Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras
There is no traditional rubric of tathāgatagarbha scriptures, though modern scholars (e.g. Takasaki, 1974) have treated several scriptures as belonging to a thematic class, namely the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, the Śrīmālādevīsiṃha nādasūtra, the (Mahāyāna) Mahā parinirvāṇamahā sūtra, the Mahāmeghasūtra, the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra, and the Mahāyāna Aṅgulimālīya (or Aṅgulimālīyasūtra). This classification is based in the first instance on the use of these and related works as proof texts in the Indian treatise Ratnagotravibhāga (Mahāyānottaratantra). The category is thus in some sense conceptually coherent even in an Indian context. Moreover, many of these texts take on a very significant role in East Asia where, again, they are often appealed to in various groupings.
The notion of tathāgatagarbha (embryo of the tathāgatas), a Mahāyāna innovation, signifies the presence in every sentient being of the innate capacity for buddhahood. Although different traditions interpret it variously, the basic idea is either that all beings are already awakened, but simply do not recognize it, or that all beings possess the capacity, and for some the certainty, of attaining buddhahood, but adventitious defilements (āgantukakleśa) for the moment prevent the realization of this potential.
The grouping considered here is confined to works thought to be early (prior to c. 400 ce), and of Indic provenance, thus excluding such texts as the Wushangyi jing (無上依經; T. 669), a text almost certainly compiled in China (Takasaki, 1966, 49–53). Also left aside is a small group of texts with possible tathāgatagarbha coloring, but less central to the tradition, namely the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra, the Ratnadārikāsūtra, the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, the Gaganagañjabodhisattvaparipṛcchā, and the Ratnacūḍasūtra. Other works that are connected with the tathāgatagarbha doctrine include the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the *Tathāgatotpattisaṃbhava nirdeśa (originally an independent work which eventually was incorporated into the *Buddhāvataṃsaka collection). Tathāgatagarbhasūtra
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra (Scripture on the Embryo of the Tathāgatas) is a relatively short text, extant in four versions – two Chinese and two Tibetan: 1. the Dafangdeng rulaizang jing (大方等如來藏經; T. 666), ascribed to Buddhabhadra (佛陀跋陀羅; 359–429 ce); 2. t he Dafangguang rulaizang jing (大方廣如來藏經; T. 667), ascribed to Amoghavajra (不空; 705–774 ce);
3. the De bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po’i mdo (D 258/Q 924); and 4. a second Tibetan translation, ’Phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, known so far only from the Bathang Kanjur kept in the Newark Museum (Zimmermann, 2002).
Two other Chinese translations that may have existed are no longer extant (Zimmermann, 2002, 69–75). Portions of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra are cited in the above-mentioned Ratnagotravibhāga, the only known Sanskrit text to preserve such citations, and several key formulations in the Ratnagotra- vibhāga clearly derive from the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. In particular, the nine similes at the core of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra comprise the skeleton of portions of both the Ratnagotravibhāga and its commentary, the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (see below).
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra has been translated into English, with extensive annotations, by M. Zimmermann (2002) and earlier (from Chinese) by W. Grosnick (1995). Important studies include those by Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 40–68), Matsumoto Shirō (1994, 411–543), and Nakamura Zuiryū (1963).
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra has long been regarded as the first scripture to propound the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. However, it is striking that the actual term “tathāgatagarbha” is not central to the text but rather appears only in introductory sections, which M. Zimmermann argues were later additions (2002, 29–32, 39–40). Instead (or in addition), the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra refers to the hidden potential for buddhahood by means of a wide variety of terms, most prominent among which are *tathāgatatva, *buddhatva, *tathāgatakāya (and other terms denoting special Buddha bodies, in contrast to the ordinary bodies borne by unawakened sentient beings), and terms denoting types of jñāna (Zimmermann, 2002, 50–62).
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra opens in Rājagṛha (present-day Rajgir) and describes a miraculous display by the Buddha of a myriad tathāgatas seated in the calyx of each of a copious array of gigantic lotuses floating in the sky, which then blacken and rot away. The body of the scripture follows, giving nine similes for the hidden potential of sentient beings to attain liberation. According to the similes, this hidden potential resembles the following:
1. brightly shining tathāgatas sitting inside withered, rotting lotus flowers; 2. honey inside a hive fiercely guarded by bees; 3. the kernel of a cereal grain, encased in the husk; 4. a gold nugget in a pile of excrement; 5. a hidden treasure buried beneath the house of a poor person; 6. the sprout inside a seed; 7. a statuary image of a tathāgata wrapped in rotten rags and dropped by the wayside in a dangerous wasteland; 8. the embryo of a cakravartin (universal monarch) carried in the womb of an unsuspecting and destitute mother; and 9. golden figures within the grubby clay molds that are used to cast them, before the mold is broken.
The sūtra closes by describing the merit that accrues to one who propagates the text and deprecates the comparative value of the veneration of the buddhas. As an illustration of the power of the text, there follows a story of a past buddha, Sadāpramutkaraśmi, who always emitted a great and wondrous light from his body; he preached the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra at the request of the bodhisattva *Anantaraśmi, and countless bodhisattvas attained supreme and perfect awakening as a result. The Buddha’s disciple Ānanda then asks from how many buddhas one must hear the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, in order to become perfected (niryāta) and is told that it varies from a hundred buddhas to a myriad. Brief sections then praise one who holds the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra in his or her hands, and onlookers delight and rejoice.
Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta
The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta (Scripture on the Absence of Increase or Decrease [in the Extent of the Sphere of Beings]) is preserved only in a single Chinese version, the Bu zeng bu jian jing (不增不減經; T. 668), translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流支; ?–527 ce), though portions are cited in the Ratnagotravibhāga, showing that the text was already in existence by circa 400 ce. The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta is also cited in the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa (see below), the date of which is unknown. The relative chronological relation among the Anūnatvāpūrṇatva- nirde śaparivarta, the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃha nādasūtra remains unclear. (For an annotated English translation, see Silk, 2014; important studies are Takasaki, 1965; 1974, 69–96; see also Srisetthaworakul, 2010; Tsai, 2004; Wakiya, 2005; Watanabe, 1984.)
The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta may be divided into two main parts, with the second, the main body of the text, giving the impression of being quite shastric – doctrinally complex and even somewhat abstruse. The first part of the text discusses a range of “false views” (dṛṣṭi), which are, however, difficult to identify or interpret with precision. These false views are, in various ways, said to prevent insight into the correct nature of truth and reality, the topic of the second part.
In accordance with the title of the text, the main burden of the correct view presented in the second part is that there is “neither decrease nor increase” in the “realm (or domain, or element) of (sentient) beings” (sattvadhātu; T. 668 [XVI] 467a2–7), which means that the overall number of sentient beings does not increase or decrease, despite all the vicissitudes of transmigration, and despite the fact that some beings may attain liberation or buddhahood. This is because there is in fact only one realm or element (*ekadhātu), which is identical in both the deluded realm of ordinary sentient beings in saṃsāra and in the liberated state of the buddhas. This leads to a series of other equivalences: sattvadhātu is paramārtha (ultimate truth); sattvadhātu is tathāgatagarbha; tathāgatagarbha is dharmakāya (the transcendent body); sattvadhātu is dharmakāya. This bivalent single essence that runs through all things and states of being, both suffering and liberated, is also aligned with the notion of the “originally pure mind” (*prakṛtipariśuddhacitta, *prakṛtiprabhāsvara). It is also said to be precisely the dharmakāya that, “carried by the flood of saṃsāra,” comes and goes through the rounds of birth and death; the feature that distinguishes this state of the dharmakāya from its fully realized state in the buddhas is that it is “hidden within a sheath of countless defilements.” Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra
The Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra (Scripture on the Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā) survives in two Chinese versions: the Shengman shizihou yisheng dafangbian fangguang jing (勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經; T. 353), translated by Guṇabhadra (求那跋陀羅; 394–468 ce), the Shengman furen hui (勝鬘夫人會) in the Ratnakūṭa (大寶積經; T. 310[48]), translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流志; ?–727 ce), and in a Tibetan version, the Lha mo dpal phreng gi seng ge’i sgra (D 92/Q 760[48]), translated by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, and Ye shes sde (9th cent.). The Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra is cited in Sanskrit in the Ratnagotravibhāga (see Ogawa, 2001), and the Schøyen collection includes Sanskrit manuscript fragments of the text dating to the 5th century ce (Matsuda, 2000; Sander, 2000, 293). Tsukinowa Kenryū (1940) published an edition of both Chinese versions and the Tibetan translation (with Japanese translation, not containing the Sanskrit materials, which were unknown in his day). English translations are found in A. and H. Wayman (1974), G.C.C. Chang (1983, 363–383), and D. Paul (2004). Key studies are those by Kagawa Takao (1957), Watanabe Shōkō (1968), Tsurumi Ryōdō (1974), Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 97–126), and Matsumoto Shirō (1983). Takasaki Jikidō places the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra after the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra and the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta.
In the frame narrative of the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, young Queen Śrīmālā receives a miraculous visitation from the Buddha, who prophesies that she will attain unexcelled perfect awakening (anuttarasaṃyaksaṃbodhi) and preside over her own Buddha land (a perfect heavenlike world created by the power of a Buddha to provide a perfect environment for sentient beings to attain liberation). Śrīmālā makes ten vows to practice various perfections. On the basis of those vows she performs an act of truth, in which the very truth of her words causes physical manifestations in the visible world, and this causes several miracles (flowers from the sky, heavenly sounds, etc.). Śrīmālā expresses three times the aspiration to teach the dharma in numerous lifetimes. The Buddha bestows on her the eloquence to teach, and she preaches the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra. The Buddha approves and levitates back to Śrāvastī (present-day SahethMaheth). Śrīmālā returns to Ayodhyā and converts the entire populace.
The doctrinal burden of the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra centers on several main themes. Accepting and safeguarding the true doctrine (sad dharma; typically the doctrine of the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra itself, but also that of the Mahāyāna) are of unsurpassed benefit and identical to the six perfections, and all alike aim to promote acceptance of the doctrine of this text by sentient beings. One should renounce even the “body” (life and limb) for the sake of promoting the text, and as a result attain the dharmakāya of the Buddha (comp. the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra below). The achievements of the arhat and the pratyeka buddha of the “Hīnayāna” are paltry in comparison to those of the Mahāyāna, and the text subsumes those other vehicles into the Mahāyāna (it advocates ekayāna, “one vehicle”). Among other things, Mahāyāna is distinguished by the type of nirvāṇa particular to it, which is a docetic illusion for the benefit of sentient beings as upāya (a skillful expedient used by the Buddha to edify sentient beings) and an “inconceivable metamorphosis” (*acintyapariṇāmikī [cyuti]; T. 353 [XII] 219c20–220a2).
Like the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, the Śrīmālā devīsiṃhanādasūtra contains an idiosyncratic, technical, shastric doctrinal exposition. The two types of nirvāṇa and death differ because of a subtle level of defilement. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas overcome only *paryutthānakleśa (active defilements; see Tsukinowa, 1940, 85 n1) but not the deeper āvāsakleśas (defilements as habitation; zhudifannao [住地煩惱]), which produce all active defilements. The most fundamental type of defilement is avidyāvāsabhūmi (ignorance as the [fundamental] ground of habitation), which exists from time immemorial and is dissociated from thought (*cittaviprayukta). Only the tathāgatas can destroy this defilement. Because of this, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and “bodhisattvas who have attained mastery” engender three kinds of “body made of mind” and do not entirely escape saṃsāra; thus, true liberation is possible only for full-fledged tathāgatas and more generally, for adherents of the Mahāyāna.
The tathāgatagarbha doctrine is the domain of the tathāgatas alone; for common people, it is an object of faith. It is the equivalent of the dharmakāya, but whereas tathāgatagarbha is enclosed in the defilements, dharmakāya is free of them. The dharmakāya is originally pure (prakṛtipariśuddha), unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), unborn (ajāta), unarisen (anutpanna), eternal (nitya), changeless (dhruva), and permanent (śāśvata), and it is characterized by eternity, bliss, (true) self, and purity (nitya, sukha, ātman, and śuddha). The mind is also intrinsically pure (*prakṛtipariśuddhacitta, *prakṛtiprabhāsvaracitta) but obscured by adventitious defilements (āgantukakleśa).
Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra
The (Mahāyāna) Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (The Great Scripture of the Great, Perfect Nirvāṇa) must be distinguished from the almost identically entitled “mainstream” Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (Pal. Mahāparinibbānasutta). Study of Sanskrit fragments shows that the correct title of the text is Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (Habata, 2007, xliii– xliv), although it is obvious that the authors of this text were fully aware of the earlier scripture of (almost) the same title and purposely referred to it.
The Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra survives in four main independent versions:
1. 35 identified Central Asian Sanskrit fragments (Habata, 2007, xxvi, xxxi); 2. the Dabannihuan jing (大般泥洹經; T. 376), translated circa 416–418 ce by Buddhabhadra and Faxian (法顯; 320?–420? ce); 3. the Dabanniepan jing (大般涅槃經; T. 374), translated circa 421–432 ce by *Dharmakṣema (曇無讖; 385–433 ce); and
4. the Yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa chen po’i theg pa chen po’i mdo (D 120/Q 788), translated by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha, and Devacandra (9th cent. ce). Dharmakṣema’s version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa- mahāsūtra is four times as long as all the other independent versions.
Two additional versions are based in turn on Dharmakṣema’s Dabanniepan jing. The Dabanniepan jing (大般涅槃經 T. 375), by Zhiyan 慧嚴 et al., is not an independent translation at all but a revision of Dharmakṣema’s text. D 119/Q 787 is a Tibetan translation from Dharmakṣema’s Chinese version. H. Habata (2007) has collected, edited, and studied the Sanskrit fragments, and critically edited the Tibetan translation (2013); a second volume of Sanskrit fragments is forthcoming. The first English translation by K. Yamamoto (1973–1975) – rough, sometimes incomprehensible, and often inaccurate – is presented as a translation of Dharmakṣema’s text (T. 374), but it was actually produced from Shimaji’s Kokuyaku issaikyō translation of T. 375, itself a mere recasting of the Chinese text in Japanese grammatical order (see Yuyama, 1981, 14). Shimoda Masahiro (1993) has published a Japanese translation of the first three chapters of the Tibetan text. M. Blum (2013) has published the first volume of a planned four-volume translation of Dharmakṣema’s Dabanniepan jing (T. 374). S. Hodge is preparing an English translation based on all four independent versions, while M. Radich (2015) has prepared a monograph on the relative dating of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra and aspects of its tathāgatagarbha doctrine.
The most significant study of the Mahā- parinirvāṇamahāsūtra to date is by Shimoda (1997). Other significant scholarship includes works by Mochizuki Ryōkō (1988) and Qu Dacheng (1994).
S. Karashima (2007) studied the key term icchantika. The main English-language studies are by M.-W. Liu (1982; 1984), Takasaki Jikidō (1971), and S. Hodge (2010; 2012). The history of interpretation of this text in China and East Asia generally is a vital and crucial chapter in the history of East Asian Buddhism, which requires its own treatment. Numerous commentaries were written and debates conducted about this scripture; particularly important in this regard is the Dabanniepan jing ji jie (大般涅槃經集解; T. 1763), compiled in 509 ce by Baoliang (寶亮; see also Fuse, 1942).
As in the latter parts of the mainstream Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, on which it is based, the mise-en-scène is the final hours of the Buddha’s (apparent) life, as a last chance to ask questions. A vast cosmic congregation assembles, bewailing the Buddha’s imminent death. After much competition for the honor, the Buddha deigns to accept the offering of the smith Cunda as his final meal. Against the mainstream text, the disciple Ānanda is depicted as entirely absent (he only reappears at the very end of the text, and then only in Dharmakṣema’s version), and against his traditional role as the best keeper of the Buddha’s teaching, the text stresses that Ānanda is in fact unworthy to be entrusted with safeguarding the dharma. Instead, the dharma is entrusted to the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa. Remarkably, the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (with the exception of the Dharmakṣema version) ends with the Buddha lying down upon his right side in the “lion’s pose” as if to die, but stops short of his actual parinirvāṇa, his cremation, the division of relics, and so forth.
The central claim of the first part of the text is that the Buddha’s impending parinirvāṇa is only a docetic show. In fact, in this text, his life is inordinately long, and his body (termed both dharmakāya and abhedavajrakāya [indivisible adamantine body]) is indestructible and made of adamant (Radich, 2011a). The second part of the text (excluding portions unique to the version of Dharmakṣema), which probably belongs to a different stratum of compositional history (Shimoda, 1997), concerns itself with a somewhat miscellaneous sequence of topics, including the following:
• the docetic reinterpretation of the worldly existence of the Buddha, both before his attainment of buddhahood (when he is a bodhisattva) and after; •• a secret teaching centering on tathāgatagarbha; creative reinterpretations of liberation and the four fruits of the monastic vocation (śrotāpanna [[[stream enterer]]], sakṛdāgāmin [[[once-returner]]], anāgāmin [[[nonreturner]]], and arhat);
•• how best to observe the monastic rule (vinaya);
doctrines of the end-times of the dharma (times in which the true dharma will fade from the world, attended by various calamities; Nattier, 1991), false monks, and false teachings;
• the “four inversions,” by which – in contrast to classical Buddhist doctrine, which denies the possibility of such things – the Tathāgata is permanent (nitya), blissful (sukha), (true) self (ātman), and pure
(śuddha; comp. the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra);
•• the magical virtues of Sanskrit letters; and
various parables about the realization of tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature and the docetic parinirvāṇa.
In the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra, tathāgatagarbha is also frequently referred to as “buddha nature” (this is by now the standard English translation of Chinese foxing [[[佛性]]]). Shimoda Masahiro (1997) contends that the use of this synonym for tathāgatagarbha buttresses efforts to supersede worship of physical Buddha relics (buddhadhātu) by the realization of an element of buddhahood within the sentient being. The Sanskrit underlying Chinese foxing (i.e. Tib. sangs rgyas gyi khams) is thought also to be *buddhadhātu, exploiting an alternate sense of dhātu to mean “element” or “raw material.” Thus, by a play on the word dhātu, the focus of cultic activity is shifted from the remnant of past, physical buddhahood in the external world (dhātu [[[relic]]]) to a nascent, future buddhahood within the sentient being itself (dhātu [[[element]], raw material]). This hypothesis is among several that have displaced A. Hirakawa’s (1963) hypothesis that the Mahāyāna began as a lay movement centered on the worship of Buddha relics in stūpas (see also Sasaki, 1999) and constitutes an attempt to provide a more accurate account of the relation between nascent Mahāyāna movements and the cult of the Buddha’s relics.
The Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (again, excepting extra parts found in the Dharmakṣema translation) can be divided into two main chronological strata. The earliest layer reflects the practices and ideas of itinerant dharma preachers, who were semimonastic and engaged in frequent pilgrimages to stūpas through dangerous regions, accompanied by laypeople who did not observe the traditional five precepts and armed themselves to protect the preacher. In Shimoda Masahiro’s view, this layer is apparently opposed to relic worship and proposes that the Buddha’s dharmakāya is adamantine (vajrakāya; see Radich, 2011a); it also propounds the eternity of the Buddha, the docetic view of the parinirvāṇa, and the aforementioned four inversions (eternity, bliss, self, and purity); it separately propounds the idea that the Tathāgata is “self ” (ātman).
Only in the second layer does the term bodhisattva come to be used for proponents of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra. Moreover, with few exceptions, tathāgatagarbha doctrine is only introduced in this second layer, which also propounds the idea that the true teachings are secret, types of samādhi (meditative states), docetism (lokānuvartanā; “conformity with the world”), the three jewels (the Buddha, the dharma, and the saṅgha, taken as “refuges”), and criticism of śrāvakas (adherents of “mainstream,” non-Mahāyāna doctrine); mentions sūtras as written books (as opposed to oral teachings); and teaches about icchantikas, beings who are forever unable to attain buddhahood. Shimoda Masahiro also sees here a renewed rigor in monastic discipline, corresponding to a shift to sedentary cenobiticism, linked to a new concern for the purity of the saṅgha, and vehement criticism of corrupt monks. The later very important and influential ban on eating meat also appears here.
As mentioned earlier, Dharmakṣema’s version of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra is much longer than the other independent versions. Yijing (義淨; 635–713 ce) searched in India and Southeast Asia for Sanskrit texts corresponding to this large unique portion, without success (T. 2066 [LI] 4a8–12). Modern scholarship has paid surprisingly little attention to the question of the origin of the remaining unique three quarters of Dharmakṣema’s text (but see Chen, 2004; Hodge, 2010; 2012). However, it is clear that authors of parts of it must have known Indic texts otherwise unknown in China (Radich, 2011b, 49–50, 160–163; Granoff, 2012). These unique portions of Dharmakṣema’s text played a key role in the massive impact of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra on Chinese Buddhism, including the controversy surrounding the icchantika doctrine, in which the important cleric Daosheng (道生; 355–434 ce) played a celebrated role.
Mahāmeghasūtra
The Mahāmeghasūtra (Scripture on the Great
Cloud) is extant in two versions:
1. the Dafangdeng wuxiang jing (大方等無想經; T. 387; *Mahāvaipulyāsaṃjñikasūtra in the Korean; but Dafangdeng dayun jing [大方等大雲經] = *Mahāvaipulyamahāmeghasūtra in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and “Palace” editions), translated circa 421–433 ce by Dharmakṣema; and
2. the Sprin chen po (D 232/Q 898), translated by Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi, and Ye shes sde (9th cent. ce).
Although the text has apparently otherwise been lost in its original form, a Sanskrit passage has been preserved as an interpolation into the Suvarṇabhāsottama (Suzuki, 1996), itself extant in Sanskrit.
No full translation of the Mahāmeghasūtra exists in a Western language, but a detailed English summary is given by A. Forte (1976, app. A). Western scholarship has mainly focused on a peculiar prophecy contained in the text (see below), which was used by the Chinese Empress Wu Zetian (武則天; r. 690–705 ce) to legitimate the rule of her Zhou (周) dynasty (Chavannes, 1902, 235–236; Demiéville, 1924, 218–230; Tucci, 1930, 217; Forte, 1976). Apart from Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 276–301), the most important studies are by Suzuki Takayasu (1996b; 1998a; 1998b; 1998c; 1999a; 2001; 2003a; 2003b).
The title reflects a conceit of the dharma as rain from the cloud of a Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, in the drought of the end-times (comp. also the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra and Mahābherīhārakasūtra). In both versions, the structure of the Mahāmeghasūtra is odd: of the 37 chapters, only chapters 1, 2, 36, and 37 are fully elaborated. Chapters 3 to 35, by contrast, seem merely to be skeletal outlines of topics. The following summary focuses on chapters 1, 2, 36, and 37.
In keeping with Mahāyāna convention, the frame narrative describes a vast congregation assembled to listen to the Buddha’s sermon, and various wonders performed by the Buddha, or occurring spontaneously, to mark the occasion. The bodhi sattva
- Mahāmeghagarbha (大雲密藏) asks the Buddha a hundred questions. The Buddha responds by teaching on themes already encountered above – the docetic parinirvāṇa, the four inversions, the fact that sentient beings are in truth not distinct from dharmadhātu (the realm/element of the dharma; comp. the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta teaching of ekadhātu [the one realm/element]), the inferior merits of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature. Chapter 2 is largely taken up with four hundred samādhis, which secure for the practitioner a long list of benefits.
Chapter 36 picks out a couple of samādhis for special discussion. In answer to the Brahman Shande
(善德; later identified with the Indian emperor Aśoka), the Buddha explains that the Buddha’s cousin and “rival” Devadatta was not as evil as he appeared. Rather, he was a mahāpuruṣa (great being), acting as part of the Buddha’s salvific plan. A person called *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana (一切眾生樂見) then begins speaking in the Buddha’s stead. Shande declares the doctrines of the Mahāmeghasūtra to be beyond him; instead, he says, he would like to venerate a relic of the Buddha. *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana proclaims a series of verses declaring that there is in fact no such thing as a Buddha relic (echoing similar ideas in the Suvarṇabhāsottama). A goddess (*devī) called *Vimalaprabhā (淨光) asks the Buddha how Shande and *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana can have such insight. The Buddha explains that in a past life, they had a similar exchange, in the presence of a buddha who also preached the Mahāmeghasūtra. He also explains that in a future life, Shande will be Aśoka. The devī *Vimalaprabhā, moreover, was the queen in the past narrative, and will reign in the future over a kingdom of her own as a kind of “one-quarter cakravartin.” The Buddha also gives another prophecy of an end-times scenario in which the Mahāmeghasūtra will circulate. The chapter closes with another iteration of the docetic parinirvāṇa.
Chapter 37 returns to the end-times prophecy. During the end-times, another person who also goes by the name of *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana (一切眾生樂見) will be the guardian of the true dharma. The chapter expounds at length the virtues of one specific samādhi – that is, the ability of bodhisattvas to manifest themselves in many different apparent bodies to save sentient beings. This exposition is interwoven with a reprise of the eternity of the dharmakāya and the docetic parinirvāṇa. *Vimalaprabhā again comes to the fore, and bests *Mahāmeghagarbha in her grasp of doctrine. The Buddha then prophesies an illustrious future for her. *Mahāmeghagarbha foolishly assumes that this future must involve changing into a male, as traditional Buddhist doctrine all but universally asserts, but the Buddha scolds *Mahāmeghagarbha for making this assumption; in fact, he reveals, *Vimalaprabhā deliberately assumes the body of a woman through countless aeons for the sake of sentient beings (although the female body that she assumes is apparently not real but merely a body of skillful means [*upāyakāya; 方便之身]). A further very detailed prophecy expands on the promise of the previous chapter that the devī will become a powerful queen – this being the prophecy so useful to Wu Zetian. This queen will be a powerful sponsor of the cult of Buddha relics in stūpas (seemingly contradicting the earlier denigration and docetic denial of relics). Many lifetimes later, the devī will preside over her own buddha world. This theme of spiritually powerful women prophesied to buddhahood echoes the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra.
The exposition of tathāgatagarbha doctrine in the Mahāmeghasūtra echoes that of the Mahā- pari nirvāṇamahāsūtra (especially the hypothesized second layer, mentioned above). It preaches the theme of secret teachings, the idea that tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature is to be “seen,” and the fact that sentient beings have tathāgatagarbha within them like a separate entity. The Mahāmeghasūtra is also concerned with docetism, and, indeed, one of its samādhis converts the notion of conformity to the [expectations of the] world (lokānuvartanā) into a practice of meditation on the production of the docetic appearance of all the typical acts of a buddha (dwelling in Tuṣita heaven, conception and birth attended by a set of stock miracles, etc.). The Mahāmeghasūtra also preaches a docetic parinirvāṇa; and it discusses the danger that people will accuse its proponents of peddling fake teachings (buddhavacana). Both texts teach the four inversions, the ban on meat eating, and the dharmakāya/vajrakāya. Suzuki Takayasu (1998b; 2001) has proposed that Shimoda Masahiro’s second layer in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra bears the mark of recomposition under the influence of the Mahāmeghasūtra.
- Mahābherīhārakasūtra
The *Mahābherīhārakasūtra (Scripture on the Beater of the Great Kettledrum) is extant in two versions:
1. the Da fagu jing (大法鼓經; T. 270), translated by Guṇabhadra; and
2. the Rnga bo che chen po’i le’u (D 222/Q 888), translated by Vidyākaraprabha, Dpal gyi lhun po, and Dpal brtsegs (9th cent. ce). Apart from Takasaki Jidikō (1974, 234–253), the main studies are by Suzuki Takayasu (1996a; 1997; 2000; 2002), who suggests that the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra is linked to the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra (see below), because of the reference to its preachers as *hitopadeṣṭṛ (Chn. anweishuozhe [安慰說者]; Tib. phan par ston pa, “those who teach what is beneficial [for sentient beings]”).
King Prasenajit goes to hear the Buddha preaching the dharma, accompanied by a great fanfare of beating drums and blasting conches. In response, the Buddha “beats the great kettledrum of the dharma” (hence the title) and “blasts the great conch of the dharma” (T. 270 [IX] 290c15, 291c14–15). Later, we learn that Prasenajit smears his war drum with a magical ointment, and when the drum is beaten, poisoned arrows fall from his soldiers’ wounds; similarly, the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra has the power to extract the arrows of the so-called three poisons (i.e. lust, hatred, and delusion), the elements which, according to Buddhist doctrine, cause the entire wheel of transmigration to revolve and bind beings to saṃsāra.
The *Mahābherīhārakasūtra proposes that existence (*bhava) is at the root of all pleasure and pain (*sukhaduḥkha), so that nirvāṇa, which is freedom from the very conditions of existence, is the supreme bliss. This apparently simple teaching (which echoes the bliss of the four inversions) is not known to all tathāgatas, and bodhisattvas from other buddha worlds come to hear it taught by Śākyamuni. This teaching is thus a “secret dharma store of the tathāgatas,” a “concealed teaching” (T. 270 [IX] 291a13–14, 291a26–29). After the (apparent) parinirvāṇa, this secret is to be entrusted to the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa, whom the Buddha likens to King Prasenajit, beating his drums and sounding his conches, defeating enemies, and bringing peace.
However, toward the end of the text, it is dramatically revealed that various phantoms created by Māra, the embodiment of evil, are hidden among the congregation. A series of powerful disciples and bodhisattvas – including Mahākāśyapa – prove incapable of rooting them out. This sets the scene for *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana, despite histrionic protest that he is a mere layman, to best even Mahākāśyapa by unmasking and capturing Māra’s minions. The Buddha reveals that *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana only gives the appearance of being a common person (pṛthagjana). In fact, his true level of spiritual development is more advanced; in the end-times, he will be reborn as a monk “bearing the same name as myself ” (i.e. as the Buddha, who is speaking; T. 270 [IX] 299a17–18), the main proponent of the true teachings (of the Mahābherīhārakasūtra); and in the very remote future, *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana will become a buddha.
The heart of the teaching of the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra is twofold. First, the Buddha is truly eternal and does not really enter parinirvāṇa. Second, all sentient beings have tathāgatagarbha/ buddha nature – clearly and explicitly identified with the self (wo [[[我]]]; ātman). The fact that sentient beings at first do not perceive this pure essence within themselves, but can nonetheless realize it with practice, is explained by the metaphor of gold tainted by impurities and then refined. The *Mahābherīhārakasūtra also uses other metaphors, later commonplace, like the moon obscured by clouds, or the eye obscured by cataracts, and speaks explicitly of the covering of the tathāgatagarbha/ buddha nature/ātman by adventitious defilements (*āgantukakleśa).
The *Mahābherīhārakasūtra shares a number of themes with other texts in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahā sūtra group: the eternity of the Tathāgata; the docetic parinirvāṇa secret teachings; the identification of the Tathāgata with ātman; deprecation of śrāvakas and pratyeka buddhas; the identification of Mahākāśyapa as the true heritor of the dharma; and end-times prophecies. It speaks of “the great rain of the dharma” (e.g. T. 270, [IX] 299c9; comp. also the Mahāmeghasūtra). The *Mahābherīhārakasūtra also includes a version of the parable, better known from the Lotus Sūtra, of the phantom city conjured up by a guide to encourage travelers to continue a long and arduous journey, used as a figure for the Buddha’s teaching of intermediate “vehicles” (yāna) as way stations on the path to the Mahāyāna as the “one” (true) vehicle.
Mahāyāna Aṅgulimālīya/ Aṅgulimālīyasūtra
The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra (Scripture on Aṅgulimālīya) is extant in two versions:
1. the Yangjuemoluo jing (央掘魔羅經; T. 120), translated by Guṇabhadra; and
2. the Sor mo’i phreng ba la phan pa (D 213/ Q 879), translated by Śākyaprabha, Dharmatāśīla, and Tong Ācārya (9th cent.).
The main studies on this text are by Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 191–233), Ogawa Ichijō (1999; 2001, 7–15), Kanō Kazuo (2006), Suzuki Takayasu (1999a; 1999b; 2000), and L. Schmithausen (2003). Suzuki Takayasu notes that the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra, like the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra, refers to its preachers as *hitopadeṣṭṛ (teachers for the benefit [of others]).
Like the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra, the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra reworks a scenario from mainstream canonical scripture – this time, the conversion of the bandit and murderer Aṅgulimāl(īy)a (see Theragāthā vv. 866–891; Majjhimanikāya, 86). The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra thus betrays a concern with the power of the dharma to save even hopeless sinners, also seen in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (the portions found in the Dharmakṣema translation) on the salvation of Ajātaśatru (famed for killing his father, Bimbisāra, in order to usurp his throne), the Mahāmeghasūtra’s docetic reinterpretation of Devadatta, and icchantika doctrine. Aṅgulimālīya is originally a Brahman youth named *Sarvalokapriyadarśana, connecting him to the central protagonist of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group. He is accused by the wife of his teacher of sexually molesting her, and the teacher convinces Aṅgulimālīya to expiate his guilt by killing a thousand people and making a trophy garland of their severed fingers (the source of his grisly soubriquet – Aṅgulimālīya [“Finger Garland”]). Having killed 999 people, Aṅgulimālīya prepares to kill his mother. The Buddha intervenes, and Aṅgulimālīya wants to kill him, too. Instead, the Buddha manages to convert him. Various deities and advanced disciples express their admiration at the conversion, and Aṅgulimālīya defeats each in battles of Buddhist wit (often versified) and mastery of the dharma. Aṅgulimālīya takes precepts and is ordained by the Buddha. When Prasenajit comes to arrest Aṅgulimālīya, the Buddha declares that he has already become a tathāgata in a distant Buddha world, and that the teacher, the teacher’s wife, Aṅgulimālīya’s mother, and Aṅgulimālīya’s murders were all merely expedient phantoms to teach sentient beings.
The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra is elaborately concerned with the Buddha’s body (or, more accurately, the various special bodies that buddhas have or appear to have). The Buddha dwells “at the limit of the unproduced” (zhu wusheng ji [住無生際]; T. 120 [II] 533b6) in this ordinary world of ours (the Sahāloka), without really entering parinirvāṇa, and simultaneously also dwells in other buddha worlds. This is possible because he “is born in an unborn body” (or “arises in an unproduced body”; sheng busheng shen
[生不生身]; 533b15–16). All the tathāgatas in all quarters of the cosmos are in fact doppelgängers of Śākyamuni. The Buddha also has other types of extraordinary body (or his body is described using other extraordinary epithets): he is “born in a reality-limit body” (sheng shiji shen [生實際身]; 533b7–9), and he dwells in a “limitless body” (or
“countless bodies”; shenwubian [身無邊]; c1). This body is the dharmakāya – unconditioned; free of old age, sickness, death, and defilements; permanent and quiescent; and so on. The Buddha has attained this body, paradoxically, by giving up his (physical) body in countless incarnations. This lengthy exposition is linked in part to the prophecy complex common to the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group. The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra emphasizes the hardship to be endured by promulgators of tathāgatagarbha doctrine during the end-times; bodhisattvas have to be prepared to give up their bodies and their lives. Presumably, they too are promised the reward of the dharmakāya in exchange for such sacrifice.
The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra emphasizes strenuous practice and incorporates long discussion to ward off interpretations of tathāgatagarbha doctrine leading to moral lassitude or even antinomianism. The text also contains an amusing story relating to naked tīrthaka ascetics, clearly satirizing Digambara Jaina practice. This story is juxtaposed with the ban on meat eating and with the use of “pure” (presumably strained) water for cooking, to avoid harming tiny bugs. This may suggest that these practices were instituted to “keep up with the Jainas” (Nattier, 1991, 21).
The Aṅgulimālīyasūtra shares with the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature preached as explicitly connected with
- ātman (*ātmadhātu [wojie (我界)]) and concealed by defilements, the eternity of the Tathāgata, the secret teachings, the promotion of faith (xin [[[信]]]) toward the teaching of tathāgatagarbha, and concern with the worst sinners, including the icchantika.
Conclusion
A number of doctrinal themes unite the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra, the Mahāmeghasūtra, the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra, and the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra, allowing us to speak of them as a single Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group (following Taka- saki Jikidō, 1974, 127, 182). In addition to various elements of doctrinal content, these texts are bound together by a highly unusual prophecy tradition, set 700 years after the parinirvāṇa (a very unusual timetable; see Nattier, 1991, 37–41; Radich, 2015). The text(s) containing the prophecy (i.e. the teaching of the tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature) will first flourish for 40 years after the parinirvāṇa but will then disappear. In the 80 years leading up to the 700-year mark, the text(s) will flourish again for 40 years in a southern region, apparently under the Satavahanas. Elements of the prophecy are variously distributed over the four texts, but taken as a whole, this prophecy complex mentions the Kashmir and Andhra regions, the Kṛṣṇā River, perhaps the Satavahana capital of Dhānyakaṭaka (depending on the interpretation of Tibetan and Chinese translation terms), and the Satavahana king Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi. This period will also be the cusp of the end-times of the dharma. As part of the calamity of these times, the texts will become unpopular, and their preachers will face hard times and move to Kashmir, where the dharma will be neglected. The figure of *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana plays various roles, and the figure of the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa is also central. Both are said to have the same name as the Buddha or be of the same clan.
This prophecy complex has been studied most closely by Suzuki Takayasu (1999b; 2000) and S. Hodge (2006; 2012; see also Lévi, 1936; Demiéville, 1924; Tucci, 1930; Takasaki, 1974; de Jong, 1978; Mabbett, 1993; Forte, 1976; Ogawa, 2001). S. Hodge has argued that this prophecy complex allows us to locate part of the compositional history of these texts in specific historical contexts (esp. the oldest strata of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra) and to date it to approximately the 1st or 2nd century ce.
If the texts of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group are thus bound together more closely than the other tathāgatagarbha scriptures treated here, the question naturally arises as to what their relation is with the remaining three texts – the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra – and how those three texts are related with one another.
Certain ideas and themes are shared between the two groups of texts, though fewer than are common to the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group alone: • end-times (Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group,
Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, and briefly in the
Anū natvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta);
• *sattvadhātu (Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa, Mahā - bherīhārakasūtra, and Aṅgulimālīyasūtra); • ekadhātu (Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta and Aṅgulimālīyasūtra); • ekayāna (Mahābherīhārakasūtra and Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra); • prakṛtipariśuddhacitta (the original purity of mind), concealed by adventitious defilements (āgantukakleśa; Aṅgulimālīyasūtra and Śrīmālāde vīsiṃhanādasūtra); and
• āgantukaklésa (alone, briefly in the Mahā bherīhāraka sūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra).
Scholars to date, with Takasaki as the most influential, have tended to regard the Tathā ga tagarbhasūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra as falling in a single line of development, probably in that order. This line is seen as mainstream or quasi-orthodox, while the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group is seen as a kind of – probably later – offshoot. This ostensible side branch is also often seen as propounding maverick doctrines, an understanding particularly pronounced in scholarly attitudes to “buddha nature,” which is understood as a new spin on the tathāgatagarbha ideas of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, Anūnatvāpūr ṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, and Śrīmālā - devīsiṃhanādasūtra. However, this understanding is possibly governed by the retrospective viewpoint of the Ratnagotra vibhāga. The Tathāgatagarbha- sūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra are in fact quite hetero- geneous, but one of the strongest features binding them together is the fact that the Ratnagotravibhāga quotes them copiously. In contrast, of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra group, the Ratnagotravibhāga cites only the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra itself, and that just once. If we set aside the Ratnagotravibhāga, relations between these two supposed strands of the tathāgatagarbha corpus may not be so straightforward. This is an area in which much work remains for future scholarship.
None of the scriptures discussed above has been preserved in its entirety in the original Sanskrit. In addition to the fragments of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra recovered from Central Asian manuscripts, however, some fragments have been preserved as citations (or interpolations) in other Sanskrit works. More than any other single source, the Ratnagotravibhāga, a work in terse verses, and its accompanying expansive prose commentary, the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, preserve portions of these texts in Sanskrit. The Ratnagotravibhāga also takes the nine similes of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra as a major structuring device. Furthermore, the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā is certainly the most significant shastric work treating tathāgatagarbha doctrine. In fact, it is peculiar insofar as it is almost the only known Indic treatise to attempt to systematize this doctrine (setting aside the virtually unknown *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa, for which see below). The numerous Tibetan commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Kanō, 2006b, 593– 600; Burchardi, 2006) refer to the scriptures quoted by the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā only indirectly, and thus fall outside the scope of this article.
The Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā has survived in Sanskrit (Johnston, 1950; see below), in a Chinese translation, the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun (究竟一乘寶性論; T. 1611), completed by Ratnamati (勒那摩提; or by Ratnamati and Bodhiruci) in around 511 ce, and in separate Tibetan translations of the root verses and of the entire text including commentary: the Theg pa chen po rgyu bla ma’i bstan bcos (D 4024/Q 5525) and the Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa (D 4025/Q 5526), both completed by Blo ldan shes rab (*Matiprajña; 11th cent.; see Takasaki, 1966, 6–7). The Chinese tradition ascribes the text to an otherwise almost unknown *Sāramati (賢慧), while the Tibetan tradition ascribes the Ratnagotravibhāga to (the future buddha?) Maitreya and the Ratnagotravibhā gavyākhyā to the Yogācāra philosopher Asaṅga.
The Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was first studied by modern scholars through the Tibetan version, which was translated in full into English by E. Obermiller (1931). The Sanskrit was rediscovered in the 20th century in two manuscripts in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṃkṛtyāyana and edited by E.H. Johnston (1950). The latter remains the standard edition but should be supplemented by the detailed philological work of L. Schmithausen (1971). Other important contributions on textual matters have been made by J.W. de Jong (1968) and D.S. Ruegg (1976). The Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was fully translated into English by Takasaki Jikidō (1966), whose introduction to the text provides an important overview of the contents and sources. Takasaki Jikidō also translated the text into Japanese (1999). The most important and detailed study of the doctrines of the text in a Western language is still that of D.S. Ruegg (1969, esp. part 3, 245–408). Another tathāgatagarbha treatise, thus far little studied, is the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa, ascribed, as is the Ratnagotravibhāga in some traditions, to *Sāramati (堅慧, 娑囉末底; see Silk, forthcoming), which is preserved only in two closely related Chinese translations (大乘法界無差別論; T. 1626, 1627). The first of these versions has been given a Japanese gloss and an introductory study by Takasaki Jikidō (1999).
Blum, M., trans., The Nirvana Sutra (Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra), BDK English Tripiṭaka 1, Berkeley, 2013. Burchardi, A., “A Provisional List of Tibetan Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga,” TibJ 31/4, 2006, 3–46. Chang, G.C.C., A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, University Park, 1983. Chavannes, É., “Dix inscriptions chinoises de l’Asie Centrale, d’après les estampages de M. Ch.-E. Bonin,” in: Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, I re série, vol. XII/2, Paris, 1902, 193–295.
Chen, Jinhua (陳金華), “The Indian Buddhist Missionary Dharmakṣema (385–433): A New Dating of His Arrival in Guzang and of His Translations,” TP 90, 2004, 215–263. Demiéville, P., “Les versions chinoises du Milindapañha,” BÉFEO 24, 1924, 1–253.
Forte, A., Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century: Inquiry into the Nature, Authors and Function of the Dunhuang Document S.6502, Followed by an Annotated Translation, Kyoto, 1976, 22005. Fuse Kōgaku (布施浩岳), Nehanshū no kenkyū (涅槃宗の研究), Tokyo, 1942.
Granoff, P., “After Sinning: Some Thoughts on Remorse, Responsibility, and the Remedies for Sin in Indian Religious Traditions,” in: P. Granoff & K. Shinohara, eds., Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions, Leiden, 2012, 175–215.
Grosnick, W., “The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra,” in: D. Lopez, ed., Buddhism in Practice, Princeton, 1995, 92–106. Grosnick, W., “The Understanding of ‘Dhātu’ in the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa,” TICES 22, 1977, 30–36. Habata, H., A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, CTS 10, Wiesbaden, 2013.
Habata, H., Die zentralasiatischen Sanskrit-Fragmente des Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra. Kritische Ausgabe des Sanskrit- textes und seiner tibetischen Übertragung im Vergleich mit den chinesischen Übersetzungen, Marburg, 2007.
Hirakawa, A., “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stūpas,” MTB 22, 1963, 57–106. Hodge, S., “The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra: The Text and Its Transmission,” 2012, http://www.buddhismuskunde. uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/The_Textual_ Transmisssion_of_the_MPNS.pdf. Hodge, S., “On the Eschatology of the Mahâparinirvâṇa-sûtra and Related Matters,” lecture held at University of London, SOAS, 2006, http://www.nirvanasutra.net/historical background2.htm.
Johnston, E.H., ed., “The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottar atantraśāstra,” in: H.S. Prasad, ed., The Uttaratantra of Maitreya, BIB 79, Delhi, 1950, repr. 1991, 53–197. Jong, J.W. de, “Review of Forte (1976),” TP 64/1–3, 1978, 158–161. Jong, J.W. de, “Review of Takasaki (1966),” IIJ 11, 1968, 36–54.
Kagawa Takao (香川孝雄), “Shōman gyō no kenkyū: toku ni nyoraizō shisō wo chūshin toshite” (『勝鬘経』の研究― 特に如来蔵思想を中心として), BDKK 32, 1957, 1–34. Kanō Kazuo (加納和雄), “Ōkutsumarakyō no kenkyū: zentai no kōsei to naiyō gainen” (『央掘魔羅経』の研究― 全体の構成と内容概観), KDDK 4, 2000, 57–82. Kanō Kazuo, “rNgog Blo‐ldan‐shes‐rab’s Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga: The First Tibetan Commentary on a Crucial Source for the Buddha‐nature Doctrine,” diss., University of Hamburg, 2006.
Karashima, S., “Who Were the Icchantikas?”, ARIRIAB, 2007, 67–80. King, R., “Is ‘Buddha-nature’ Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Śrīmālāsūtra: An Early Tathāgatagarbha Text,” Numen 42, 1995, 1–20. Lévi, S., “Kaniṣka et Śātavāhana: Deux figures symboliques de l’Inde au premier siècle,” JA 228, 1936, 61–121. Liu, M.-W., “The Problem of the Icchāntika in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra,” JIABS 7/1, 1984, 57–82. Liu, M.-W., “The Doctrine of the Buddha-Nature in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra,” JIABS 5/2, 1982, 63–94.
Mabbett, I., “Dhānyakaṭaka,” SAJSAS 16/2, 1993, 21–39. Matsuda, K., “Śr īmālādevīsiṃhanādanirdeśa,” in: J. Braarvig, ed., Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, vol. I, Oslo, 2000, 65–76. Matsumoto Shirō (松本史郎), Zen shisō no hihanteki kenkyū (禅思想の批判的研究), Tokyo, 1994.
Matsumoto Shirō, “Shōman gyō no ichijō shisō ni tsuite: ichijō shisō no kenkyū (III)” (『勝鬘経』の一乗思想について一乗思想の研究; III), KDBGKK 41, 1983, 37–64 [L]. Mochizuki Ryōkō (望月良晃), Daijō Nehangyō no kenkyū (大乗涅槃経の研究), Tokyo, 1988. Nakamura Zuiryū (中村瑞隆), Zō Wa taiyaku Kyūkyō ichijō hōshō ron kenkyū (蔵和対訳究竟一乗宝性論研究), Tokyo, 1967.
Nakamura Zuiryū, “Nyoraizō kyō kō” (『如来蔵経』考), OsG 117, 1963, 35–53. Nattier, J., Once upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline, Berkeley, 1991. Obermiller, E., “The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism: The Work of Ārya Maitreya with a Commentary by Āryāsanga,” AO 9/2–3, 1931, 81–306.
Ogawa Ichijō (小川一乗), Ōkutsumara kyō, Shōman gyō, Nyoraizō kyō, Fuzō fugen gyō (央堀摩羅経･勝鬘経･如来蔵経･不増不減経), SKYD Nyoraizō, Tokyo, 2001. Ogawa Ichijō, “Ōkutsumara kyō ni okeru ‘nyoraizō’ kanken” (『央掘魔羅経』における「如来蔵」管見), BgS 69, 1999, 1–12.
Paul, D., trans., The Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā of the Lion’s Roar, BDKTTS 20/1, 26/1, Berkeley, 2004. Paul, D. “The Concept of Tathāgatagarbha in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra (Sheng-man Ching),” JAOS 99, 1979, 191–203. Qu Dacheng (屈大成), Dasheng dabanniepan jing yanjiu (大乘大般涅槃經研究), Taipei, 1994.
Radich, M., The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine, Hamburg, 2015. Radich, M., “Immortal Buddhas and Their Indestructible Embodiments: The Advent of the Concept of Vajrakāya,” JIABS 34, 2011a, 227–290. Radich, M., How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed: The Domestication of “Ajase” and Stories in Buddhist History, StPhB.MS 28, Tokyo, 2011b. Ruegg, D.S., “The Meanings of the Term Gotra and the Textual History of the Ratnagotravibhāga,” BSOAS 39/2, 1976, 341–363. Ruegg, D.S., La théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra, Paris, 1969.
Sander, L., “A Brief Paleographical Analysis of the Brahmī Manuscripts in Volume I,” in: J. Braarvig, J.-U. Hartmann, K. Matsuda & L. Sander, eds., Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, vol. I, Oslo, 2000, 285–300. Sasaki, S., “The Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra and the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism,” JJRS 26/1–2, 1999, 189–197.
Schmithausen, L., “Einige besondere Aspekte der ‘Bodhisattva-Ethik’ in Indien und ihre Hintergründe,” HORIN 10, 2003, 21–46. Schmithausen, L., “Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratnagotravibhāga,” WZKS 17, 1971, 123–177. Shimoda Masahiro (下田正弘), Nehan gyō no kenkyū: Daijōkyōten no kenkyū hōhō shiron (涅槃経の研究― 大乗経典の研究方法試論), Tokyo, 1997. Shimoda Masahiro, Zōbun Wayaku Daijō Nehan gyō (蔵文和訳大乗涅槃経), Tokyo, 1993.
Silk, J.A., Buddhist Cosmic Unity: An Edition, Translation and Study of the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, Hamburg, 2014. Srisetthaworakul, S., “Nyoraizōkei no kyōten ni okeru ‘hosshin’ ni tsuite: Nyoraizō kyo, Fusō fugen gyō, Shōman gyō o chūshin toshite” (如来蔵系の経典における「 法身」について—『如来蔵経』・『不増不減経』・『 勝鬘経』を中心として), ODDKK 27, 2010, 61–96. Suzuki Takayasu (鈴木隆泰), “Daiun kyō ni okeru danniku setsu” (大雲経における断肉説), YKDKBGK 9, 2003a, 1–8 [L].
Suzuki Takayasu, “Daiun kyō no kōzō” (『大雲経』の構造), BBKR 7, 2003b, 2–33 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “The Buddhology in the Mahābherīsūtra Inherited from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka,” IBK 50/2, 2002, 20–24 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “The Recompilation of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra under the Influence of the Mahāmeghasūtra,” IBK 39/2, 2001, 34–38. Suzuki Takayasu, “An’isetsusha: Ōkutsumara kyō to Dai hokku kyō no torēgā” (安慰説者－央掘魔羅経と大法鼓経のトレーガー), TBKK 140, 2000, 332–308 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “Mutual Influence among the Mahāyāna Sūtras concerning Sarvalokapriyadarśana,” IBK 47/2, 1999a, 10–14 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “Ōkutsumara kyō ni miru butten kaishakuhō no tekiyō” (央掘魔羅経に見る仏典解釈法の適 用), IBK 48/1, 1999b, 133–137 [L].
Suzuki Takayasu, “Daiun kyō no mezashita mono” (『大雲経』の目指したもの), ITBK 5/3, 1998a, 31–43, 102. Suzuki Takayasu, “Daijō kyōten hensan katei ni mirareru kontekusuto no idō: nyorai no ikotsu ni kansuru tairon wo megutte” (大乗経典編纂過程に見られるコンテクス トの移動―〈如来の遺骨に関する対論〉を巡って), TBKK 136, 1998b, 227–253 [L].
Suzuki Takayasu, “Konkōmyō kyō ‘Nyorai juryō hon’ to Daiun kyō” (『金光明経 如来寿量品』と『大雲経』), TBKK 135, 1998c, 1–46 [L].
Suzuki Takayasu, “Nyorai jōjū kyō toshite no Dai hokku kyō” (如来常住経としての『大法鼓経』), in: Kamimura Katsuhiko (上村勝彦) et al., eds., Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronbunshū (仏教文化研究論集), Tokyo, 1997, 39–55 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “Dai hokku kyō no kenkyū josetsu” (『大法鼓経』の研究序説), BB 35, 1996a, 2–22 [L]. Suzuki Takayasu, “The Mahāmeghasūtra as an Origin of an Interpolated Part of the Present Suvarṇaprabhāsa,” IBK 45/1, 1996b, 495–493. Takasaki Jikidō (高崎直道), Kyūkyō ichijō hōshōron, Daijō hokkai musabetsu ron (究竟一乗宝性論・大乗法界無差別論), Tokyo, 1999. Takasaki Jikidō, Nyoraizō shisō no keisei: Indo daijō bukkyō shisō kenkyū (如来蔵思想の形成―インド大乗仏教思想研究), Tokyo, 1974. Takasaki Jikidō, “Review of Ruegg (1969),” IIJ 15/5, 1973, 292–299.
Takasaki Jikidō, “The Tathāgatagarbha Theory in the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra,” IBK 19/2, 1971, 1024–1015 (1–10 [L]). Takasaki Jikidō, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism, Rome, 1966. Takasaki Jikidō, “Fusō fugen gyō no nyoraizō setsu (不増不減経の如来蔵説),” KDBGKK 23, 1965, 88–107. Tsai Yao-ming (蔡耀明), “Foshuo Buzeng bujian jing ‘zhongshengjie buzeng bujian’ de xiuxue yili: you zhongshengjie, fajie, fashen dao rulaizang de lilu kaizhan” (『佛說不增不減經』「眾生界不增不減」的修學義 理：由眾生界、法界、法身到如來藏的理路開展),
GTDZL 28, 2004, 89–155. Tsukinowa Kenryū (月輪賢隆), Zō-Kan-Wa san’yaku gappeki Shōman gyō, Hōgatsu dōji shomon gyō (藏・漢・和三譯合璧勝鬘經・寶月童子所問經), Kyoto, 1940. Tsurumi Ryōdō (鶴見良道), “Shōman gyō no nyoraizō setsu: bonnō to no kankei kara” (『勝鬘経』の如来蔵説―煩悩との関係から), IBK 23/1, 1974, 162–163. Tucci, G., “Animadversiones Indicae (No. 6, A Sanskrit Biography of the Siddhas and Some Questions Concerned with Nāgārjuna),” JASB 26, 1930, 138–148; repr. in: G. Tucci, Opera Minora, Rome, 1971, 209–224.
Wakiya Tomomichi (脇屋智道), “Fusō fugen gyō no nyoraizō shisō” (不増不減経の如来蔵思想), RDDBKK 27, 2005, 205–208. Watanabe Shinji (渡辺新治), “Bodaishin ni tsuite: toku ni Fusō fugen gyō wo chūshin toshite” (菩提心について―特に『不増不減経』を中心として), CG 47, 1984, 95–107.
Watanabe Shōkō (渡辺照宏), “Shōman gyō ni arawareta bosatsudō: bunkengakuteki kōsatsu” (『勝鬘経』に現われた菩薩道―文献学的考察), in: Nishi Giyū (西義雄), ed., Daijō bosatsudō no kenkyū (大乗菩薩道の研究),
Kyoto, 1968.
Wayman, A., & H. Wayman, The Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory, New York, 1974. Yamamoto, K., The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra: A Complete Translation from the Classical Chinese in 3 Volumes, Annotated and with Full Glossary, Index and Concordance, Ube, 1973–1975. Yuyama, A., Sanskrit Fragments of the Mahāyāna Mahā - pa rinirvāṇasūtra: Kōyasan Manuscripts, Tokyo, 1981. Zimmermann, M., A Buddha Within: The Tathāgatagar bhasūtra: The Earliest Exposition of the Buddha-Nature Teaching in India, Tokyo, 2002. Michael Radich
