Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century
Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century
Kazuo Kano
The Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV) was very likely composed around the 4th or 5th century in India. But traces of the RGV fell into obscurity after the late 6th century, and again begin to appear after the early 11th century. The teaching relating to the RGV was transmitted from India to Tibet mainly via two routs: one from Vikramaśīla through Atiśa (ca. 982–1054) and the other from Kashmir through Sajjana, rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab (ca. 1059–1109) and others. rNgog is one of the most influential masters who established exegetical traditions of the RGV in Tibet, and his understanding of the RGV is strongly influenced by the Kashmiri
tradition, for he studied it in Kashmir. In this regard, the Kashmiri tradition of the RGV is crucial to learn the foundation of the Tibetan development of the RGV’s exegesis. Fortunately, we have some materials to learn about how Kashmiri Buddhists understood the RGV, but they have not been systematically studied in this regard. I have focused on Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa in my previous paper (Kano 2015a), and in the present paper, I shall extend the range of target to wider context in Kashmir tradition in 11th to 12th century focusing on works by Sajjana, Mahājana, Amtākara, and Jayānanda.
SAJJANA
(fl. second half of the 11th century)
The Kashmiri paঌita Sajjana is one of the most significant masters to have contributed to the transmission of the teaching of the RGV to Tibet. He was a contemporary of Maitrīpa and the grandson of Ratnavajra from Kashmir, one of the “six gatekeeper paঌitas” of Vikramaśīla, who in turn is said to have taught the Five Treatises of Maitreya along with other texts at Vajrāsana.
Sajjana is said to have received the RGV from *Ānandakīrti3 and to have helped rNgog Lo-tsā-ba translate the RGV during rNgog’s stay in Kashmir (sometime between 1076 and ca. 1092). Sajjana’s disciple bTsan Kha-bo-che (1021±?) is also said to have transmitted the teaching of the RGV to Tibet, even prior to rNgog’s return there.4 Furthermore, another disciple (gZu dGa-ba’i-rdo-rje) and Sajjana’s son Mahājana,5 both of whom flourished in western Tibet,6 are likely to have contributed to the transmission of the RGV.
The only works of Sajjana to have come down to us are the Putralekha (or Sutaۨlekha) addressed to his son Mahājana, Sūtrālaۨkārapiڲڲ۬ārtha, and Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa
(abbr. Upadeśa).7 The first is preserved only in the Tibetan translation, while the last two are
śrī received the teaching of the Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkāra from Ratnavajra who is in turn disciple of dhara. See Sūtrālaۨkārapi ڲ۬ārtha, D 4031, 189a6–7; P 5533, 19b3–5: rgyal sras mi pham mgon las mngon sum du || rna ba’i snyim pas bdud rtsi’i rgyun ’thungs pas || skal ldan gang-gā dha ra’i slob ma ni || bram ze rin chen rdo rjes legs bzung nas || theg chen mdo sde ma lus pa yi don || mkhas pa dag par byed pa’i rgyan bshad pa || mkhas pa dznyā na shrī yis rna rgyan ltar || legs bzung des ni bshad pa .... Cf. Sukenobu 1974: 69; Kano 2008: 145 n. 66. A Sanskrit original of Ratnavajra’s tantric work is included in a Kashmiri birch-bark codex of tantric sādhana collection (caturthasadbhāvopadeśaۊ śrīratnavajrak܀taۊ, identified as D 2475). See Kawasaki 2004: 904. For additional imformation of the codex, see Kano 2014c.
3 See Kano 2006a: 30±31. See also Deb sngon 422.11–14; Roerich 1949/53: 347; Tatz 1988: 480. There is a grammatical work (Tyādyantakriyāpadaroha۬a) attributed to a certain Ānandakīrti (dga ba’i grags pa) in Tanjur (D 4452; P 5897) translated from dPyal Lo-tsā-ba’s Sanskrit manuscript by Dharmaśrībhadra.
4 Roerich 1949/53: 348.
5 For the relationship between Sajjana and Mahājana, see below.
6 For dGa’-ba’i-rdo-rje’s visit to the chos ’khor in 1076 organized by rTse-sde, see Rwa Ye-shes-seng-ge, Rwa lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 206 etc.; Kano 2006b: 44–45 n. 10. bCom-ldan-ral-gri states that dGa’-ba’irdo-rje revised the Tibetan translation of the RGV and the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (see bCom- ldan-ral-gri, bsTan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od, eds. Schaeffer & van der Kuijp, p. 241: zu dga’ ba rdo rjes rgyud bla ma dang | chos nyid gnyis dad pa shes rab kyis bsgyur ba bcos). For Mahājana’s visit to mNga’ ris, see Tsong-kha-pa’s gSan yig, 20a3.
7 For the Putralekha, see Dietz 1984 and 2008; Hahn 1999: 206–207; Hanisch 2002. The Sanskrit title of the work is a tentative one, which is transliterated as su taۨ la kha (D 4187, 67a6) or pu tra lekha (P 5687, 316a6). The colophon reads: (D 70a2±3; P 319b7–8): bu la spring ba pa ڲ۬i ta mkhas pa chen po sad dza na chen pos mdzad pa rdzogs so || || kha che’i mkhan po ma hā dza na dang | bod kyi lo tsā ba mar pa chos kyi dbang phyug (phyugs D) gis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la bab pa’o ||. For the fragments from the Sūtrālaۨkārapi ڲ۬ārtha, see Kano 2008c. For the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa, see Takasaki 1975 and Kano 2006b. Sajjana’s doctrinal positions are referred to by Bu-ston, Kun-dga’-grol-mchog, and ’Jam-dbyangsdga’-ba’i-blo-gros (see Kano 2006b). We can also find Sajjana’s assertions (in total more than 50 examples) on the Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkāra in Phywa-pa’s Theg pa chen po mdo sde rgyan gyi legs bshad yang rgyan nyi ’od gsal ba (see Kano 2015a). Sajjana’s assertions on the RGV are found in rGyud bla tshig don, p. 430.17–19 (dang po [= bstan pa of rdo rje’i gnas bdun gyi sgra ’jug pa’i rgyu mtshan nges pa’i tshig] la bram ze sa dzdza na re | gnyis te | brjod bya rdo rjer sgrub pa mdor bstan pa dang | rjod byed yi ger sgrub pa mdor bstan pa ste | rtogs pa’i don rdo rje lta bu’i gnas te zhes pa dang | gzhi yin pa’i phyir rdo rje’i gnas so || zhes pas go rim ltar bshad ce’o ||), p. 470.18–19 (’di ka la dgongs nas bram ze sa dzdza na re | rje btsun byams pa sa bon rang bzhin du gnas pa gsol ba’i lugs su bzhed do zhe’o ||), p. 481.12–13 (bram ze sa dzdza na re | ’di dgongs pa can ma yin na dngos la gnod pa can gyi tshad ma dgod pa’o zhe’o ||), etc. This commentary is probably composed
available only in Sanskrit manuscripts, and have a common format: they consist of verses which summarize core doctrinal topics dealt with in the Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkāra or RGV. The Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa, a small work consisting of 37 verses, presents Sajjana’s own view, according to which the core topics of the RGV, as he lists them, can be correlated with each successive soteriological stage (see Kano 2015a). This soteriological system, as propounded by Sajjana, had some impact on rNgog’s RGV commentary, although Sajjana’s and rNgog’s systems have certain discrepancies.
Sajjana’s doctrinal position is sometimes referred to in Tibetan sources, which are collected and studied by Kano (2006a) (2006b) (2010: 271 n. 70) (2014a: 229–230) (Kano 2015a). A critical Sanskrit edition and analysis of Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa are included in Kano 2006a (Appendix B), and an annotated translation accompanied by a reading Sanskrit text is provided in Kano 2015a.
Recently, material that testifies to Sajjana’s impact within Kashmir was found among a set of proto-Śāradā palm-leaf manuscripts. It contains fragments (11 leaves) from an anonymous RGV commentary in Sanskrit, in which glosses on RGV I.1–2, I.3, I.4, I.5–9, I.10–12, I.12–19, I.23–28, I.28–29, I.37–47, I.79–97, and I.134–152 have been identified so far.
We cannot be completely sure of the title of the text, but can draw the conclusion from the abbreviation “Mahā Pari” written in the left-hand margins of the leaves that it was Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya.12 This reconstruction is supported by the titles of other works included in the same set: Sūtrālaۨkāraparicaya and Pratibandhasiddhiparicaya, which have a common commentarial style. The author of the text has yet to be determined, but the following passages
by a disciple of Mar-pa Do-pa Chos-kyi-dbang-phyug. Cf. Colophon, p. 522: tshu rol mthong ba’i rmongs pa bdag gis rdo rje’i gnas bdun gtan la dbab par gyi [= myi] nus dang | bla ma pa ra te [= hi] ta’i gsung gi bdud rtsi’i rgyun ’thungs mar pa lo tsās gsung sgros bkod | ... bstan bcos ’di yi rnam bshad ni || pa ra he ta’i bzhed pa ltar || sbyar bas gzhan la phan par shog || rgyud bla ma’i bsdus don gyi tshul legs par sbyar ba rdzogs so ||. I owe information of this publication to Brunnhölzl’s book, see below, note 9. supply hints of who he might be:
[Excerpt 1: fol. 6v5–7]: yatra prak܀tistha[6v6]gotraviv܀tyā dharmakāyo buddharatne saۨkalitaۊ pu۬yasambhārasambhara۬ātmakasamudānītagotraprasūtau sambhoganirmā۬akāyau krame۬a dharmasaۨgharatnayoې pāramārthikatayā saۨkalitau || ity ayam atra bhāvārthaۊ || tad asmadguravaۊ tato dhātvartham āśritya cintābhāvanayor viśet || (Ѝ Upadeśa 7cd) tathāgatasya garbhatvāt satvārthasya jināśrayāt || (Ѝ Upadeśa 8ab) tathāgato [vā] yadgarbhas ta(6v upper margin) [thatārthānuv܀ttitaۊ] (≈ Upadeśa 8cd) [[[tathāgata]] + yadgarbho + + + gotrasambhavāt] | (up to here in the margin) (≈ Upadeśa 9ab) ratnatrayaۨ yad āśritya tat trikāyena piڲڲ۬itam (N.e. in Upadeśa) dhātoś ca tathatākliܒ܈aparatantraviviktatā | (Ѝ Upadeśa 9cd) tanmātraۨ prak܀tisthaś ca samānītaś ca nā[v7]mavat (Ѝ Upadeśa 10ab) bodhir gu۬ā dharmakāyād anyonyānatireki۬aۊ
gaۨbhīraudārikī cāsya deśanā kila kāra۬am || (Ѝ Upadeśa 11)
iti | tad ayam atra saۨkalito ’rthaۊ |
[Excerpt 2: fol. 7v2]: svabhāvādivyavadhinā pi ڲ۬ārthaۨ yad vibhaktavān || (Ѝ Upadeśa 25cd) udāhara۬abhedena kramasyāsya saۨvedakaۊ (N.e in Upadeśa) tatra piڲڲ۬ārthanirdeśaۊ prāk cintāvatarāśrayaۊ
svabhāvāder ato vyakti(r) bhāvyatvasyānuvartikā | (Ѝ Upadeśa 26) piڲڲ۬ārthasyaiva nirdeśo yaۊ paścād upamākramāt heyaۨ prāpyaۨ svabhāvāder bhāvanāyās sa saۨśatīti || (Ѝ Upadeśa 27)
[Excerpt 3: fol. 7r3–4]: yac ca parārthasvarūpam ity adhigamadharmakāya eveti śāstraśarīravyavasthopavar۬itad܀śā pratyeyam || yad asmadguravaۊ trikāyaۨ dharmakāyaۨ ca trir asaۨbh܀atasaۨbh܀tau | paraspare۬a sāk܈āc ca sahakāri۬am āśritaۊ || (Ѝ Upadeśa 14) tathatāprak܀tāvasthāsamānītatrigotrakaۊ eti trikāyīۨ ca phalaۨ dharmakāyatrayīۨ ca saۊ || (Ѝ Upadeśa 15)
trikāyīpratilambho hy atrācalāditraye buddharatnādikramāt pūrvavat | buddhabhūmau ca [pari .i c.] .. [dharmakāyatrayapratilambho] [7r4] bodhigu۬akarmayogād veditavyaۊ | yadvā svārthāpek܈ayā trikāyī | parārthānusāre۬a ca hetuphalabhedād dharmakāyatrayī veditavyā ||
The underlined expression asmadguravaۊ “our teacher” found in excerpts 1 and 3 and the ślokas that follow are remarkable. These ślokas are easily found quotations from Sajjana’s Māhāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa (abbr. Upadeśa), the numbers in parentheses in the Sanskrit
passages above identifying the verses in question.14 We learn, then, that the Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya was composed by one of Sajjana’s disciples, one very probably active in Kashmir, as the proto-Śāradā script (widely used in Kashmir area and the surrounding region) suggests. This is further supported by the fact that the same proto-Śāradā manuscript set contains Sajjana’s Sūtrālaۨkārapiڲڲ۬ārtha and his son Mahājana’s Sūtrālaۨkārādhikārasaۨgati (see below).15 The author seems to share a number of interpretations with the scribe of interlinear remarks on Sajjana’s Upadeśa manuscript, and the two may thus have been one and the same individual.16 The author apparently lived before the 13th century, for the manuscript set that contains the Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya was given into the possession of a certain dPyal ston (dPyal Chos-kyi-bzang-po?), whose name is written on the cover folio of the set.
MAHĀJANA
(the second half of the 11th century )
Sieglinde Dietz (1984: 61–62), citing Sajjana’s Putralekha, the primary source of information on Mahājana’s genealogy, has pointed out that Mahājana was Sajjana’s son and through him related to Ratnavajra. This is confirmed by the colophon of the Tibetan translation of Candrakīrti’s Bodhisattvayogācāracatuۊśatakaܒīkā: Sajjana had another son, named Sūkৢmajana, and was the grandson (dbon po) of Ratnavajra. These relatively reliable sources, then,
14 Some verses quoted in this Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya do not correspond with those of the Upadeśa, and this suggests that the text of the Upadeśa had still not been fixed by that time.
15 Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa once probably belonged to the same set, for the script and the shape of the palm leaves are similar.
16 For instance, the above-quoted Excerpt 3 (fol. 7r3–4) of Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya accords with the interlinear note on verse 15 (trikāyī buddhādivad acālādau || dharmakāyatrayī bodhigu۬akarmavat buddhābhūmau ||) of the Upadeśa.
yield the following: Ratnavajra Ѝ (dbon po) Sajjana Ѝ (sras) Mahājana, Sūkৢmajana
This is supported by indigenous Tibetan literature, though it constitutes relatively weaker evidence: bCom-ldan-ral-gri provides the same genealogy,23 Rong-ston lists Mahājana in the transmission line of the RGV after Sajjana,24 while gZhon-nu-dpal mentions Pa-tshab’s study under Sajjana’s two sons during his stay in Kashmir (ca. 1077–1100).25
Later Tibetans deviate from this tradition, identifying Sajjana’s father as Mahājana (according to Tāranātha) or as Sugata (according to Kong-sprul). It is, of course, not impossible to reconcile Tāranātha’s account and that of the Putralekha by positing the following genealogy: Ratnavajra Ѝ Mahājana I Ѝ Sajjana Ѝ Mahājana II, but we have no independent confirmation of this. The source of Kong-sprul’s version is unknown, but in any case primary and secondary witnesses should not be treated promiscuously.
We can piece together a fragmentary account of Mahājana’s activity. According to the Putralekha (0.2, 0.3, 1.1, and 1.2), he abandoned his parents and was “roaming alone in a dark, barbarian country” (mtha’ khob kla klo mun pa’i nang na gcig ’khyam pa, ibid. 0.1c; mtha’ ’khob rgyu ba, ibid. 1.1d) or “in a despicable country” (smad pa’i yul du rgyu ba, ibid. 1.3d) “for his own desired purposes” (’dod pa’i don du, ibid. 1.3c).29 “Barbarian country” quite likely means Tibet, because, according to gZhon-nu-dpal, Mahājana is said to have translated the Śrāma۬eraśik܈āpadasūtra in collaboration with gZhon-nu-mchog at Tho ling monastery in mNga’ ris,
The RGV’s colophon reads (D 4024, 73a7= D 4025, 129a7; P 5525, 74b6 = P 5526, 135b7): bram ze rin chen rdo rje’i dbon po paڲڲ۬ita mkhas pa chen po sad dza na....
23 bCom-ldan-ral-gri, bsTan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od, Ed. Schaeffer & van der Kuijp, p. 245: lo tsha ba rin chen bzang po na ro pa dang | kha che’i bram ze rin chen rdo rje dang dus myam | de’i dbon po sad dza na la rngog lo tsha bas slob | de’i sras ma ha dza na la ’phan yul gyi pa tshab nyi ma grags kyis slab pas....
24 Rong-ston, Chos nyid rnam ’byed, 11b1–2.
25 gZhon-nu-dpal, Deb sngon, 416: spa tshab nyi ma grags pa ni | ’phan yul na spa tshab stod smad gnyis yod pa’i stod pa | gzhon pa’i dus su kha cher byon te | sadzdzā na’i sras gnyis la sogs pa’i paڲڲ۬i ta mang po la chos gsan zhing |. See also Roerich 1949/53: 341; Dietz 1984: 62.
and according to Tsong-kha-pa Mahājana visited mNga’ ris. Nyan-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer reports that many learned paঌitas of Kashmir were invited by King rTse-lde (r. 1057–1088) to mNga’ ris in the last quarter of the 11th century. If, as gZhon-nu-dpal states, Pa-tshab in fact studied under Sajjana’s two sons (i.e. Mahājana and Sūkৢmajana), the year of Mahājana’s departure for Tibet cannot have been before Pa-tshab’s arrival in Kashmir in ca. 1077, because Mahājana and Pa-tshab saw each other after 1077 in Kashmir. This is also, then, a terminus post quem for the composition of Sajjana’s Putralekha, which was addressed to Mahājana who had already left Kashmir for Tibet (lit. “a barbarian country”).
Mahājana translated three tantric works of Ratnavajra (D 1531; P 2240, D 1532; P 2241, D om.; P 4999), Sajjana’s Putralekha (D 4187; P 5687), his own Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna (D 3822; P 5223), the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakārikā (D 4023; P 5524) and the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgav܀tti (D 4028; P 5529; with the collaboration of Blo-ldan-shes-rab), the Śrāma۬eraśik܈āpadasūtra (D 4130; P 5632), five tantric works by the Kashmiri scholar Somaśrī (Parahitabhadra’s teacher), and five other tantric works. He thus translated both collaboratively and independently.
Aside from his Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna, yet another of his compositions, one entitled Sūtrālaۨkārādhikārasaۨgati, was recently found among the above-mentioned protoŚāradā palm-leaf set that contains Sajjana’s Sūtrālaۨkārapi ڲ۬ārtha. This text, hitherto unknown elsewhere, is a concise (one-folio) summary of chapters of the Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkāra. Its authorship is revealed in the colophon (fol. 1v7): sūtrālaۨkārādhikārasaۨgatis samāptā k܀tiې pa ڲ۬itaśrīmahājanasyeti.
ba’i || mkhas pa gnyis la tho ling du || sgra skad byang ba’i lo tsā ba || dge slong gzhon nu mchog gis ni || bsgyur nas de yi bshad pa mdzad ||. Cf. Śrāma۬eraśik܈āpadasūtra, D 4130, 57b6; P 5632, 70a3–5: kha che’i mkhan po grong khyer dpe med kyi paڲڲ۬i ta ma hā dza na dang | shākya’i dge slong gzhon nu mchog gis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa las | slad kyis kha che’i paڲڲ۬i ta pa ra he ta dang | lo tsā ba shākya’i dge slong gzhon nu mchog gis bcos shing zhus pa’o ||.
Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna (1)
Rong-ston lists Mahājana in the transmission line of the RGV after Sajjana, Mahājana’s firm knowledge of the RGV being attested in his only known composition, the Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna, in which he quotes RGV I.68.
This [Hdaya: gate gate pāragate pārasaۨgate bodhi svāhā] teaches the soteriological stages. According to [RGV I.68], “[t]he compassionate ones (i.e. bodhisattvas) show their own birth, aging, sickness, and death [to ordinary people], even though they have been freed from birth and the rest as a result of having seen reality,” birth having been abandoned on the path of vision (darśanamārga). Therefore [the phrase in the Hdaya] “gate gate pāragate” relates to the path of vision, the essence of which is the abandonment of the six modes of existence (܈aڲgati).
Mahājana reads the Hdaya as referring at this point to the soteriological stages and correlates the first phrase “gate gate pāragate” with the darśanamārga. He quotes RGV I.68 itself, and thereby takes the phrase bhūtasya darśanāt (I.68d) as referring to the darśanamārga, and jātyādiviniv܀ttāś (I.68c) as its goal, the abandonment of rebirth among the ܈aڲgati.
Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna (2)
Mahājana’s interest in correlating sūtra passages with soteriological stages is again witnessed in his interpretation of the phrase sarvaduۊkhapraśamana° (sdug bsngal thams cad rab tu zhi bar byed pa’i). This he understands as pertaining to the resultant stage of the path, and in particular to the four kinds of perfection (śubha, ātman, nitya, and sukha) defined in RGV I.35ab as the fruit of Buddha-nature. This recalls Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa, which also pairs the core doctrinal topics of the RGV with the successive soteriological stages.
Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna (3)
Mahājana refers to Buddha-nature while explaining words (kulaputra and kuladuhit܀) in the same work. He equates the kula (rigs) with the bodhisattvagotra (byang chub sems dpa’i rigs), which is the tathāgatagarbha,39 and goes on to define the function (karman) of Buddha-nature as that of awakening both despair at suffering in saۨsāra and the wish to attain nirvā۬a. All this is probably based on the verses RGV I.35cd and 40–41, or else on their source, the Śrīmālādevīsiۨhanādanirdeśasūtra (quoted in RGVV 36.1–2). He further combines this function with stages of the practice: despair in the face of suffering (skyob pa), taking refuge (skyabs la ’jug pa), the arising of the resolve to become a buddha (sems bskyed pa), and cultivation (goms pa).
Prajñāpāramitāh܀dayārthaparijñāna (4)
Mahājana discusses the excellent quality of bodhisattvas’ Saৄgha, which is due to their prathamacittotpāda, and quotes a passage from the Maitreyavimok܈a, that is, Maitreya chapter of the Ga ڲ۬avyūha. This exactly parallels rNgog’s discussion and quotation in his commentary on the Jewel of the Saৄgha in his RGV commentary. This parallel supports the notion that both Mahājana and rNgog belonged to Sajjana’s tradition.
AMTĀKARA
(date unknown)
The dates of Amtākara are unknown; according to Giusseppe Tucci, “perhaps he was one of
39 Mahājana follows the ekayāna doctrine (D 3822, 311b1–2; P 5223, 348a7: de ltar na ’dis ni theg pa gcig tu grub pa yang bstan to), unlike Ratnākaraśānti, who nevertheless also equates bodhisattvagotra with tathāgatagarbha (see Kano 2015b).
the many paঌitas who took shelter in Tibet when the time of persecution or decadence came in India.” Tucci’s hypothesis is apparently based on the fact that the manuscript of his work was found in Tibet. Amtākara was likely active in Kashmir, for his Catuۊstavasamāsārtha is preserved only in the above-mentioned set of proto-Śāradā palm leaves (11th or 12th century). The Catuۊstavasamāsārtha is his only known work (2 fols.), the first half of which (fol. 1) was once thought to have been lost, but which recently was found among the set. Thus, only the second folio has been so far published by Tucci. The authorship of this work is revealed in the colophon in fol. 2v9: catuۊstavasamāsārthaۊ paڲڲ۬itām܀tākarasyeti.
The Catuۊstava consists of four praises addressed to the Buddha, that is, Lokātītastava, Niraupamyastava, Acintyastava, and Paramārthastava, all of which are ascribed to Nāgārjuna. The four became regarded as a set at latest by the 11th century, for Prajñākaramati refers to the words catuۊstave ’py uktam. Amtākara quotes ten verses from the Ratnagotravibhāga: RGV I.69–72 in his commentary on Lokātītastava verse 1 (fol. 1r2–3; which was unavailable for Tucci), RGV I.73 on Niraupamyastava verse 25 (fol. 2r10–v1 = CSS 242.17–18), and RGV I.74–78 on Acintyastava verse 1 (fol. 2v3–4 = CSS 243.16–25).
The ten verses RGV I.69–78 belong to the section explaining the ninth topic, Unchangeability (avikārārtha), among the ten Buddha-nature topics. This topic teaches the characteristic of Buddha-nature unchangeable throughout three states, that is, those of ordinary beings (RGV I.52–65), bodhisattvas (RGV I.66–78), and buddhas (RGV I.79–83), and the ten verses (RGV I.69–78) in question elucidate the state of bodhisattvas. It is to be noted that the verses I.69–78 are, according to Johnston (1950: 51 n. 6) and Takasaki (1966: 253 n. 412 and 1989: 296 n. 3), added by a later hand. This is because the Chinese translation lacks both these ten verses and the prose commentary on them and because the initial words of this text portion “an alternative meaning of the stanza [of RGV I.66]”49 suggests this as a later addition.
We do not know the precise date when the ten verses were added, but can approximately
date the addition to sometime after the 6th (the date of Chinese translation; see Kano 2014a: 207±208) and before the 11th century (the date of the Tibetan translation and the Sanskrit manuscript [Ms. B] that contain the ten verses). The fact that Abhayākaragupta and Daśabalaśrīmitra very likely knew the verses suggests that the addition was known not only to Kashmiri Buddhists but also East-Indian ones around the 12th century.
RGV I.69–78 and its prose commentary teach characteristics of bodhisattvas abiding the ten stages, and Amtākara associates the first to the seventh stages (taught by RGV I.69–72) with the Lokātītastava, the eighth stage (taught by RGV I.73) with the Niraupamyastava, the ninth and the tenth stages (taught by RGV I.74–78) with the Acintyastava, and the sambuddha stage with the Paramārthastava:
RGV RGVV — Amtākara’s attribution
69, 70 Pramuditā (1st stage) — Lokātītastava
71, 72 Vimalā to Dūraৄgamā (stages 2–7) — Lokātītastava
73 Acalā (8th stage) — Niraupamyastava
74–76 Dharmameghā (9th stage) — Acintyastava
77, 78 Buddha bhūmi (10th stage) — Acintyastava
Sambuddha — Paramārthastava
Since the first folio of Amtākara’s text that explains stages 1–7 was not available to Tucci, he stated: “Of course the first seven bhūmis are not taken into consideration: the bodhisattva approaches the attainment of his aim only in the 8th bhūmi ...”; Now we can supply Amtākara’s explanation about the first seven bhūmis on the basis of the first folio that has become available.
Amtākara not only cites the verses (as pointed out by Tucci) but also paraphrases words of the prose commentary of the Ratnagotravibhāga in his work (bold-faced words are pharaphrased):
[Excerpt 1: fol. 1r2–3]
lokātīta namas tubhyam ityādi | (Lokātītastava 1) tatra lokātīto yathoktam — dharmatāۨ pratividhyemām52 avikārāۨ jinātmajaۊ | d܀śyate yad avidyā[ndhair] jātyādi܈u tad adbhutam || (RGV I.69) ata eva [jagadbandhor] upāyakaru۬e pare | yad āryagocaraprāpto d܀śyate bālagocāre || (RGV I.70) sarvalokavyatīto ’sau na ca lokād vinis܀taۊ |
loke carati lokārtham alipto laukikair malaiۊ || (RGV I.71) yathaiva nāmbha(1r3)sā padmaۨ lipyate jātam ambhasi | tathā loke pi jāto ’sau lokadharmair na lipyate || (RGV I.72)
iti | atra ca dvābhyāۨ prathamacittotpādikabodhisattvagu۬aviśuddhilak܈a۬aۨ dvābhyām anupaliptacaryācara۬ād vimalām upādāya yāvad dūra۪gamāۨ caryāpratipa[nna]bodhisattvagu۬aviśuddhilak܈a۬am paridīpitaۨ ||
[Excerpt 2: fol. 2r10–v1 = CSS 242.17–18]
tatra praśastagamanāt punarāv܀ttyā ca sugataۊ (Niraupamya 25) atarkyatvād alāpyatvād āryajñānād acintyatety acintyaۊ [aprameyam] aprameyāśrayaparāv܀ttyā vibhutvalābhāt | tathā hy asyāۨ bhūmau nirantamahābodhisamudāgamaprayogasamādhi܈u vyavasthito bodhisattvo nityojjvalitabuddhiś (2v1) ca k܀tyasaۨpādane ’gnivat | śānta(em.; ganta Ms.)dhyānasamāpattisamāpannaś ca sarvadā || (RGV I.73)
ity uktam | iti dvitīyasya samāsārthaۊ ||
In sum, Amtākara interprets the Catuۊstava from the hermeneutic approach that the order of the four works suggests the developmental sequence of the ten stages and cites the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Daśabhūmikasūtra as authorities of the ten-stage teaching. This approach recalls us of those by Sajjana and Mahājana, who analyze the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Prajñāpāramitāh܀daya from a similar kind of hermeneutic strategy. The similarity in the hermeneutic approach might suggest a trend particularly spread among Kashmiri Buddhists in this period.
JAYĀNANDA
(late 11th – early 12th century)
The approximate lifetime of the Kashmirian paঌita Jayānanda is known on the basis of his Tibetan disciples (and collaborating translators): Pa-tshab Nyi-ma-grags (b. 1055), rMya-bya
Byang-chub-brtson-’grus (d. ca. 1185), and Khu mDo-sde-’bar (a student of Pa-tshab). Jayānanda (who was grounded in the Prāsaৄgika Madhyamaka tradition) is said to have publicly debated with Phywa-pa Chos-kyi-seng-ge (1109–1169, who was the foremost opponent of the Prāsaৄgika tradition) at gSang-phu monastery, and then to have left Tibet for Mount Wutai. 55 In Mi-nyag/Xixia (near Wutai), Jayānanda composed an extensive commentary (ܒīkā) on Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra. Seyfort Ruegg (1981: 113 n. 362) and van der Kuijp (1993: 194–195) correctly distinguish this Kashmirian Jayānanda from his Indian namesake, who lived during the first half of the 13th century (the latter’s Tibetan collaborating translator was Chag Lo-tsā-ba Chos-rje-dpal, 1190–1263). According to Vose, Phywa-pa wrote the dBu ma shar gsum gyi stong thun cognizant of Jayānanda’s view as presented in his Tarkamudgara, “a text that begins with a direct criticism of ‘logicians following Dharmakīrti’,” while Jayānanda in turn, after leaving Central Tibet, composed the Madhyamakāvatāraܒīkā “fully aware of, and at least partially in response to, Phywa-pa’s critique of Candrakīrti’s understanding of Buddhahood.” The presence of a Tangut translation of a topical outline of (probably) Phywa-pa’s Tshad ma yid kyi mun sel might suggest a connection between Jayānanda and Phywa-pa.
While commenting Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatārabhā܈ya XII.36, which asserts the attainability of Buddhahood even for certain Ğrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, Jayānanda
55 van der Kuijp 1993: 193, Seyfort Ruegg 2000: 20 n. 37, and Vose 2009: 53–54. See also Naudou 1968: 194. Hugon (2012: 52, n. 4) points out that Khu mDo-sde-’bar is reported by ShƗkya-mchog-ldan to have been the intermediate (probably the translator) between Jayānanda and Phywa-pa in the debate (de’i tshe slob dpon phya pa dang | kha che ā nanda gnyis khu lo tstsha ba bar du brgyud pa’i rtsod pa byas pas...). According to Vose (2009: 54), “[d]uring the reign of the Tangut emperor Renzong (or Renxiao; r. 1139–93), Jayānanda worked in Xi-xia, holding the position of National Preceptor (guoshi),” and
“Renzong initiated the office of Imperial Preceptor and staffed it with Tibetan monks after 1149. This date is a likely terminus for Jayānanda’s sojourn in Central Tibet.” If we follow this, the polemic between Phywa pa and Jayānanda took place before Phywa pa’s abbatial tenure (1152–1169). Iuchi (2013) points out that according to ’Brom Shes-rab-me-lce’s rGyal ba’i dben gnas rwa sgreng gi bshad pa nyi ma’i ’od a monk-patron relationship between Xixia and bKa’ gdams pas was entered into by disciples of the fifth abbot of Rwa sgreng monastery, Zhang ’Od ’jo ba (d. 1150).
quotes RGVV (on I.36)60 as a scriptural source on the teaching of the avidyāvāsabhūmi (“the stage in which ignorance remains”), and refers to a number of sūtras, such as the Sāgaramatiparip܀cchā and Śrīmālādevīsiۨhanādanirdeśasūtra 61, which are quoted in the RGVV. In this context, he refutes the three-vehicle theory of Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkārabhā܈ya, quotes the Samādhirājasūtra, and refers to a verse from the RGVV (71.16–17) in order to reinforce the teaching of the single-vehicle theory (ekayāna). As mentioned in Kano 2006a, Jayānanda
[Ğrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas] who abandoned the defilements of saূsāra.”).
60 Jayānanda, MAv৫, D 358a6–7; P 434a8–b1: theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma las kyang | ma rig pa’i gnas pa de dang ma rig pa’i gnas pa’i rkyen las ’byung ba’i spyod pa’i rgyu phra mos kun nas bslangs pa’i zag pa med pa’i las la brten nas yid las byung ba’i phung po ’byung bar ’jug pa yin no ||. This is a quotation from RGVV 33.8–9. Cf. Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaۨkāra, D 3903, 149a4–6; P 5299, 184b5–185a1.
61 Jayānanda, MAv৫, D 358a1–6; P 434a1–8: de ltar yang rgya mtsho blo gros ’khor bar ’ching bar byed pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i nyon mongs pa gang zhe na | ’di lta ste | gang gis byang chub sems dpa’ rnams nyon mongs par ’gyur ba de ni ’di yin te | bsod nams kyi tshogs tshol par byed pa la mi ngoms pa nyid dang | yang dag par bsams nas srid pa len pa dang | sangs rgyas dang phrad par ’dod pa dang | sems can rnams yongs su smin par byed pa la yongs su mi ngal ba dang | dam pa’i chos yongs su ’dzin par ’dod pa dang | sems can rnams la ci bya snyam pa’i ’dod pa dang | chos la chags pa’i phra rgyas mi ’dor ba dang | pha rol tu phyin pa’i kun du sbyor ba rnams yongs su mi ’dor ba’o || smras pa bcom ldan ’das gang gi tshe dge ba’i rtsa ba yin na | ci’i phyir na nyon mongs pa zhes brjod | bka’ stsal pa | ’di lta ste | rgya mtsho blo gros ’di lta bu’i rang bzhin ’di rnams kyi byang chub sems dpa’ rnams khams gsum du gnas par ’gyur zhes | khams gsum yang nyon mongs pa las byung ba yin la | de la byang chub sems dpa’ rnams thabs la mkhas pa dang dge ba’i rtsa ba’i stobs bskyed pas yang dag par ched du bsams nas khams gsum du gnas pa yin no || des na khams gsum du gnas par byed pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i nyon mongs pa zhes bya ba’i sems nyon mongs par byed pa’i phyir ni ma yin no zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so ||. Also quoted in RGVV 47.7–16 and Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaۨkāra, D 148b6–149a4; P 184a5–b5. Jayānanda, MAv৫, D 358b1–3; P 434b3–6: ma rig pa’i gnas dang zag pa med pa’i las kyi rgyu can ’di rnams la yang skye ba yod do zhes dpal phreng seng ge’i sgra’i mdo las ’di lta ste | bcom ldan ’das dper na nye bar len pa’i rkyen can zag pa dang bcas pa’i las kyi rgyu can srid pa gsum srid pa de bzhin du bcom ldan ’das ma rig pa’i gnas pa’i rkyen can zag pa med pa’i las kyi rgyu can dgra bcom pa dang | rang sangs rgyas dang dbang thob pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ rnams la yid kyi rang bzhin gyi lus gsum srid pa yin no zhes bya ba rgyas par gsungs so ||. Also quoted in RGVV 33.15–34.2 and Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaۨkāra, D 149a6–b1; P 184a1–4.
very likely utilizes here Abhayākaragupta’s exposition in the Munimatālaۨkāra (which in turn is based on Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka), having accepted the Buddha-nature doctrine as an authoritative teaching.
Jayānanda states in his commentary on the Madhyamakāvatārabhā܈ya on XII.2665 that it is impossible to accept the literal meaning of mithyātvaniyatagotra (“those who can and will never attain release”), since it contradicts the notion that all sentient beings have Buddhanature. In this way, Jayānanda interprets the Buddha-nature doctrine from the viewpoint of the single-vehicle theory.
On the other hand, glossing a passage of the La۪kāvatārasūtra (77.18–79.5) (quoted in Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatārabhā܈ya on VI.95 and teaching that Buddha-nature is merely a means of attracting inferior individuals), Jayānanda clearly judges the Buddha-nature doctrine to be provisional: “It was taught that just as the teaching of Buddha-nature is provisional, the teaching of mind-only is also provisional”; and “To prove that the Buddha-nature doctrine was taught as being provisional, it is taught [in the La۪kāvatārasūtra] that ‘O Mahāmati, [my instruction on Buddha-nature is not identical with the non-Buddhists’ teaching of ātman]’.”
In explaining passages of the La۪kāvatārasūtra word by word (just as the Sūtrasamuccayabhā܈ya did), Jayānanda limns his Madhyamaka position: “It was taught that ‘[[[Buddhanature]]] possesses the thirty-two marks [of the mahāpuru܈a] (dvātriۨśallak܈a۬adhara),’ since they (i.e. sentient beings) are characterized by emptiness” ; and “It was taught that ‘[[[Buddha-nature]]] is said to be inside the body of sentient beings (sarvasattvadehāntargato),’ since emptiness pervades everything.” In these passages, he explicitly equates the pervasiveness of Buddha-nature with that of emptiness. This is the same position rNgog takes.
65 Madhyamakāvatārabhā܈ya, D 3862, 336b1: yang dag pa nyid du nges la log pa nyid du nges pa’i khams la ’jog par ’gyur ba dang. (This phrase is from the Dhāra۬īśvararājasūtra passage: D 147, 188b7–189b2; P 814, 149a1–b2; T 397, vol. 13, 15b10–21; T 398, vol. 13, 427b10–18.)
Furthermore, Jayānanda interprets each term in the phrase “the limit of reality, nirvā۬a, nonorigination, signlessness, wishlessness, and so forth” (bhūtakoܒinirvā۬ānutpādānimittāpra۬ihitādi: La۪kāvatārasūtra 78.5–6) in the sense of emptiness. He states that Buddha-nature was taught to attract those who fear emptiness. After glossing the sūtra passages, he concludes: “Therefore, just as the purpose of teaching Buddha-nature is nothing other than [to teach]
emptiness, so too the teaching of mind-only is also [merely] a means of entering emptiness.” The equation of Buddha-nature with emptiness is the main point of rNgog’s interpretation of Buddha-nature. It is not clear whether Jayānanda had any direct contact with rNgog, but it is very likely that rNgog imbibed the Kashmirian tradition of Madhyamaka during his stay in that region sometime between 1076 and 1092, and integrated aspects of it into his RGV commentary.
The difference between rNgog’s position and that of Jayānanda is over whether the teaching of Buddha-nature is definitive or provisional: rNgog accepts it as definitive; Jayānanda, as provisional. One problem with Jayānanda’s position is that, having asserted that the Buddha-nature doctrine is provisional, he utilizes it as an authoritative teaching for establishing the single-vehicle theory, which he takes to be a definitive teaching.
This inconsistency derives from Jayānanda’s acceptance of input from two different sources: one from Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra (on the judgment of Buddha-nature as a provisional doctrine), and the other from Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka (on the single-vehicle doctrine supported by the Buddha-nature teaching).
CONCLUSION
We can trace the teaching transmission of the RGV in Kashmir around the 11th and 12th centuries in works by Sajjana, and his son Mahājana, (both of whom are in Ratnavajra’s familiy lineage), Amtākara, and Jayānanda. To them, we may add the Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya
bya ba ni stong pa nyid kyis thams cad la khyab pa’i phyir ro ||. (abbr. Paricaya) composed by a disciple of Sajjana (as well as passages by Parahitabhadra79) whose doctrinal position regarding the RGV is referred to in Tibetan souces.
Sajjana, Mahājana, the author of the Paricaya, and also probably Amtākara, belonged to the same scholary circle and flourished in the 11th to 12th century around the city dPe med, where the RGV was translated by Sajjana and rNgog. Their works are all included in the same palmleaf set written in proto-Śāradā script, and their hermeneutic approaches from a soteriological viewpoint show a particular similarity.
It was Sajjana who played a key role to transmit the RGV teaching to Tibet (as shown by Tibetan doctrinal and historical sources includings gsan yig literatures) and who passed the RGV teaching to rNgog. The mainstream tradition of the RGV was transmitted to Tibet by Sajjana. In his Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa (abbr. Upadeśa) Sajjana enumerates doctrinal topics of the RGV and builds them up on the basis of a consistent soteriological schema. This approach is unique to him.
His tradition had impacts not only on later Tibetan developments but also on Kashmir tradition. The Paricaya cites Sajjana’s Upadeśa and calls Sajjana “our teacher” (asmadguravaۊ).
Sajjana’s son Mahājana who lived around dPe med during the last quater of the 11th century interprets words of the Prajñāpāramitāh܀daya from a soteriological viewpoint and quotes RGV I.35ab and I.68 in support of his interpretation.
Amtākara who likely lived around the time of Sajjana or Mahājana interprets the sequence of the four praises (the Catuۊstava) as a developmental process of the cultivation path by correlating the Lokātītastava to the stages 1–7, the Niraupamyastava to the eighth stage, the Acintyastava to the stages 9–10, and the Paramārthastava to the state of Sambuddha. In this context
79 Parahita’s assertions on the RGV are found in the rGyud bla tshig don, p. 431.1–3: bla ma pa ra he ta ni ’di ltar ’chad de | don rnam pa bdun po de blo yi yul las ’das sgra yul las ’das te sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ rnam par mi rtog pa’i ye shes kyis so sor rang gis rig pa’i tshul du rtogs par bya bas na | rtogs pa’i don rdo rje’i gnas so || zhes sbyar ro ||, p. 443. 15–16: bla ma pa ra he ta na re | bcom ldan ’das seng ge’i khri la bzhugs nas gdul bya gdul bar bya ba’i phyir ’od zer sna tshogs bskye ba’o zhe’o ||, p. 444.1–3: pa ra he ta na re | bshad pa’i chos gsung rab yan lag bcu gnyis las grub pa’i chos ’phags pa’i lam yan lag brgyad dang don dam pa’i chos mya ngan las ’das pa ’byung la | de nyid dang snga ma las phyi ma ’byung ba’o zhe’o |, p. 498.3–6: ’o ni [= na] chos mngon pa’i bstan bcos las chos mngon pa’i mdo’i sho lo ka ’di kun gzhi bsgrub pa’i lung du byung la ’dir rigs bsgrub pa’i lung du byung bas kun gzhi dang rigs gcig gam zhe na | gcig ste rang bzhin du gnas pa’i kun gzhi dang | rang bzhin du gnas pa’i rigs gcig la | blo bur gyi kun gzhi dang rgyas pa’i rigs gcig go | zhes bla ma pa ra he tas bzhed do || etc.
he quoes the RGV I.69–78 and the Daśabhūmikasūtra in support of the ten-stage doctrine.
Like Sajjana who passed the teaching tradition of the RGV to Tibet via rNgog, Jayānanda transmitted Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka tradition to Tibet via Pa-tshab Nyi-ma-grags. Jayānanda in his Madhyamakāvatāra commentary cites the RGV in support of the ekayāna doctrine and interprets the all-pervasiveness of Buddha-nature as that of emptiness by stating “Buddha-nature is inside bodies (dehāntargata) of all sentient beings because emptiness is allpervasive.” On the other hand, he judges the Budddha-nature doctrine as provisional (neyārtha) following Candrakīrti’s view. In this regards, Jayānanda’s judgement regarding the Buddha-nature doctrine as to whether it is ultimate or provisional (nītārtha/neyārtha) is inconsistent from a certain viewpoint.
As for the link between the Kashmir tradition and rNgog, Sajjana had a certain impact on rNgog’s soteriological interpretation of the RGV (see Kano 2015a), but their Buddha-nature interpretations are not identical: While Sajjana (or his Kashmiri disciple) understands Buddha-nature as the luminous mind (prabhāsvaraۨ cittaۨ) which is unconditioned and thus, by itself, not empty (see Kano 2006a: 508f. and 2015a), rNgog equates Buddha-nature with emptiness. Of course, luminosity and emptiness are not necessarily mutually exclusive notions, but their points of focus are different. This equation of Buddha-nature with emptiness is precisely stated by Jayānanda, who very likely lived one or two generations after rNgog. Unless this equation is derived from Jayānanda himself, the hermeneutic tradition of this equations had been already present in Kashmir earlier than Jayānanda’s time, when rNgog studied there some time ca. between 1076 and 1092.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
SANSKRIT AND TIBETAN LITERATURES
CSS Catuۊstavasamāsārtha. See Tucci and Ye & Li & Kano . bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum ’phyogs sgrigs theng dang po, gnyis pa, gsum pa, – vols. Chendu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, (vols. – ), (vols. –), (vols. –). ’Bras spungs dkar chag ’Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba’i dpe rnying dkar chag. dPal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang. vols. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, . Chos ’byung me tog snying po Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer, mNga’-bdag, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988. Chos nyid rnam ’byed Rong-ston Shākya-rgyal-mtshan, Chos dang chos nyid rnam par ’byed pa’i rnam bshad legs par ’doms pa lha’i rnga bo che. Chendu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999. Deb sngon gZhon-nu-dpal, ’Gos Lo-tsā-ba, Deb ther sngon po. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, ; gSan yig Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang-grags-pa, rJe rin po che blo bzang grags pa’i dpal gyi gsan yig. Collected Works (Zhol edition), vol. ka, fols. a–b. IBK Indogaku Bukkyǀgaku Kenkynj 印度學佛教学研究. IsIAO Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente LAS La۪kāvatārasūtra. B. Nanjio (ed.). The La۪kāvatārasūtra. Kyoto: The Otani University Press, 1923. MĀl Madhyamakāloka by Kamalaśīla. D 3887, P 5287. MAv৫ Madhyamakāvatāraܒīkā by Jayānanda. D 3870, P 5271. MSA/MSABh Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkārabhā܈ya (attrib. Vasubandhu). Ed. Sylvain Lévi. Paris, (repr. Kyoto, ). Paricaya Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya. See Kano a. rGya gar chos ’byung Tāranātha, rGya gar chos ’byung. Ed. Schiefner, A. St. Petersburg, . rGyud bla don bsdus rNgog Lo-tsā-ba Blo-ldan-shes-rab, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i don bsdus pa (abbr. rGyud bla don bsdus). (A) bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum, vol. 1, 289–367; (B)Theg chen rgyud bla ma’i don bsdus pa. Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga by rNgog Lotsaba Blo ldan shes rab. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archieves Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1993. rGyud bla tshig don Author unknown, rGyud bla ma’i tshig don rnam par ’grel pa. dPal mnga’ bdag sgra sgyur mar pa lo tsā ba chos kyi blo gros kyi gsung ’bum (Ser gtsung nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 2012, vol. stod cha, pp. 414–522, RGV/RGVV Ratnagotravibhāga-*vyākhyā (attrib. Sāramati or Asaৄga). Ed. Edward H. Johnston. Patna: The Bihar Research Society, . Rwa lo tsā ba’i rnam thar Ye-shes-seng-ge, mThu stobs dbang phyug rje btsun rwa lo tsā ba’i rnam par thar pa kun khyab snyan pa’i rnga sgra. Xining: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, . Upadeśa Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa by Sajjana. For Sanskrit edition, see Kano a (Appendix B) and Kano a.
SECONDARY LITERATURES
BRUNNHÖLZL, Karl
2011 Prajñāpāramitā, Indian “gzhan stong pas,” And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong. Vienna: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien (WSTB 74). DIETZ, Siglinde
1984 Die buddhistische Briefliteratur Indien. Asiatische Forschungen Band 84. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 2008 Sajjana: Der Brief an der Sohn. In: Michael Hahn & Siglinde Dietz (eds.), Wege zur rechten Erkenntnis: Buddstische Lehrbriefe. Frankfurt: Verlag der Weltreligionen. 127–141; 409–415. HAHN, Michael
1999 Invitation to Enlightenment: Letter to the Great King Kani܈ka by Māt܀ceܒa, Letter to a Dis- ciple by Candragomin. Berkeley: Darma Publishing. HANISCH, Albrecht
2002 Lob des Alkohols: Eine ironische Preisrede aus Āryaśūras Kumbhajātaka als Vorlage für das 4. Kapitel von Sajjanas Putralekha. In: Dragomir Dimitrov (ed.), Śikhisamuccayaۊ: Indian and Tibetan Studies. Vienna: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien (WSTB 53). 79–108. HUGON, Pascale
2012 Clapping Hands in sKyid grong? Logical and Contextual Aspects of a Famous Debate Narrative. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 23. 51‒102 IUCHI, Maho 井内真帆 2013 A Note on the Relationship between the bKa’ gdams pa School and Mi nyag/ Xixia. Journal of Tibetology 蔵学学刊 8. 58–62. JOHNTSON, Edward H. 1950 See RGVV. KANO, Kazuo 加納和雄 2006a rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab’s Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga: The First Tibetan Commentary on a Crucial Source for the Buddha-nature Doctrine. PhD Dissertation thesis. Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg. 2006b サッジャナ著『究竟論提要』: 著者および梵文写本について (Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratanatraśāstropadeśa: The Author and the Sanskrit Manuscript). Kōyasandaigaku mikkyōbunka kenkyūsho kiyō 高野山大学密教文化研究所紀要 19. 29–51. 2008 rNgog Blo ldan shes rab’s Topical Outline of the Ratnagotravibhāga Discovered at Khara Khoto. In: Orna Almogi (ed.), Contributions to Tibetan Buddhist Literature: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies. 127–194. 2010 rৃog Blo ldan śes rab’s position on the Buddha-nature doctrine and its influence on the early gSaৄ phu tradition. JIABS 32-1/2. 249–283. 2014a 宝性論の展開 (Development of Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga). In: Masahiro Shimoda et al. (eds.), Sirīzu daijōbukkyō 8: Nyoraizō to busshō シリーズ大乗仏教 8: 如来蔵と仏性. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. 205–247. 2014b Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: カシュミール由来の新出の『宝性論』注梵文断片 (Mahāyānottaratnatraparicaya: Sanskrit Fragments from a Newly Available Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary from Kashmir). Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 62-2. 152–158. 2014c 『普賢成就法』の新出梵文資料について (Newly Available Sanskrit Materials of Jñānapāda’s Samantabhadrasādhana). Mikkyōgakukenkyū 46. 61-73. 2015a Annotated Translation of Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa. Kōyasan daigaku daigakuin kiyō 高野山大学大学院紀要 14. 1–49. 2015b Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-nature. China Tibetology Journal 24. KAWASAKI, Kazuhiro
2004 On a Birch-bark Sanskrit Manuscript Preserved in the Tibet Museum. IBK 52-2. 50±52. KRAMER, Ralf
2007 The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109). Mün- chen: Indus Verlag. LOPEZ, Donald S.
1996 Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sūtra. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. MATSUDA, Kuninori 松田訓典
2014 The Structure of the Mahāyānasūtrālaۨkāra: From the Interpretation of a Tibetan Com- mentary. IBK 62-3. 189–195. NAUDOU, Jean
1968 Les Bouddhistes Kaśmīriens: Au Moyen Age. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ROERICH, George N.
1949/53 The Blue Annals. Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. (repr. Delhi, 1976) SCHAEFFER, Kurtis R. & VAN DER KUIJP, Leonard
2009 An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldan ral gri. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. SCHMITHAUSEN, Lambert
1971 Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratnagotravibhāga. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 15. 123–177. SEYFORT RUEGG, David
1969 La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra: Etudes sur Sotériologie et la Gnoséologie du Bouddhisme. École Française d’Extrême-Orient 70. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
1981 The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. A History of Indian Liter- ature, vol. 7, Fasc. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 2000 Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought Part 1. Vienna: ATBS (WSTB 50). SUKENOBU, Kyōbin 資延恭敏
1974 Sūtrālaৄkāra-Piঌārtha (荘厳経論総義) の和訳と研究 (Japanese translation and study of the “Sūtrālaৄkāra-Piঌārtha”). Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 107. 39–70. TAKASAKI, Jikidō 高崎直道 1966 A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Serie Orientale Rome 33. Rome: IsMEO. 1975 Hōshōron no chūshaku Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa no shahon 宝性論の註釈 Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa の写本 (A Manuscript of the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa, a Sanskrit Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga). Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 23-2. 52–59. 1989 宝性論. Indo Koten Sōsho インド古典叢書. Tokyo: Kōdansha. TATZ, Mark 1988 Maitrī-pa and Atiśa. In: Helga Uebacha & Jampa L. Panglung (eds.), Studia Tibetica, Band 2. München. 477–482. TSUDA, Akimasa 津田明雅
006 Catuতstava とナーガールジュナ: 諸著作の真偽性 (Catuۊstava and Nāgārjuna—The Authenticity of His Writings). Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis. Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University. TUCCI, Giuseppe 1958 Minor Buddhist Texts, part 2: First Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla, Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with Introduction and English Summary. Serie Orientale Roma IX, 2. Rome.
VAN DER KUIJP, Leonard W.J.
1993 Jayānanda: A Twelfth Century Guoshi from Kashmir Among the Tangut. Central Asiatic Journal 37-3/4. 188–197. VITALI, Roberto 2003 A Chronology (bstan rtsis) of Events in the History of mNga’ ris skor gsum (TenthFifteenth Centuries). In: Alex Mckay (ed.), The History of Tibet, vol. 2: The Medieval Period: c. 850–1895, The Development of Buddhist Paramountcy. London/New York: Routledge Curzon. 53–105. VOSE, Kevin
2009 Resurrecting Candrakīrti: Diputes in the Tibetan Creation of Prāsa۪gika. Boston: Wisdom Publications. YE Shaoyong 葉少勇 & LI Xuezhu 李学竹 & KANO, Kazuo 加納和雄 2013 Further Folios from the Set of Miscellaneous Texts in Śāradā Palm-leaves from Zha lu Ri phug: A Preliminary Report Based on Photographs Preserved in the CTRC, CEL and IsIAO. China Tibetology 20. 30–47.
(Acknowledgements: The present paper is an improved version of a chapter in my unpublished dissertation thesis submitted to Asian-Afrika Institut of Hamburg University; see Kano 2006a [which in turn is currently under preparation for publication with the title “Buddha-nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldanshes-rab and a Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet,” Vienna: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016]. I am grateful to Mr. Philip Pierce for improving English expressions. This research was financially supported in part by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 日本学術振興会科学研究費 [26284008] [25370059] [25284014] and by Heiwa Nagakajima Foundation 平和中島財団.)
キーワード Ratnagotravibhāga,『宝性論』, Kashmir, Sajjana, Mahājana, Amtākara, Jayānanda
Bulletin of the Graduate School
Graduate Program of Liberal Arts Kōyasan University Vol.15 October 2016
Contents
On the Darijing yiji of Kōyasan University Library ……………TAKEUCHI Kōzen［ １ ］ Thoughts on the Foshuo ruyi Xukongzang pusa tuoluoni jing …………………YAGI Takahide［（39）］ An Annotated Translation of Kūkai’s Ninnōgyō kaidai ………………Thomas Dreitlein［（25）］ Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century ……………………KANO Kazuo［（１）］
目 次 高野山大学図書館蔵『大日経義記』をめぐって…………………………………武 内 孝 善〔 一 〕 平成二十七年度研究概要……………………………………………………………………………〔二五〕
佛説如意虚空蔵菩薩陀羅尼経』の検討 …………………………………………八 木 高 秀〔 39 〕 An Annotated Translation of Kūkai’s Ninnōgyō kaidai…………………………Ｔ・ドライトライン〔 25 〕 Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century ……加 納 和 雄〔 １ 〕
