Property:Abstract
From Bodhicitta
This is a property of type Text.
A
Thorough and systematic archaeological excavation conducted between 1988 and 1995 at the grottoes in the northern area of Dunhuang's Mogao Caves unearthed a large number of fragments of manuscripts and block prints in different languages and scripts, among which, according to Prof. Gardi, who first described the Mongolian documents from Dunhuang, there are 10 fragmentary pages of Buddhist . . . ([http://open.oriprobe.com/articles/57987710/A_Mongolian_Printed_Fragment_of_Bodhicaryavatara_f.htm Source Accessed Oct 28, 2021]) +
A New Hat for Hārītī: On "Giving" Children for Their Protection to Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Early India +
No matter where one looks in Buddhist monastic literature there are indications that the monks who wrote it were concerned in a variety of ways with safe childbirth and sick children, and had devised a number of practices to deal with both. Several examples are given here, but the main focus is on a practice for which the converted demonness Hārītī is presented as the model. Although she is said to be the protector of children in the secondary literature, in an important account that has been largely overlooked but can be shown to have circulated in India, Hārītī herself is said to have given her own children to the monastic community when they were in need of protection. Buddhist monks and nuns are represented as the real protectors of children. Detailed instructions are provided for sending threatened children to monks and nuns and how the children should be treated. ([https://academic.oup.com/book/12470/chapter-abstract/162104752?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false Source Accessed Sep 8, 2026]) +
The ''Ārya-samantabhadra-caryā-praṇidhāna-rāja''[1] or ''Bhadracarī'' is arguably the most popular devotional text in the Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition. A collection of verses originally composed in Sanskrit or Prakrit sometime before the fifth century CE, the ''Bhadracarī'' recounts in the first person a bodhisattva’s aspiration to worship all Buddhas and become enlightened for the sake of all beings. By the eighth century, these verses were incorporated as the conclusion of the Mahāyāna narrative known as the ''Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra''. From this time, the text gained popularity throughout the entire Asian Buddhist world. In the Indian and Tibetan traditions it is referenced in numerous literary sources and appears in Sanskrit and Tibetan inscriptions. Evidence suggests that beyond their semantic significance these verses were considered a ''dhāraṇī'' or 'spell', which would bestow merit upon its reciter.<br> Given the immense popularity and continued importance of the ''Bhadracarī'' in the Mahāyāna tradition, I feel that a more updated and text-critical translation of the Sanskrit text would not be inappropriate at this time as a resource adding to the current body of textual scholarship on Mahāyāna Buddhism. Toward this end, I have divided this study into two parts. In Part I, I provide a detailed introduction to the ''Bhadracarī'', which outlines its textual history, describes important inscriptional and art-historical finds in relation to the text, discusses the textual relation between the ''Bhadracarī'' and the ''Gaṇḍavyūha'', and argues that the ''Bhadracarī'' may be considered a Mahāyāna ''dhāraṇī''. Since the textual history of the ''Bhadracarī'' throughout all of Asia is far too broad a topic to cover here, I will limit my introduction to some comments on the text in its Indo-Tibetan context. Part II is a new translation of the Sanskrit ''Bhadracarī'' with notes on the Sanskrit text and comparative comments in relation to the Tibetan and Chinese translations.
<h5>Notes</h5>
#This may be roughly translated as 'The Royal Vow to follow the Noble Course of Conduct of Samantabhadra'. The verses are also referred to as the ''Bhadracarī-praṇidhāna'' ('Vow to follow the Good Course of Conduct') and the ''Ārya-bhadracarī-praṇidhāna-rāja'' ('Royal Vow to follow the Noble and Good Course of Conduct'). In what follows, I will simply refer to them as the ''Bhadracarī'', or the 'Good Course'.
This essay analyzes the provocative image of the bodhisattva, the saint of the Indian Mahayana Buddhist tradition, descending into the hell realms to work for the benefit of its denizens. Inspired in part by recent attempts to naturalize Buddhist ethics, I argue that taking this ‘mythological’ image seriously, as expressing philosophical insights, helps us better understand the shape of Mahayana value theory. In particular, it expresses a controversial philosophical thesis: the claim that no amount of physical pain can disrupt the flourishing of a fully virtuous person. I reconstruct two related elements of early Buddhist psychology that help us understand this Mahayana position: the distinction between hedonic sensation and virtuous or nonvirtous mental states; and the claim that humans are massively deluded as to what constitutes well-being. Doing so also lets me emphasize the continuity between early Buddhist and Mahayana traditions in their views on well-being and flourishing. ([https://philarchive.org/archive/EHAANT Source Accessed May 4, 2021]) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Indians rightly speak of ''Darsana'' as the foundation of all the sciences of learning (sarvavidyāpratiṣṭhā) or as the lamp of all the ''Śāstras'' (pradīpaḥ sarvaśāstrāṇām). It is of interest to note that no religious movement in India has ever come to existence without developing as its support a philosophical context. Religion and philosophy have supplemented each other to a considerable extent. India is fortunate that several religious teachers made their appearance on this soil ultimately enriching philosophical speculations. The holy ''Gītā'' lends support to the concept that at the junctures of calamitious states of society, when ''Dharma'' tends to be polluted and vitiated, the need of a religious reformer is strongly felt.[1] The practical application of this prophesy is marked in the religious history of India. The Indian history testifies to the fact that in different periods of history, when the traditionally accepted beliefs were deemed inadequate, sometimes false and could not be adjusted with the changed states of the society, ages grew out of patience with them, the insight of a new teacher—Buddha, Vyāsa or Śaṁkara supervened stirring the depths of spiritual life. The speculative tendency of the Indian mind also was convinced of the fact that truth is many-sided and that different views contained different aspects of truth which none could express fully. The Indian philosophers where therefore tolerant and receptive of other's views and sometimes they were fearless of accepting even opposite and dangerous doctrines so long as they were backed by sufficient reasoning. They did not allow any tradition to die if they could help it, one jot or title of the tradition, but would try to accomodate it all. Buddhism represents such a case of tolerated treatment specially in its aspect of the development of its Mahāyanic character. . . .<br> In this background of Mahāyānism it will be the task of this paper to point out some of the Mahāyānic concepts as recorded in the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''[6] of Śāntideva. (Śāstri, "A Note on Mahāyāna Buddhism," 112–15)
<h5>Notes</h5>
1. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata /<br>Abhyutthāṇam adharmasya tadātmānam srjāmy aham//<br>6. Minayef, Russian scholar, first published the text in the Russian Oriental Journal Zapiski, IV, 1889. Louis de la Vallee Poussin utilised more manuscripts in his text: Bouddhisme, Etudes et Materiaux, Vol. 1, Bruxelles, Academie, and Luzac, London, 1898; he published also text and Pañjikā in Devanāgari script of the first nine chapters in the Bibliothec Indica, Calcutta, 1902–14. The latest and the best edition of the Bodhicaryāvatāra is by Prof. P. L. Vaidya, published by the Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga (1960). It also contains the ''Pañjikā'' commentary of Prajñākaramati.
Hartmann re-examines a 108-folio palm-leaf manuscript photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana at Sa skya Monastery in 1936, previously catalogued as an Arthaviniścaya-dharmaparyāya. Close analysis of the foliation and punch-hole pattern shows that only the final leaf (numbered "10," with a single dividing punch-hole) actually belongs to an Arthaviniścayasūtra manuscript, preserving text from mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇa 29 to the sūtra's end. All 107 preceding folios instead belong to a separate manuscript of the ''Samādhirājasūtra'' (confirmed by faint traces of its alternate title, "Candrapradīpa"), datable on paleographic grounds to around the 11th century—making it, after the 6th-century Gilgit manuscript, the second-oldest known witness to this sūtra, predating other Nepalese exemplars. Though incomplete (breaking off partway through chapter 37, with no final colophon), the manuscript is well written and largely follows the Nepalese recension, while sharing certain features—such as the division of chapter 22 into two chapters—with the version underlying the Tibetan translation. The article lists chapter colophons with folio references and, via comparison with Christoph Cüppers's synoptic edition of chapter 9, catalogues numerous textual variants and scribal errors, along with several proposed corrections to Cüppers's edition. +
A Paleographical Study on a Palm-leaf Manuscript of Prajñākaramati's Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā (ZX0617-ZB20) +
In recent years, a palm-leaf manuscript (ZX0617-ZB20) version of Prajñākaramati’s (c. 10–11th century) Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā (BCAP) preserved in the TAR became available to scholars worldwide. While it has since received considerable attention, this newly discovered palm-leaf manuscript remains something of a mystery. We have, for instance, considered issues such as manuscript’s unorthodox pagination, the seemingly arbitrary insertion within manuscript ZX0617-ZB20 of a leaf taken from the Saṃghāṭasūtra. We are also interested in the fact that the script seems to not have been written by one hand, but by various scribes. This paper concentrates on the latter issue, concentrating on the paleographic features of the manuscript to conduct an examination of the varied characteristics of the handwriting. Using these paleographic methods, this piece seeks to attribute these ascribed script variations to their respective sources so as to extrapolate some further conclusions on the processes involved in the manuscript’s transcription. ([https://www.academia.edu/145015634/A_Paleographical_Study_on_a_Palm_leaf_Manuscript_of_Praj%C3%B1%C4%81karamatis_Bodhicary%C4%81vat%C4%81rapa%C3%B1jik%C4%81?sm=b&rhid=41544837681 Source Accessed July 23, 2026]) +
"Bodhicitta" or "thought of enlightenment" is the key concept especially in the later phase of Tantric Buddhism. The concept, which is characteristically defined as "''śūnyatākaruṇābhinnam bodhicittam''" clearly reflected by the unique world-view of Tantric Buddhism, played a significant role for consolidating the doctrines of the traditional exoteric Mahāyāna Buddhism into new esoteric Buddhism. The definition appeared for the first time in the ''Uttaratantra'' of ''Guhyasamājatantra'', as Yoritomi [1973] and other precedent studies pointed out. Yoritomi [1973] also referred to a similar phrase "śūnyatākaruṇāgarbha-" in the Haribhadra's ''Abhisamayālankārāloka'' (AAA) and the Kamalaśīla's ''Bhāvanākramas'' (BhK) as a potential precursor of this Tantric definition of Bodhicitta above. To add to it, [the] present paper will show the foregoing examples of this phrase appeared in Śāntideva's ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' (SS) and Nāgārjuna's ''Ratnāvalī'' (RA). +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
As Gāndhārī and Sanskrit fragments have come to light within the past few years, there has been an increasing interest in the ''Bhadrakalpika-sūtra'' (''=BKS''). Surveys of the primary and secondary materials have previously been provided by Inokuchi Taijun, Jan Nattier, Daniel Boucher and Peter Skilling.[1]. However, they overlooked some materials of great significance, and other new sources have been discovered since then. The present paper, in addition to the papers mentioned above, isi ntended to offer several new primary source documents to the study of this sūtra.[2]
<h5>Notes</h5>
# Cf. Inokuchi 1960, Nattier 1991: 21–14, Boucher 1996: 261, Skilling 1992, 2010, and 2014.
# For more secondary sources, cf. Li forthcoming. +
The ''Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā'' (BCAP) composed by Prajñākaramati (c. 10–11th century) is the only officially published Sanskrit commentary on Śāntideva’s renown ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (BCA). Since the critical edition of BCAP was published in the early 20th century by Louis de La Vallée Poussin (1914), it has been carefully studied by many scholars. However, this early critical edition of BCAP is far from perfect. According to de La Vallée Poussin's "Introduction," the critical edition is based on two Sanskrit manuscripts, noting that: "The first is in the Nepalese character and contains (with several large lacunae) the whole of the work; the second, in the Maithili character, contains only the commentary on the ninth chapter." This means that the first eight chapters of his edition of the BCAP are based only on a problematic Nepalese manuscript. There are therefore significant lacunae in the commentaries to the BCA's verses: 1.1, 3.22–33, 4.1–45, 8.18–22, 8.24–25, 8.40–47, and 8.108–186, as well as many smaller textual lacunae and unreadable passages scattered throughout the whole text which ultimately have hindered the exhaustive study of the text as a whole.
With the recent discovery of a BCAP Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscript in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, further study of the BCAP has become possible.[1] This newly discovered palm-leaf manuscript measures around 32.1*6.2cm in size and is catalogued as ZX0617–ZB20 in the facsimile edition. Each page generally contains six or seven lines in black ink with space for a string hole slightly left of the center. Its scripts are mainly written in the Proto-Bengali style. Even considering that the same scribe would write in a different hand depending on circumstances—e.g., the script would change if he was in a hurry to finish the day’s transcription, etc.— we can identify the handwriting of at least three scribes in this palm-leaf manuscript. One of them would have copied the leaf of a ''Saṃghāṭasūtra'' manuscript (folio 71ab) that was inserted—probably by accident—into the BCAP. The other two scribes who copied the BCAP differ not only in the neatness of their writing as well as in the embellishment of ''akṣaras'', but also in their unique choice of fonts. For example, Scribe A who copied the majority of the manuscript tends to use ''la'' in the typical Proto-Bengali style, although sometimes with a transitional form, while Scribe B tends to write ''la'' (91A1) in the ''Nāgarī'' style. The ''ca'' of the former is in the ''Nāgarī'' style, while the ''ca'' (92A1) of the latter is generally in the Proto-Bengali style. A closer study of their paleographical features will be done in the future. (Wang, et al., introduction, 97-98)
A Preliminary Survey of Sanskrit Manuscripts of Madhyamaka Texts Preserved in the Tibet Autonomous Region +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Although the Madhyamaka was one of the most influential schools in the history of Buddhist thought, not many Sanskrit manuscripts of its texts have survived until today. Often scholars must rely on the Tibetan and Chinese translations. In 2003 while checking microfilms of manuscripts from the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) with the help of my supervisor, Prof. Duan Qing, I succeeded in identifying two incomplete Sanskrit manuscripts dated paleographically to between the sixth and seventh centuries. One turned out to be a copy of the ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' (ms. 1.1.1); the other was Buddhapālita's commentary thereon (ms. 3), which had long been deemed lost (cf. Ye 2007a). The identification of these two works made me wonder how many priceless Sanskrit manuscripts of the Mādhyamika School might still be covered with dust on the shelves of monasteries or sleeping in the drawers of museums in the TAR, while scholars are diligently striving to guess the original wordings based on the Tibetan and Chinese renditions, the only works at their disposal.<br> In the following, I will present a preliminary survey of the Sanskrit manuscripts of Madhyamaka texts preserved in the TAR based on the information I have uncovered until now. Due to limitations of many kinds, the list below is by no means complete. The information has mainly come from three sources, namely, the reports by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana (1935, 1937, 1938), and the catalogues compiled in the 1980s by Luo Zhao (罗钊) and Wang Sen (王森).[2] Inasmuch as I have not had access to either the originals or microfilms of all the manuscripts recorded by Luo Zhao and others, the information has in many cases been collected from secondary sources only. As a result, some descriptions of manuscripts may be incomplete or inaccurate. (Shaoyong, preliminary remarks, 307–8)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#(From the title) I would like to take this opportunity to pay homage to Professor Luo Zhao of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as this paper would not have been possible without his pioneering work and the generosity in providing me with his unpublished manuscript. Heartfelt thanks are due to all the participants of the Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies (2008) for their invaluable suggestions. I am greatly indebted to Professor Harunaga Isaacson, who kindly gave me many suggestions regarding the readings of the colophons. I am very grateful to Professor Akira Saito, who was kind enough to read through my draft and provide suggestions. I am also indebted to Dr. Saerji of Peking University, who helped me to find a number of Tibetan references.
#In addition to these, other references to the Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in the TAR can be found in: Much 1988, Bandurski 1994, Bandurski 1994, Bretfeld 1997, Sferra 2000; for an overview of the history of these manuscripts, see Steinkellner 2004.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Over the years that Jens Braarvig and I have known each other, one of our many shared interests and topics of conversation has been the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' (Śikṣ). It was Jens who first sent me a photocopy of the Cambridge manuscript (Add. 1478) on which Cecil Bendall’s ''editio princeps'' is based. This second- or third-generation black-and-white photocopy has now been entirely superseded by the splendid high-definition colour scans newly accessible on the Cambridge University Library website, but decades ago, when we could scarcely have imagined all the technological advances which now underpin our research, I was very grateful to Jens for sharing it with me. In those days we both had plans to work on the text from different angles, plans which in my case have still not been fully realized, despite a few exploratory steps having been taken. These have merely served to show, however, that what looked comparatively simple has turned out to be more complicated than I suspected. Indeed the Śikṣ presents many problems which must be resolved before we can say we understand it fully. One of those issues, which Jens and I have discussed more than once, is the integrity of its Tibetan translation, that is, whether it is an independent rendering of Śāntideva’s Sanskrit text, or whether it borrows its wording from existing translations, such as those found in the later Kanjurs. Jens has maintained that in the case of the ''Akṣayamatinirdeśa'', on which he produced his ''magnum opus'', the translations in the Śikṣ are new ones. However, this view was challenged long ago by Jonathan Silk (1994: 649–651), who, while working on the ''Ratnarāśi'', took a preliminary look at the quotations in the Śikṣ of that work, of the ''Akṣayamatinirdeśa'', and of a small number of other sūtras and found in all cases that its Tibetan translators borrowed or modified the canonical renderings, and that therefore the Tibetan translation cannot be considered an independent witness. Silk made a compelling case, on the basis of what he called “a casual comparison,” but I have nevertheless continued to ponder the extent of the problem, and whether all the evidence points in the direction he indicated.<br> That the Tibetan version, produced at the beginning of the 9th century by Jinamitra, Dānaśīla and Ye shes sde, and subsequently revised by Tilakakalaśa and Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109), is often more extensive than the Sanskrit was not only noted already by Bendall (1897–1902: xxvii–xxix), but interpreted in a surprisingly positive fashion. “The translation,” he observed, “seems to be fully up to the standard of intelligent literalness, characteristic of these works. So that its value to the editor of a unique MS. would be hard to overrate. Besides this it has the advantage of representing an ''unabridged and consequently older'' recension of the text” (my emphasis). In discussing the Chinese version Bendall repeats the inference that the Sanskrit represents a later abridgement of the work as we find it in the Tibetan version, and concludes by distinguishing three stages in the development of the text, of which the Sanskrit is the last (p. xxx). This is a schema which rests on questionable foundations, however plausible it might have seemed to Bendall. In the English translation which appeared in 1922 Bendall and Rouse leaned heavily on the Tibetan version in matters of interpretation, as is evident from their footnotes, but they nevertheless rendered the Sanskrit text as Bendall had edited it. In his new English translation of the Śikṣ, however, published only last year, Charles Goodman takes a different approach. That is, he makes it a deliberate policy to include much of the extra material found in the Tibetan version, setting it within curly brackets, assuming, much the same as Bendall did, that the Sanskrit text has gaps or lacunae, and that the Tibetan additions fill these gaps, make the work easier to understand, and have significant value in their own right (see his comments on p. 1x). I have asked myself whether this is a sound move. To answer that question, and to assess Bendall’s idea of an abridgement, one needs to investigate the relationship between the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts in a more systematic fashion. That is what this paper sets out to do, to attempt a more balanced resolution of the issue that Jens and I have discussed on a number of occasions, as a tribute to Jens and his well-known passion for scholarly conversation and exchange. In the process, I hope to add something to the preliminary remarks on this subject by Jonathan Silk. (Harrison, introduction, 227-28)
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
John Pettit has written an eminently intelligent, scholarly, and detailed review of my book ''Altruism and Reality''. For this I am extremely grateful. I am not sure, however, that I agree with some of his more critical points, and it may be of some value to try and formulate a tentative response to what seems to me to be his two main contentions: (a) that Mi pham, contrary to what I imply in my book, does not hold in any obvious way to a ''gzhan stong'' position, at least if the ''gzhan stong'' position is held to involve some sort of absolutism; and (b) that my attack on Śāntideva's inference from no self to altruism at BCA 8:101–3 is misplaced because I have ignored the relevance of the innate misapprehension of self, to be undermined for the Madhyamaka in particular through meditation in addition to philosophical analysis. (Williams, "A Response to John Pettit," 138) [http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/williams991.pdf Read more here] +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The purpose of our present project is to re-edit the Nanjio Edition on the basis of the following manuscripts: seven manuscripts kept at Tokyo University Library (Tl-7), seven manuscripts in the possession of the Nepal-German Sanskrit Manuscript Preservation Project (N11-17), and also two manuscripts kept at Cambridge University Library (Cl-2) and one manuscript kept at the Royal Asiatic Society (RIO). (Takasaki, ''Collected Papers'', 11) +
In ''Buddhist Perspectives on Free Will'' (Repetti), I set forth my position on Buddhism and free will in terms of three ways of understanding the issue of freedom in Buddhism. Here I first offer a sketch of that threefold analysis, and then I analyze certain key passages in some of the other essays in that collection through that lens. Each of these three ways of understanding Buddhist conceptions of freedom harmonizes with some of the essays. I then analyze Śāntideva's view on the acceptability of the action of the bodhisattva who shot a pirate to save 500 people; I contrast that with Śāntarakṣita's view; and I try to dissolve an apparent contradiction. I then take Śāntideva's use of ''upāya'' (skillful means) in the pirate case and apply it to his position on free will. Lastly, I conclude by suggesting that the way out of some of the discrepancies in the analysis of free will in Buddhism may be resolved by appealing to primordial wisdom as a hypothetical construct, making reference to what appears to be an analogous use of the concept of a hypothetical construct that may be found in Aquinas. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The reign of the King Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen (Khri-sroṅ-Idehu-btsan, VII century) represents a period of the greatest importance in the early history of Tibet in general and of the spread of Buddhism in that country in particular. The activity of the great Śāntirakṣita ("Ācārya Bodhisattva") and of Padma-sambhava. the selection of the first seven Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin (''sad-mi mi bdun''), the foundation of numerous sites of Buddhist learning in Tibet, and the intense literary activity of the Tibetan learned translators (''lo-tsa-ba'')—Pal-tseg (dPal-brtsegs) and others by whom a great number of Buddhist canonical and scientific works were rendered into Tibetan,—all this has been described by Bu-ston in his History of Buddhism and in other Tibetan historical works<br> There is, however, one subject relating to the spread of Buddhism in Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen's reign, to which the Tibetan historian devotes his special attention and on which he dwells in detail. This is the strife between two parties into which the Buddhists of Tibet were at that time split. One of these parties consisted of the pupils and followers of Ācārya Śāntirakṣita who professed that form of Mahāyāna Buddhism which was generally acknowledged in India and Nepal, ''viz''. the teaching of the Path to Enlightenment through the practice of meditation connected with the dialectical analysis peculiar to the Mādhyamika school of the Buddhists and with the practice of the six Transcendental Virtues (''pāramitā'').<br> The leader of the other party was a Chinese teacher (''hwa-śaṅ'' or ''ho-shang'') known by the Sanskrit name Mahāyānadeva, who preached a doctrine of complete quietism and inactivity. According to him every kind of religious practice, the meditative exercises and all virtuous deeds as well were completely useless and even undesirable: the liberation from the bonds of phenomenal existence was to be attained merely through the complete cessation of every kind of thought and mental activity,—by abiding perpetually in a state analogous to sleep. Bu-ston[1] relates how this party grew very powerful and found numerous adherents among the Tibetans, how the followers of Śāntirakṣita suffered oppression from it, and how the king who was an adherent of Śāntirakṣita's system, invited Śāntirakṣita's pupil, the teacher Kamalaśīla in order to refute the incorrect teachings of the Chinese party. The dispute between Kamalaśīla and the Chinese Ho-shang in which the latter was defeated is described by Bu-ston[2] in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties[3] assembled in the presence of the king, that the Ho-shang was the first to speak in favour of his theory of quietism and inactivity and was answered by Kamalaśīla who demonstrated all the absurdity of the theses maintained by the Ho-shang and showed that the teachings of such a kind were in conflict with the main principles of Buddhism and were conducive to the depreciation and rejection of the most essential features of the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We read further on how the chief adherents of Kamalaśīla[4] likewise refuted the theories of the Ho-shang, how the latter and his party acknowledged themselves vanquished and were expelled from Tibet by order of the king who prescribed to follow henceforth the Buddhist doctrines that were generally admitted,—the teaching of the six Virtues as regards religious practice and the Mādhvamika system of Nāgārjuna as regards the theory.[5]<br> Thus the influence of the Chinese Ho-shang’s teachings over the minds of the Tibetans suffered a complete defeat and with it perhaps some political influence of China.[6] This is certainly a most important event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism which has been duly appreciated by Bu-ston. It is therefore quite natural that we should be interested in finding out the sources of Bu-ston's historical record. But the text of Bu-ston's History which, as a rule, contains references to the works on the foundation of which it has been compiled, does not give us any information here. At the first glance the account of the controversy looks like the reproduction of an oral tradition and there is nothing that could make us conjecture the presence of a literary work upon which the record could have been founded- The following will show that it has now become possible to trace out this work, to compare with it the account given by Bu-ston and to ascertain its historical importance. (Obermiller, "A Sanskrit MS. from Tibet," 1–3)
[https://ia801608.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.277506/2015.277506.1105_W_O_text.pdf Read more here . . .]
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Cf. my ''Translation'', Vol. II. p. 192
#''Ibid'': pp. 192, 193.
#Known by the Chinese names Tön-mün (sTon-mun, the party of the Ho-shong) and Tsen-min (rTsen-min, the adherents of Kamalaśīla).
#Śrīghoṣa (Tib. dpal-dbyaṅs) and Jñānendra (Tib, Ye-śes-dbaṅ-po).
#Henceforth the Mādhyamika has become the predominant school in Tibet.
#Kamalaśīla was subsequently murdered by the Ho-shang's adherents.
This article, part of the translators' introduction from the translation of ''The Nectar of Manjushri's Speech'' by the Padmakara Translation Group, provides a concise overview of the commentarial tradition surrounding Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' in Tibet. It traces the text's introduction to Tibet in the eighth century, highlighting its rapid translation and subsequent revisions. The study outlines the development of Tibetan commentaries on the text, noting two periods of particular scholarly interest: the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries and the nineteenth–early twentieth centuries. It also touches on the text's importance across different Tibetan Buddhist schools and its role in the Rime movement, which sought to revive interest in diverse Buddhist traditions.
This chronological framework proves valuable for understanding how the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' was received, studied, and commented upon in Tibet over more than a millennium. By highlighting key figures and schools involved in its transmission and interpretation, the article provides a starting point to explore the many commentators and traditions involved in the diffusion of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' in Tibet. Moreover, it contextualizes the text's importance within broader historical and cultural developments in Tibet, such as the early diffusion of Buddhism into Tibet, the development of Tibetan scholastic traditions, and the arising of the nonsectarian Rime movement in Eastern Tibet. This broader perspective allows readers to appreciate the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' not just as a philosophical text but as a living tradition that has played a significant role in shaping Tibetan Buddhist thought and practice. +
The ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (BCA) is a Buddhist text dealing with the spiritual practice of the aspirant to awakening (bodhisattva). It has been composed by Śāntideva, a Buddhist philosopher and teacher who lived in India around the 8th century. As the BCA occupies a respectable position within the corpus of spiritual literature of the world, it is comparable to similar works of other religious traditions, for example, Thomas à Kempis' ''De imitatione Christi''. Consequently, the BCA, in addition to exposing the main philosophical points of one of the most important schools of Buddhism, is also a practical guide that can serve as a basis of comparison between the major spiritual traditions of the world and even be a source of inspiration for all spiritual seekers, no matter their religious or philosophical affiliation. After having provided a summary of the life of its author and some details about the history and structure of the BCA, the present essay introduces and discusses, in a way that is accessible to non-Buddhists, the significance of the main themes and ideas of this important spiritual manual of the Buddhism. +
A Structuralist Examination of the Origins of the Māra Mytheme and Its Function in the Narrative of the Dàoxíng Bōrě Jīng, the Earliest Complete Recension of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñā-pāramitā-sūtra +
By comparing the instances of the Māra mytheme in the narratives of the ''prajñā-pāramitā-sūtras'' with those found in non-Mahayana texts, this thesis explores how this vitally important persona, one central to the narrative account of the bodhisattva quest for awakening, developed from earlier mythic prototypes. Pali sources identify a number of alternative identities for Māra the most significant of which being Namuci, an ''asura'' who took control over the mind of Indra. Using linguistic ideas originally developed by Saussure, the storylines of the Māra and Namuci myths can be reduced to a simple, common narrative statement or syntagm. Adopting this approach demonstrates how apparently new narratives can be derived through the application of paradigmatic changes within that syntagm. Furthermore, drawing upon the findings of historical linguistics, it was possible to interpolate potential Proto-Indian-European origins for the Māra mytheme. Rather than supporting the traditionally accepted view of Māra as an allegory for death, this enabled the signification of the actual name Māra to be seen as pointing towards a 'grinding-away' or oppression of the mind. This was achieved by relating the Māra of Buddhist mythology with the mare-hag common to a number of IndoEuropean folklores. Support for this argument is also found in Pali narratives which depict Māra entering the thoughts of others engaged in meditation during the night in order to induce feelings of fear and uncertainty. Finally, based upon these findings, it was possible to scrutinize the narrative and nested tales of the ''Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñā-pāramitā-sūtra'' in its earliest recension, the ''Dàoxíng Bōrě Jīng'', and identify how the original Māra myth underwent structured, paradigmatic modifications that reflect a bodhisattva's progress towards final awakening. +
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
