5:15 pm – Tsadra Conferences https://conference.tsadra.org Buddhist Conferences Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:39:23 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.11 Buddha-Nature and Selfhood https://conference.tsadra.org/session/buddha-nature-and-selfhood/ Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:29:45 +0000 http://conference-wp.tsadra.org/?post_type=session&p=17485 The eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje’s (1507–1554) prolific writings on tathāgatagarbha contain several extended disquisitions on the topic of how buddha-nature relates to different conceptions of selfhood. On the one hand, he broadly rejects, along the lines of standard Madhyamaka critiques of the belief in self (ātmagrāha), any equation between buddha-nature and a self. While his critiques take in the controversial current of early Indian buddha-nature theory that had equated buddha-nature with a true self, their primary target is ‘Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s (1392-1481) identification of buddha-nature with a subtle self, which was allegedly made under the tutelage of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa’s (1357–1419) conception of a subtle self. On the other hand, the Karma pa does accept a conception of authentic selfhood or transcendent perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) advanced in certain Tathāgatagarbha and Buddhist tantric texts that is said to be realized precisely through understanding selflessness. A touchstone of his attempt to reconcile these two seemingly antithetical views on the relationship between buddha-nature and selfhood is to regard them as complementary rather than contradictory. On this view, the negation of self is regarded as an indispensable moment in the discovery of authentic selfhood, which is in this case synonymous with dharmakāya and resultant buddha-nature. This presentation will explore the broad range of Indian and Tibetan views on buddha-nature and selfhood considered by Mi bskyod rdo rje and show how he presented and defended his own tradition’s position in relation or reaction to these.

]]>
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 https://conference.tsadra.org/session/how-the-concepts-of-buddha-nature-tathagatagarbha-and-innate-enlightenment-hongaku-were-interpreted-by-shinran-1173-1263-founder-of-the-jodo-shin-shu-school/ Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:21:32 +0000 http://conference-wp.tsadra.org/?post_type=session&p=17522 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”.

]]>