole is likely to have on modern thought in general.

Observing the Link between Self-awareness and Buddha Nature in Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:27:44 +0000

Self-awareness (svasaṃvedana/svasaṃvitti) plays a central role in Ratnākaraśānti’s doctrinal system, it is the locus of prakāśa. Focusing on the six summarizing verses at the end of the yathāvadbhāvikatāyāṃ cintāmayī prajñā section in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, this paper aims to 1) present Ratnākaraśānti’s understanding of self-awareness as sketched in these verses, 2) trace the possible sources of his sketch, and 3) observe the link between svasaṃvedana and buddha-nature in his doctrinal system.

The Role of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Tā ra nā tha’s dBu ma theg mchog

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:26:06 +0000

Tā ra nā tha (1575-1635) is considered second in importance to Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361) regarding the proclamation of gzhan stong and the number of his authored works. He clarified and expanded Dol po pa’s exegesis of gzhan stong unlike anyone before him. Tā ra nā tha’s dBu ma theg mchog covers a variety of topics relevant to the gzhan stong view, including essential Mahāyāna concepts that range from Yogācāra to Madhyamaka and from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra to the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra.

In the third chapter of the dBu ma theg mchog, Tā ra nā tha gives a detailed presentation of buddha-nature, which he equates to the dharmadhātu and suchness. The Ratnagotravibhāga is quoted extensively and exclusively in this chapter, while the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra is quoted throughout the dBu ma theg mchog. This chapter is divided into nine main points, and the fourth point alone, referred to as “endowed with all aspects,” is illustrated by six verses from the Ratnagotravibhāga. However, also most of the other points (permanence, pervasion, wakefulness, unmixed/untainted and union) are attested by direct quotes from the Ratnagotravibhāga.

This study will examine the ways in which Tā ra nā tha utilizes the Ratnagotravibhāga in his dBu ma theg mchog to assert his understanding of buddha-nature as gzhan stong. It will be based on the root text as well as the commentary written by Tā ra nā tha’s disciple Ye shes rgya mtsho according to direct yearly instructions from Tā ra nā tha himself. As Tā ra nā tha is known to have expanded and systemized Dol po pa’s view, Tā ra nā tha’s position will also be compared to that of Dol po pa.

Revisiting Gorampa on Buddha Nature

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:25:34 +0000

I will share some of my thoughts and understanding of Go rams pa’s interpretation of the concept of buddha-nature presented in his Supplement to the Three Vows. This text was written to critique and clarify what Go rams pa saw as misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the theory of buddha-nature that were prevalent throughout Tibet in the fifteenth century. The Jo nang pa school of Tibetan Buddhism in particular was one of the major subjects of his criticism, whose assertions on buddha-nature he refuted, presenting and defending his own interpretations.

Selfhood, Secrecy, Singularity: Reassessing the Early Life of the Tathāgatagarbha in India

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:17 +0000

The early history of buddha-nature teaching in India is in the process of some reassessment. Michael Radich’s contention that there is good reason to take the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra as our earliest source for an account of the tathāgatagarbha invites a fresh look at the wider corpus of Indian literature concerned with this expression, and with it the affirmation that what is essential to a Buddha (buddhadhātu) abides in all sentient beings. My research has focused on a revised trajectory of how buddha-nature was conceptualized in the first five hundred years of the Common Era, informed by the hypothetical primacy of Indian sources that explain tathāgatagarbha to refer to the permanent, indestructible buddhadhātu, and which teach that this constitutes nothing less than the Buddha’s account of the self (ātman).

I contend that the most likely trajectory of buddha-nature thought in India entailed a creative reimagining of the expression tathāgatagarbha away from contentious ‘ātmavādin‘ origins. With reference to the Indian tathāgatagarbha corpus delineated by Takasaki Jikidō, this paper will explore a revised picture of the development of early tathāgatagarbha thought by attending to several related themes: the relationship between buddha-nature and discourse about the self, the claim that it constitutes a ‘secret’ revealed by the Buddha – a complement to the teaching that there is only a single vehicle (ekayāna) to liberation – and the extent to which buddha-nature should be articulated in terms of the original purity of the mind.

Examples of the Term tathāgatagarbha Appearing in Indic Tantric Literature

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:23:35 +0000

This presentation focuses on the term tathāgatagarbha appearing in tantric scriptures and commentaries composed by Indic authors. In general, it has been pointed out that the tathāgatagarbha teaching has a strong doctrinal impact on tantric teachings, but actual examples of tathāgatagarbha appearing in tantric literature are rather rare in comparison with other terms of non-tantric Mahāyāna origin, such as the five jñānas of the Buddha, buddha’s bodies, etc. Through this investigation I shall clarify purposes of integration of this term into tantric contexts in each example. I have in my previous article in 2012 dealt with the literature of the Yoginītantra and the Highest yogatantra classes, and will here include those of Yogatantra-class.

The Luminous Basis for Buddhahood: ’Jig rten mgon po’s Pith Instructions for Merging the Nature of Mind with the Dharmakāya

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:22:09 +0000

This paper will present an overview and analysis of ’Jig rten mgon po’s (1143–1217) explanation of luminosity (prabhāsvaratā;’od gsal ba) from his Mahāmudrā perspective in terms of basis, path, and fruit. This is most clearly outlined in his ’Od gsal rnam lnga gcig tu bsre ba’i man ngag, a pith instruction on merging (bsre ba), a genre of Bka’ brgyud teachings generally associated with the nā ro chos drug tradition. While chos drug instructions on luminosity tend to focus on deep sleep tantric practices, this text outlines luminosity in terms of mind’s true nature, which is to be pointed out, recognized, and ultimately merged with the dharmakāya. ’Jig rten mgon po offers a five-fold typology of luminosity: the luminosity of the basis, the path, dream, the bar do, and the ultimate. In this text, he explicitly explains that the luminosity of the basis is the nature of mind, described in terms of buddha-nature, and is none other than the dharmakāya itself. ’Jig rten mgon po goes on to explain the process of “merging” this basis with the path luminosity by way of pointing out instructions, which subsequently merges with the dream and bar do states naturally through direct recognition. Finally, this (collective) recognition of the basis is to be merged with the ultimate luminosity, the dharmakāya. ’Jig rten mgon po thus offers a framework for how the different types of tantric and non-tantric luminosity as understood in the early Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition can be merged by taking the nature of mind as both the basis for Buddhahood and ultimately inseparable from the fruit of the dharmakāya.

How the Concepts of “buddha-nature” (Tathāgatagarbha) and “innate enlightenment” (Hongaku) were interpreted by Shinran (1173-1263), Founder of the Jōdo-Shin-Shū School of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:21:32 +0000

Japan is one of the most prominent Buddhist countries. Located in the Far East, this country’s Buddhism has developed many peculiar characteristics and concepts. One of these specific ideas is the theory of “innate enlightenment” (hongaku), which is closely related in meaning to the term “buddha-nature” (tathāgatagarbha).
The theory of “buddha-nature” insists that since all sentient beings possess the essence of Buddha, they are all capable of becoming enlightened in the future. On the other hand, the theory of “innate enlightenment” admits as a fact that all sentient beings are innately enlightened, or that all phenomena are a manifestation of Buddha. The extended interpretation of the theory of “buddha-nature” was highly developed in Japanese Tendai school.
The unique theory of “innate enlightenment” was actually criticized by Japanese Buddhist monks both inside and outside the Tendai school. For example, the theory does not appear in any of the attested treatises of Genshin (942-1017), a highly influential representative of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism (although it does appear in forged works attributed to him). Honen (1133-1212), the founder of the Jōdo-Shū school, took a contrary position against the idea of “innate enlightenment” as admitted by modern Buddhologists.
However, Yoshiro Tamura insists that Honen’s disciples, including Shinran (1173-1263), the founder of Jōdo-Shin-Shū school, embraced the theory of “innate enlightenment” against their master’s position. Japanese Buddhologists after Tamura have also defended that Shinran was influenced by such a theory to a greater or lesser extent.
However, the current speaker has been able to prove that Shinran, as well as his master Honen, clearly showed a negative attitude against the theory of “innate enlightenment”, although he used terms which are often regarded to be associated with the theory. This presentation will overview Shinran’s position concerning the theories of “buddha-nature” and “innate enlightenment”.