Talk:Buddha-nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Buddha-nature, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Older material at Talk:Buddha-nature/Archive


I have deleted the new but inaccurate addition about Buddha-nature as a strategy -- these points were never a issue for the compilers of the Tathagata-garbha sutras but possibly relate more to Yogacara concepts of alaya-vijnana. I have also trimmed some of the above for space-saving. --Stephen Hodge 14:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When we need to save space on Wikipedia, we do not delete, but rather archive material using sub-pages. I'll get to the other points in a little while. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Contents

[edit] More Stephen Hodge-Kukkurovaca fun

Stephen sent the following to me by email out of concern for page size; I've archived old discussion and am pasting the email here:

Dear Kukkurovaca,

You may notice that I have deleted your recent addition to the Buddha-nature entry in Wikipedia speaking of Buddha-nature as a "strategy". As I could only make a brief comment due to storage space in the discussion section, I thought I owed you the courtesy of an explanation before the matter devolves into a Wiki-war.

As I mentioned in my emailed response, it's best to keep discussion about changes to article content on the Talk pages, because you don't owe me any courtesies (or at least, this isn't a matter of courtesies), but if there's a dispute regarding content, it's of utmost important that we be transparent about the nature of the dispute to both each other and the broader community of editors. If storage limits are approached, simply archive old material. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
OK, I shall try to archive material if the page reaches capacity again – I was not aware then that such was possible. Courtesy may be old-fashioned, but it is still something to be valued. While it may be desirable to discuss openly the points I raised in my private email to you, nevertheless it was rather discourteous of you to publish it without my permission, and only inform me after the event, since I would have chosen to express myself rather differently. Because you chose to publish a private email without prior permission with your comments added, some of waht I say below will, unavoidably, be of a personal nature at times. I apologize if they give you offense but you only have youself to blame. NB: I am not interested in wasting time over a lengthy logomachy, so after making the points below, I would like to return to the specifics of the Wikipedia entry on "Buddha-nature"--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Basically, the problem with your addition is that it is a quasi-personal point of view not based on any direct knowledge of what the texts themselves say.

This really has nothing to do with personal POV; and while I have not read all the texts that deal with the question of Buddha-nature, this does not mean I have read none; I have some experience with the Lankavatara, for example, and I can draw on a general background with the academic study of Buddhism and eastern philosophy. However, this really shouldn't be about personal credentials or motivations, but about the issues. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is not very evident that you have any great familiarity with the essential primary sources which include the Tathāgata-garbha-sūtra, the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāna-sūtra, the Srī-mālā-devi-sūtra, the Angulimālīya-sūtra, the Anūnatva-apūrnatva-nirdesa, the Mahābherika-sūtra and the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga. Without that familiarity, you must rely upon questionable secondary sources dealing with the Buddha-dhātu or Tathāgata-garbha doctrine. I say this because I can assure you, with a fairly high degeree of certainty based on personal knowledge, that very few scholars working in English do have the necessary first-hand acquaintance with the primary sources in any great measure. The late and syncretic Lankāvatāra-sūtra is valueless in this instance since it does not even use the term "Buddha-dhātu", which you should know if you had read it in Sanskrit. It talks about "Buddhatā" – which is quite different, though regretably the latter term is sometimes conflated with Buddha-dhātu via the English translation as "Buddha-nature". So it is really a question of personal credentials – because the scope of those credentials must inform an understanding of the issues. Your motivations must remain a matter of surmise.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should also be very wary of secondary material in English since most scholars have not read the root texts either and/or rely too much on Tibetan (ie. Gelukpa) doxology.

If you're actually trying to claim that all English-language scholarship has cooties, I think we're going to have some broader problems, too--while I'm no thoroughgoing apologist for the West as the source of all valid knowledge, the anglophone scholarly community has a track record for method and especially for rigor that is generally better than the East when it comes to religious studies, since the West's secularist tradition has provided, in general, better mediation of sectarian commitments. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
Sorry my command of colloquial American is sadly deficient, so I have absolutely no idea what "cooties" are. Anyway, obviously I was not making assertions about English-language scholarship in general, but only that relating, in this instance, to the Buddha-dhātu matter. You are quite mistaken if you think that all members of the anglophone scholarly community in Buddhist consistently display the methodology and rigour you find so praiseworthy -- I suggest, for example, that you look at books by Jeffrey Hopkins and his proteges. I am very familiar with Japanese (and some Chinese) scholarship and I can assure you that it is often every bit as rigorous and non-sectarian as you may wish, if not more so -- the authors I mention below are excellent examples.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is however a large amount of thorough work available in Japanese, especially that by Jikido Takasaki and Masahiro Shimoda, resulting from decades of reseach on the whole range of Buddha-dhatu material. I would particularly direct you to Takasaki's "Nyoraizoshiso no keisei" [The formation of the Tathagata-garbha concept] (Shunjusha 1974). If one wants, as is desirable, to adopt a neutral point of view, then surely one should report, though not necessarily endorse, what the texts themselves say about the matter.

Sure, though I don't yet see how this relates to my changes. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
Sorry to be blunt about this, but it does relate to your changes – without having read recent ground-breaking research based on the primary sources, unfortunately mostly unavailable in English, your knowledge is necessarily insufficient to qualify you to make an informed addition to the entry. Your replacement amendment is even more confused and inaccurate than before – I hope to deal with that in due course.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I realize that this is difficult for you since you do not, I believe, read Tibetan or Chinese - though this problem may be ameriorated sometime in the next couple of years with the publication of translations I have prepared of the MNPS based on the Tibetan and the Faxian versions.

Indeed, I do not read Tibetan or Chinese--nor do the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. Thus, while it is no problem for you to appeal to texts unavailable or scarce in English translation, I think the burden of exposition is upon you to make clear what information in the text is pertinent; I, of course, assume a similar burden when appealing to Sanskrit texts that are unavailable or scarce in English. If you have translations that are going to publication, this should be no special difficulty for you. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
But perhaps the vast majority of Wikipedia readers also realize that it is unwise to post entries concerning matters of which they have insufficient knowledge. However, I shall be happy to post in due course such quotations that I feel are pertinent, although the material is sometimes a little verbose.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While it is true that one could say that the Buddha-nature doctrine is a strategy, one would then have to apply the term to all Buddhist doctrines. If you want to retain "strategy" in this explanation, then, in the interests of complete neutrality, could you please apply the same term wherever you explain "emptiness", "interdependent arising" and a host of other concepts ? It is interesting to note that for the proponents of the Buddha-dhatu / Tathagata-garbha doctrine, and perhaps for Yogacarins (viz. the Three Turnings of the Wheel), the Madhyamika-style concept of intrinsic emptiness is a "strategy" for those who are unable to understand the true import of the Buddha's teachings.

From the standpoint of religious studies, all doctrinal choices are strategic, and they are espoused by people with particular interests to serve and problems to solve, not to mention assumptions bounding their viewpoints. I'm not going to go and use the word "strategy" everywhere that the term "emptiness" occurs, for example, but emptiness is, of course, a strategic concept with specific uses and applications, just as any other concept or doctrine is, and there's nothing problematic with discussing its strategic uses. Also, to speak of the strategic value of doctrines from a secular standpoint is not the same as to speak of the (sectarian) upayic character of doctrines within the Buddhist traditions, or of the use of classification of upaya as a polemic device between Buddhist traditions. And of course it's pertinent to talk about all these uses of upaya--speaking of which, I think Wikipedia's article on that topic could use some considerable expansion.
OK, I had erroneously understood you to be using "strategy" as an equivalent to --Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)upāya.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I should be clear that I do not describe Buddha-nature as a strategy in any negative sense (nor do I think "strategy" has any negative implications in commonsense English); I think it's a bona fide and interesting attempt to wrestle with the consequences of the anatta doctrine in Buddhism, as a Nagarjunian account of emptiness is also a bona fide and interesting attempt, and ditto the pudgalavada. I happen to find one of these more interesting than the others on a personal level, as I imagine you do, but they're all equally interesting for the standpoint of Wikipedia. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
No problems with this.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, regarding the two problems that you think the Buddha-dhatu doctrine addresses, the first betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Buddha-dhatu. The Buddha-dhatu is never connected textually to the matter of karma and its continuity -- the problem just never arises. You seem to be confusing this with the Yogacara concept of the alaya-vijñana, adumbrated by the Sautrantika bija theory, which was indeed a "strategy" for dealing with problems of continuity, or else with the ever-popular "pudgala" theory. The whole point of the Buddha-dhatu concept is that it is not a personal bearer of karma.

You assume that the question of the subject of karma is unrelated to the question of the subject of enlightenment, which is naive. However, you're right that the two should not be confused, and perhaps my language was insufficiently precise on this point. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
I cannot see how you could rationally derive your comment from my assertion. Of course, karma is related to the question of enlightenment, but I repeat: it does not figure as a issue, implicit or explicit, for the proponents of the Buddha-dhātu or the Tathāgata-gabha doctrines. Read my entry on the development of the Mahāyāna-Mahāparinirvana-sutra for some information on this matter – though I could add more concerning the influence of the Lokottaravādin theory of the docetic nature of the Buddha. Moreover, another facet I have not touched on is the role of Indian medical theory that is clearly evident in development of the Buddha-dhātu doctrine in the MPNS.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for your second point, the idea of a "metaphysical basis" for enlightenment has a very long history in Buddhism and may not have arisen merely as a result of difficulties some people felt. As I mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be good prima facie evidence that teachings attributed to the Buddha in the agamas and related early texts do not deny the existence of some kind of "metaphysical" atman - look for example at the story of the youths, the so-called Baddhavaggiya (Vin i.23).

Well, here enter into a controversial domain; I have no problem discussing the possibility of an early metaphysical basis for englightenment, but I don't see how this obviates the role of interpretive problems with anatta in the generation of this doctrine, along with a number of others. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
In that sense, you may be correct.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a tension between two polarities in this and other areas that date back to the earliest days of the Buddhism and it is difficult to determine which should take priority. I am particularly thinking of the tensions between the forest-dwellers and the sedentary monastic dwellers, the role of dhyana and prajña in nirvanic liberation, and so forth. On balance, I get the feeling that one set of doctrines were favoured by the forest-dwellers who were able to specialize in dhyana and another by the vihara-dwellers who had to rely more on prajña and non-meditative discursive methods. There is textual evidence that the Buddha-dhatu and Tathagata-garbha doctrines originated amongst the wandering forest-dwellers. Since the literary material left by the forest-dwellers is, understandably, less than that of the sedentary vihara-dwellers, one is sometimes led to think that the literary products of the viharas are normative. Given that the Buddha himself favoured the forest-dwelling life-style, I would put my money on the forest-dwelling angle as the more authentic - but that's just my opinion.

Well, I think we're heading into squidgy waters on this point possibly in the direction of original research (not to mention questionable original research)...but I also don't think this is especially pertinent to the present conversation, so I shan't worry too much about it. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
I beg your pardon !? This seems an unwarranted slur, given that you are completely unfamilar with my research. I don't know whether they teach this to undergradutes in your part of the world, but it is what we call a hypothesis, and I have also clearly indicated here that some aspects of my assertions are speculative, personal opinion. Moreover, the idea that the forest-dwellers and the monastery dwellers had different agendas and specialities is hardly original or questionable. Try looking at the relevent work by Reginald Ray, Paul Harrison, Tilleman Vetter, Bronkhorst, Gregory Schopen among others. If their work is "questionable", then I am glad to be in such distinguished company.--Stephen Hodge 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you still want to include a comment on the possible origins of the Buddha-dhatu doctrine, would you please do some research of your own, taking the above into consideration and present something that is not based on inaccurate second-hand appraisals and theories.

Well, I shall certainly take your more pertinent comments into considerations for further review; however, I do caution you against associating secondary texts with a reduction in accuracy; I'll take a rigorously scholarly secondary text over a questionable interpretation of primary text any day, and I believe that should be (and is) the standard for Wikipedia as well. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice – one is never too old to learn new things. However, I have spent a year doing academic Buddhist studies for every month of your three undergraduate years in Sanskrit (and some more), so I feel that I might just have a little better understanding of the varied quality of secondary texts and their relationship to primary sources than you suggest.
Happy stuff. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

[edit] Question re: intro paragraph

"the possession by sentient beings of the innate buddha-mind, which is, prior to the full attainment of buddhahood, not fully actualized"

Is Buddha-nature necessarily implying "Buddha-mind", i.e., there is no version of Buddha-nature not equating it with Buddha-mind? Because if so, this should clearly be given a greater exploration, and if not, then the statement should be qualified or removed. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Difference from Tathagatagarbha doctrine

"The development of the Buddha-nature doctrine is closely related to that of tathagatagarbha.". The article Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana seems to consider both a synonym. Are they, or what's the difference? — Sebastian 05:20, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


Good question, Sebastian! But difficult to answer! Briefly: in the longest of all the Buddhist "tathagata-garbha" sutras - the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra" - there is no apparent difference in usage of the two terms, "Buddha-dhatu" (usually, although not perhaps best, translated as "Buddha-nature") and "tathagata-garbha". The two expressions are effectively used by the Buddha as synonyms in this vast scripture. Texts such as the "Srimala Sutra" and the "Tathagata-garbha Sutra" indicate that the "tathagata-garbha" is the pure Buddha-element within each being BEFORE IT HAS BEEN FULLY REVEALED or DISCLOSED to that being - in other words, it is still covered up (hidden by all the mental negativities of selfish desire, hatred and delusion, etc.). I am not sure that the Mahayana Buddha (as opposed to later commentators) made any major distinctions between "Buddha-dhatu" and "tathagatagarbha". As far as I know, the "Lankavatara Sutra" does not mention "Buddha-dhatu", but does speak of the "tathagata-garbha" as "Nirvana". It also states (may I quote this in German from Golzio's excellent translation?): "Der reine Geist ist der Tathagatagarbha, der von Natur aus hell leuchtet" ("it is the pure mind which is the Tathagata-garbha, which by its nature shines brightly"). My impression is that when the Buddha speaks of "Tathagata-garbha" or "Buddha-dhatu" he is essentially referring to the same thing; but later scriptures apparently do make a distinction, the details of which are not fully known to me. Sorry I am rather ignorant regarding later treatises and commentaries, etc. Maybe a more informed person (such as the excellent Wikipedian named "Munge", who knows much more about later Buddhism than I do!) can give you fuller info. I hope so! All the best to you. Thanks for the interesting query. - Tony (TonyMPNS 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for your comprehensive reply! The imagery of your quote reminds me of a quote by Albert Einstein (from Mein Weltbild, Hrsg. Carl Seelig, Ullstein, 2001): "Das Wissen um die Existenz des für uns undurchdringlichen, der Manifestationen tiefster Vernunft und leuchtendster Schönheit, die unserer Vernunft nur in ihren primitivsten Formen zugänglich sind, dies Wissen und Fühlen macht wahre Religiosität aus; in diesem Sinn, und nur in diesem, gehöre ich zu den tief religiösen Menschen." (p. 12) And later: "Viel stärker ist die Komponente kosmischer Religiosität im Buddhismus" (p. 19) — Sebastian 08:06, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Sebastian, for your great quotes from Einstein. I had not read those before, and I find Einstein's words really fascinating. Clearly Einstein felt an affinity with Buddhism. That is nice to know, isn't it? Splendid! Good wishes to you. - Tony (TonyMPNS 08:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
Best source I've found detailing the relationship between Buddha-nature and tathagatagarbha is in the early chapters of Sallie King's book Buddha Nature, which translates and comments on much of the Buddha Nature Treatise. Stephen Hodge points out they are not identical; and I quite agree, although ("identity" and "difference" in Buddhism is potentially misleading). My current understanding is that in the Yogacara-Tathagatagarbha literature (including the Buddha Nature Treatise), which indeed came some years after the early Tathagatagarbha literature (such as the Nirvana Sutra), tathagatagarbha is an attribute of Buddha-nature; and that this is roughly equivalent to saying that the ability to practice, to transform, to apprehend thusness, and to embody thusness is an attribute of the Buddha. Eventually, I will get around to untangling the leaves and branches if soneone else doesn't get to it first.
While I'm here, it's somewhat OT but still worth mentioning that Buddha-nature, not Tathagatagarbha is the right place to dicuss the wu/mu koan (the monk asked Zhaozhou if a dog has fo hsing not ru lai zang); and that Buddha-nature is also an important jumping-off point for the article on Critical Buddhism that will exist someday, possibly my lifetime. --Munge 06:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did not say that they were not identical in connotation. My impression is that each term was first used by seperate groups to denote the same thing. At some time, memebers of these two groups seem to have merged, so that both terms can be found in the same text, such as the MPNS, as stated synonyms. Part of the problem with discussions on this topic is the lack of exactitude with the terminology. When I write, with some reservations, "Buddha-nature", I am assuming buddha-dhaatu as the underling Sanskrit term. Matters get muddled when talking about Buddha-nature, especially from second-hand Chinese sources, is that other Sanskrit terms may have been used such as buddhatva. It is therefore possible that some usages of "Buddha-nature" can be differentiated from tathaagata-garbha, but less probably in the case of buddha-dhaatu and tathaagata-garba as far as used in such texts as the MPNS.--Stephen Hodge 01:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My mistake; I jumped to conclusions based on your correct diagnosis of the serious problems with the article on Tathagatagarbha doctrine. I thought that your remarks on the material were spot on. (With the exception that, regarding methodology, it is provenance, not status as a professional nor cleric, that is deterministic on Wikipedia, as well as in any academy worthy of its name, and even within many Buddhist traditions. Of course, funding can be deterministic in providing the opportunity to demonstrate provenance. Still, it's not always so.)
Some points on the current matter (and please note that while I am not fluent, I am not entirely incompetent at translation). I am talking about fo xing, which often, but not always refers to Buddhadhatu. I am also talking about ru lai zang, which refers to tathagatagarbha. It is my understanding that Ogawa Ichijo sees some equivalence among garbha, dhatu, and gotra; but that Shinoda Masashige and Takasake Jikido beg to differ. The Buddha Nature Treatise (BNT) presents tathagatagarbha as an aspect of Buddha nature, along with several other aspects; see Sallie King, Buddha Nature, p40-56. For the author of the BNT tathagatagarbha is roughly equal to alayavijnana. In fact, the zang (藏) in ru lai zang is a storehouse.
In addition to tathagatagarbha, Buddha-nature has other aspects such as namelessness, birthlessness, and nonreality (not to be confused with the fact that in the syncretic literature Buddha nature truly exists [bu yu]) There are also three natures (xing), discriminating, relative, and true; and moreover there are three causes that I'll leave for another time.
You caution me about using "secondary" sources. Matsumoto Shiro makes the case that it is these very concepts of BN and tathagatagarbha—especially as expressed in the MPNS—are themselves most secondary, even that they are "not Buddhist". Sallie King rebuts that they are "impeccably Buddhist"; I fear you won't like her reasoning, though, namely, Buddha nature is Buddhist becuase the literature you seem to consider "secondary" is actually true to the earlier tradition; the interpretations of these terms presented in the Yogacara-Tathagatagarbha literature (such as the BNT, the Mahayana Awakening of Faith, and the Lankavatara) are free of atman. (King is especially convincing on the crucial point of that literature's atmaparamita; the perfection of self turns out to be the perfection of actualizing sunya.) All this and much more in Pruning the Bodhi Tree and Buddha Nature. Both authors make extremely strong arguments; there are also flaws in both that, while serious, do not in my opinion detract from their main lines of reasoning. My impression is that it is not entirely possible to refute either author without making some embarrassingly wrong assertion. Thus I cannot resolve the matter but think it is vital that any article on the topic of Buddha Nature should cover the current territory. The several Japanese scholars who are involved in recent critiques of Buddha-nature cannot simply be dismissed, nor can Ms. King.
I realize it is dangerous for me to make these assertions to someone who's studied the MPNS so thoroughly. The influence of the MPNS cannot be denied. The doctrine of the universality of Buddha nature, and the implications of Tao Sheng's ouster and reinstatement cannot be overestimated, with respect to later developments in Chinese Buddhism, and indeed in the contemporary Buddhist scene.
That said, it seems to me to be equally dangerous to assume that the tathagatagarbha literature (MPNS, T. Sutra, Srimala...) was unequivocally the primary source and ultimate authority on Buddhism's attitude toward the atman. Kalupahana makes the case (in several books, I think; the one I'm sure of is Buddhist Psychology) that the Nikaya literature, the Mahdyamaka, and the Yogacara are more similar than they are different. And the Nikaya literature did not stop influencing later forms of Buddhism. The Chinese--with their preexisting affinity for "wu wei" (so much like anatman) and "wu" (so much like sunya) did not simply let atman stand. The influence of the Awakening and Lankavatara were considerable. A better argument might be that the Japanese resurrected atman in the form of an aguably tertiary hongaku shiso doctrine, also closely associated with the Japanese conception of Buddha nature--you might find support for that from some who are more or less in Matsumoto's camp.
Finally, I will risk the following quote from King (Buddha Nature, p14): "The Mahaparinirvana-sutra...speaks of Buddha nature in so many different ways that Chinese scholars created a variety of lists of types of Buddha-nature that they discerned in the course of their studies of the text". For this assertion, King cites Grosnick's dissertation, Dogen's View of the Buddha-Nature pp128ff. I have not chased that down, but it seems to me that if Buddha nature has multivalent significance in the MPNS, I cannot help but wonder if every such valence is entirely equivalent to tathagatagarbha.
Thanks for your attention. --Munge 10:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for your response. You have raised a number of issues, some of which are not directly relevent to the question in hand. Moreover, I think that some of these issues, particularly those connected with the "Critical Buddhism" movement, would require very extensive discussion for which these Discussion pages are probably not the best medium.
However, as for the problem concerning the equivalence of buddha-dhātu and tathāgata-garbha, I feel that your understanding has a certain methodological defect. As you may know, there two ways of dealing with texts that are relevent here: diachronic and synchronic. By quoting the BNT, the LAS and other works, you are conflating differing doctrinal and conceptual systems that need to be dealt with separately. In other words, one first needs to look at each text on its own terms, without reading back into each one ideas that were not current at the time of its compilation. Thus, statements in the BNT are quite irrelevent to an understanding of what the compilers of the MPNS intended. Moreover, in the case of extended texts like the MPNS, it is also necessary to distinguish the different compositional strata – there are at least 8 of these in the case of the extended Dharmaksema version of the MPNS. It is possible that some Chinese scholars thought there were a variety of nuances in the usage of buddha-dhātu in the MPNS, but those distinctions are likely to be a product of Chinese ideas since I have been unable to find any such nuances in the MPNS. The MPNS itself clearly states that buddha-dhātu and tathāgata-garbha are identical in meaning – one can even find them used interchangeably in the same paragraph. Moreover, in this respect, it should be noted that the term buddha-dhātu is first found in the MPNS so it would reasonable to assume that the compilers did know what they intended by the term and knew what they were doing when they identified it with the tathāgata-garbha. The subsequent history of the two terms after the classical tathāgata-garbha sutras, in the various syncretic texts such as the LAS. the BNT and others, needs to be carefully examined and evaluated. It may be that they do distinguish the two terms but I am not convinced.
You mention a certain "Shinoda Masashige" – do you mean Shimoda Masahiro, the author of the major study in Japanese on the MPNS ? If so, I think you have misread his views, which in fact coincide with mine, that the two terms had disparate origins but were brought together as synonyms within the MPNS. As for Takasaki, I have most of his books and articles though I do not recollect any statements distinguishing the two concepts – couild you supply a reference, please ?
You write "you caution me about using "secondary" sources" but you seem to have completely misunderstood my meaning – in fact, I wrote "second-hand", not "secondary". By "second-hand", I meant native Chinese sources not based on any contact with, or understanding of, the original Sanskrit source material. Familiarity with native Chinese Buddhist materials should make the extent of this problem very evident – much of the commentorial and exegetical material produced by native medieval Chinese scholars, with a few exceptions, on Indian Buddhist texts is meaningless for a proper understanding of these texts in their original Indian contexts, though they may have intrinsic value for our understanding of how they understood or misunderstood Buddhist doctrines.
You next introduce Matsumoto Shiro and the Critical Buddhism movement and suggest that they "cannot simply be dismissed". Indeed, they cannot be dismissed because their version of Buddhism exihibits serious methodological flaws including a profound lack of understanding or ignorance of the historical development of the early Buddhist canon and the doctrines contained in it. They also seem rather arrogant in their assumaption that they alone can determine what is and is not authentic Buddhism. This discussion is perhaps not the best vehicle for a detailed refutation of their many and egregious misconceptions, but you should also realize that several of these people also have a highly politicized agenda and also, in the case of Matsumoto Shiro, the possibility of psychological unbalance going by the extraordinary correspondence from him reproduced by Tsuda Shinichi in his recent book on the Alaya. Perhaps you should write a Wiki entry on the Critical Buddhist movement and we can take it from there.
You mention "atman" several times. The atman of which religio-philosophical system ? Unless one defines what the term means, how can one make definitive statements about the significance of the term in such texts as the MPNS ?
You also say that "the Nikaya literature, the Madhyamaka, and the Yogacara are more similar than they are different. And the Nikaya literature did not stop influencing later forms of Buddhism". Possibly, but which elements of the Nikayas do you think are meant here, since it has long been recogized (but seldom appreciated by others) that there are several major contradictory and incompatible strands in the Nikayas, such as those implied by the different paths and goals of ceto-vimutti and paññā-vimutti. Normative Buddhism derived from the Nikayas studiously ignores or fails to account satisfactorily for any inconvenient statements. There are many passages in the Nikayas that entirely corroborate or are completely compatible with the doctrines of the MPNS and other tathāgata-garbha texts – indeed, one might argue that their position is actually closest to the oldest stratum of the Nikayas. You might like to consider the verse at the end of DN 11, which also crops up elsewhere in the Nikayas in several versions. Again what is the Buddha said to have exclaimed in the key accounts of his "enlightenment" ? Amatam adhigatam – "[I have] realized immortality". What do you think these two passsges signify if read in juxtaposition ?
Finally, though not a major point of contention, you also mention "the Chinese--with their preexisting affinity for wu wei ...". This is an example of the dangers of a synchronic approach since you are, presumably, using the term in its later Confucianized sense – in classical Daoist texts it actually means "not deeming X to be Y". But I cannot understand why you claim that wu-wei, even in its later connotation, is "so much like anatman". Best wishes, --Stephen Hodge 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) Shinoda is not likely the same as Shimoda. King. (who here takes "Buddha-nature" as an English cognate of fo xing) p173-4 cites Shinoda Massashige as author, e.g., of "Bussho to buddhatva", IBK 11 March 1963; "Ogawa...holds that we can safely take Buddha nature to have one meaning rather than several; namely the term tathagatagarbha and its equivalents. Shinoda, on the other hand, sees the dhatu and gotra groups as the standard bases for the "Buddha nature" translation, with garbha and the remaining terms as exceptions to these standards...Takasaki ["Dharmata, Dharmadhatu, Dharmakaya, and Buddadhatu--Structure of the Ultimate Value in Mahayana Buddhism," IBK 14, March 1966]...agrees with Shinoda's view..."

2) Even if one does not agree with the above, you seem to be amenable to the idea there was a revision or reinterpretation, yes? The immediate issue is whether such reinterpretation included some nuances of difference between the two concepts, or not. If the Chinese saw fo xing as multivalent, can we not agree that is significant? If the reinterpreters had subsequent influence (say, on Huayen, on Chan; say, by means of the Awakening), can we agree that is significant in a diachronic sense?

3) Did the revision go off on a new tangent, or had it an element of reversion to the mean? Paramartha was Indian, not Chinese. Whatever issues might dog his credibility are barking quite as fiercely at the authors of the tathagatagarbha literature. That way lies madness. It certainly seems to me that an encyclopedia article on the topic of BN cannot just simply ignore the contributions and influence of the probable author of the BNT. Now, by the pains he took to refute any sort of atman, we can see how controversial the question was then, no less than now. It seems to me that if there was a splitting into two terms with two nuanced meanings, the bifurcation took place squarely in the context of a refutation of atman. And that this refutation was not of one or two but several of the senses in which atman was and is understood by both sages and ordinary people. This rejection was and still is seen in those circles as necessary for personal transformation, viz asrayaparvrtti. By all appearances, Paramartha ended up taking a position very similar to MN2, the Sabbasava Sutta. (Could he have been familliar with it?)

4) Paramartha et al "failed" in the sense that, as you indicate, we still live with countervailing attitudes. Now, the influence of the the tathagatagarbha literature—and yes, of related trends in the Nikaya literature—was and is enormous. But with all due respect it was and is not the last word—certainly not on the significance of atman. If atman is multivalent—for that matter, if wu wei is multivalent (more about that in a second), is there some special reason why BN must be interpreted as having been frozen at the time of the composition of the tathagatagarbha literature?

5) I think it's defensible to draw parallels between anatman and wu wei. Consider: In Analects 15.4 Confucius was enigmatic, ascribing wu wei to Emporer Shun, despite prodigious doings. (Not simply because kings should have discernment.) This is hardly different from Tao Te Ching 37 "The Tao is always "not-doing". Yet there is nothing it doesn't do." (AC Muller's translation) Cancel out the double negative and replace Tao with marga; those are harmless enough. All that is left is to replace nonaction with nonself and we have something quite close to Dhammapada 279, all phenomena have no self. (Cf TTC 40, all things...come from nothingness.) As for the origin of wu wei, I am certainly curious about it. But etymologies are keys, not shackles.

"The Taoist wei-wu-wei is the denial of an objective action, that I perform some action. The Buddhist concept of anatta and the "no mind" of Ch'an emphasize the denial of an agent, that I perform some action. But to deny a subjective agent or to deny an objective action amounts to the same thing, since each half of the polarity is dependent upon the other." Quoted from "Wei-wu-wei: Nondual action", David Loy, Philosophy East and West, v35 n1, January 1985, pp. 73-87 --Munge 08:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6) As for which atman, I have certainly bit off more than I can chew. I tell you sincerely that you have opened my eyes today to a deeper understanding of the internal contradictions in Nikaya and Mahayana literature. I think I see more clearly the origins of doctrinal discontinuities even among people who are nominally members of the same sects! But I cannot give you sugar unmixed with salt. What I don't see clearly, are any authors whose personal lives are free of embarassment. I am quite sure that you can muster a better line of reasoning (as King did) than an ad hominem about Matsumoto's competence. (In contrast, it is not entirely ad hominem to raise questions about the competence of anonymous authors who imagined Sakyamuni addressed them long after he died.) That King took the trouble is a sign of respect, that the perspective she refutes dignifies a response. As for political agendas, one of the hypotheses of Critical Buddhism is that a misinterpretation of Buddha-nature as a form of crypto-atman was used to justify Japanese imperialism—and it is far from clear that the refuters of Critical Buddhism are free of political bias. Surely some of our Chinese colleagues could further detail the provenance of that bias. --Munge 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Munge:

1] I should have looked at my copy of King as, in fact, I realize now that I have had both those articles on fo-xing for decades. The point made here is bit of a red herring since the discussion in those articles concerns the various underlying Sanskrit equivalents denoted by the Chinese fo-xing. Nobody disputes that several Sanskrit terms were translated as fo-xing, but what matters is whether they connote the same thing – which they do as far as the major tathāgata-garbha textual sources, although it should be noted that each term developed in disparate doctrinal environments, but converged in their connotation in this literature.
2] You suggest that I "seem to be amenable to the idea there was a revision or reinterpretation". Revision or re-interpretation of what ? If one tracks the usage of tathāgata-garbha, buddha-dhātu, gotra etc in the Indic source materials, of course one can see developments and subtle shifts of meaning, but you started this discussion by claiming that tathāgata-garbha and buddha-dhātu signify different things in the MPNS, which they do not as they MPNS itself states on several occasions. The Paramārtha usage of the terms does seem to represent a major shift in connotation, but this lies outside classical tathāgata-garbha literature, given that he is attempting to synthesize the Yogācāra and tathāgata-garbha systems. This is perhaps not unimportant for Chinese Buddhism but lies outside my area of interest.
3] I think you may be right is suposing that Paramārtha may have been back-tracking or reverting to an "orthodox" position. But I do not know enough about the BNT apart from King's study – I do note even know how reliable her work is as a presentation of the BNT, but I can say that what I have read of her suggests that she is not very familiar with the primary sources. If you feel that the BNT is so important, then I urge you to write an article on it. You mention "a refutation of atman", but nowhere in the Nikayas does the Buddha actually deny the existence of atman. The first outright denial of atman is in the Questions of Milinda. The reports of the Buddha's words just tell us what it is not. If I show you a picture of my father, grandparents, brothers and sisters and point to them in turn and say, "This is not my mother", "All of these people are not my mother", does this mean I do not have a mother. Despite what we are led to believe, the Nikayas are basically non-dogmatic about the atman. As I mentioned previously, there was a split very early in Buddhist doctrinal history between the "mystics" and the "intellectuals". The mystics (probbaly including the Buddha) used samādhi as a way to liberation and tended to use more postive language, including many terms that are compatible with an atman or tathāgata-garbha. For those who could not achieve samādhi adequately, somebody then developed the "negative" intellectual analytical approach, with its skandhas, āyatanas, dhātus, pratitya-samutpāda etc etc which is associated with the anatman doctrine. I suggest you read Lambert Schithausen's extremely detailed monograph "Liberating Insight and Enlightenment in early Buddhism", Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus pp 199-250, Franz Steiner Verlag 1981.
You also ask if Paramārtha could have been familiar with the Sabbasava Sutta – yes, of course. All panditas of his stature would have been completely familiar with one of the Agama recensions.
4] I am not sure what point you are making here. Who was suggesting that the BNT was "frozen at the time of the composition of the tathagata-garbha literature" ? It post-dates the classical TG literature and, as a syncretic text, obviously presents a differing understanding of the TG. One might try to judge whether it is an improved presentation but that would largely lie within the domain of opinion and belief.
5] If you want an alternative interpretation of the Daodejing, try looking at my translation for details or stuff by Chad Hansen. You will see that "dao" in Laozi and Zhuangzi probably has nothing to do with any "path" as popularly claimed. By failing to put the classical Daoist works into their context as critiques of the Confucian and Mohist quest for a universally valid prescription for behaviour, most writers, such as David Loy whom you quote, miss the point entirely – they just don't get past Wangbi ! As for "wu-wei", it is not an etymology, but the correct meaning that is at stake here
6] I am glad to read that you now appreciate the existence of internal contradictions with Buddhism. These go back to the very earliest times – perhaps you would like to read the Tillman Vetter book I mentioned previously, the Schmithausen monograph and Brockhorst's study on the two meditation traditions of ancient India. Things should become even clearer to you then – you may begin to see why Matsumoto Shiro and his followers are so completely mistaken. But please do your entry on Critical Buddhism and then I'll enjoy showing in an additional article why their claims are invalid and based on poor methodology. BTW, if you think my aside about Matsumoto was ad hominem, you should read more of his work in Japanese to see the way he attacks his opponents.
You say, "it is not entirely ad hominem to raise questions about the competence of anonymous authors who imagined Sakyamuni addressed them long after he died": what makes you think that he didn't ? What do you understand of the manner in which later sutras were compiled ? Sutra literature is a particular genre that makes use of certain conventions.
As for the political agendas, I cannot comment on how the Buddha-nature doctrine was used by the Japanese imperialists but, from what I know, its input would have been quite minimal. But that is an area in which I am not interested because I think it is quite irrelevent to a correct understanding of tathāgata-garbha – even if it were mis-used by some people, this does not invalidate the soundness of the doctrine.--Stephen Hodge 03:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Diachronic Context

By the way, Stephen Hodge, above, mentions an interesting subject: different strata with the Nikaya sutras. I haven't been exposed to much information on this in the past. Can anyone recommend a good source with which to introduce myself to the scholarship on this issue? - Nat Krause 08:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nat -- I am doing some research in this area in connection with the atman / anatman debate. The main "fault-line" is that between dhyana-orientated liberation and praj~naa-orientated liberation -- everything else follows from this. The implications of this is rather startling: the Buddha did not teach much of what passes as standard "Buddhism" or else he changed his mind during his long teaching career. If/when I get enough time, I could do a Wiki entry on this topic. Most of the (few) relevent sources are found in various journals but one useful introduction is "The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism" by Tillman Vetter (Brill 1988). Over the next few days, when I have time, I am intending to post a reply to the last msg from Munge in which I hope to mention a few other titles. In the meantime, I think some of this discussion pasge needs to be archived -- I am not sure how to do this so can you help ? --Stephen Hodge 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There must have been such a fault line, else Huineng (or his redactors) would not have taken such pains to say otherwise! The BNT also addresses the "samadhi that destroys false emptiness"; e.g. see King p124-6. Now, the current wiki on Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga says these older, shorter Nikaya sutras were "leaning heavily on what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little evidence of vipassana". I can cetainly see how people might have interpreted Attha and Para that way. But not everyone does/did. Moreover, it need hardly be mentioned that right samadhi (consisting of four dhyanas) and right prajna are part of the eightfold path. And that the first line of the Heart Sutra also seems to defy any supposed tension between samadhi and prajna.
Munge writes: "it need hardly be mentioned that right samadhi (consisting of four dhyanas) and right prajna are part of the eightfold path". I'm not familiar with any version of the eightfold path which includes "samma-pañña". Could you possibly give some references, please ? Despite having studied Buddhism for almost 40 years, I seemed to have missed this :)--Stephen Hodge 03:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(blush) I really wrote that, didn't I. Well, it's no excuse but teachers often divide the eightfold path into three groups: panna, sila, and samadhi. Possibly not in any primary source but I wager many Theravadins will testify this is so. (A Google search proves nothing but perhaps illustrates] how a person might make such a mistake. I'm sure I was thinking of one of the 10 parami and short circuited my little brain. (/blush) --Munge 06:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem, we all make mistakes. The sīla, samādhi and paññā trio are thought to post-date the eightfold path in development and represent an alternative, abbreviated path. The rather clumsy attempt to superimpose them onto the eightfold path is a well-known feature of post-Nikāyan Theravadin dogmatics as a way of somehow explaining the ommison of paññā from the eightfold path which is needed to account for paññā-vimutti.--Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This may be as good a place as any to point out that Tao Sheng, the very Chinese prophet of Buddha Nature, was once allied with a school of the Abhidharma, according to Whalen Lai in "Tao Sheng's Theory of Sudden Enlightenment Re-examined", Sudden and Gradual, Peter Gregory ed., esp. p174-5. His interpretation (or misinterpretation if you prefer), which colored subsequent developments, thus may have been colored by the Nikayas. In any event I suggest we take the question of the Nikaya origins of/attitude toward prajnaparamita to Talk:Perfection of Wisdom and the more fundamental issue of atman to Talk:Atman (Buddhism) --Munge 06:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The two trends in early Buddhism I mention concern ceto-vimutti and pañña-vimutti -- these do not directly concern Mahāyāna concepts of prajñā-pāramitā though they could be usefully cross-referred to that.--Stephen Hodge 03:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
May I point out that Thanissaro Bhikku translates Dhammapada 372 as "no jhana for one without discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana". I'm not near a Pali version right now but I wonder if discernment might be pañña. --Munge 06:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This again represents a later phase of doctrinal development that laudably tries to reconcile the conflict between jhāna (dhyāna) and paññā (prajñā). Another aspect of this conflict can be seen in the situation described in AN IV.46, which this Dhammapada verse not doubt tries to address. Do try and read the reference material I suggested previously and the matter might become a little clearer to you. --Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] To do

The current article covers the significance of Buddha-dhatu in the Tathagatagarbha literature, in which the term first emerged. Here are some things the article might also do in the future:

Will the article do this by itself or will some human or bodhisattvic intervention be required ?--Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mention the most common uses of the phrase "Buddha nature" in English language texts about Buddhism. (basically, ability to become awakened, inherent enlightenment, and references to the diverse doctrines of particular schools).
A problem that needs to be addressed is that "Buddha nature" is a translation based on the Chinese fo-xing which in turn is based on a number of Sanskrit terms that differ in meaning. --Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Identify, if possible, precursors in the Nikayas.
I am in the process of writing a lengthly article detailing the origins and development of the buddha-dhātu doctrine.
  • Explain Buddha-dhatu in the context of stupa worship (e.g. see Takasaki Jikido); compare to Buddha-nature in Shinran and the Jodo Shinshu school
I am including the connection with stūpas in my article, but not the other areas you mention.
  • Review the etymology of 佛性 (fo xing), specifically the Chinese attitude toward "nature" (e.g. see Whalen Lai)
This is an important item . As I mention above, Chinese fo-xing has a different semantic range to that of buddha-dhātu – I am not even very happy about translating buddha-dhātu as "buddha-nature", since that is not really the meaning of buddha-dhātu in Indic sources. In fact I would be much happier to split the two off – when I speak (reluctantly) of "buddha nature", I am only concerned with the Indic buddha-dhātu, not Chinese modifications and innovations which I leave to others. The suffixed Chinese "xing" has a whole range of meanings not found in "dhātu".--Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Outline the subsequent evolution after the Tathagatagarbha phase (currently covered in the article), to the Tathagatagarbha-Yogacara phase(s), the doctrine of the Buddha-nature of the insentient (see Sharf), in Tientai, Huayen, and Chan (specifically, Zhaozhou and Wumen), in Zen (specifically, in Dogen), through the principle of inherent enlightenment. (I think these are the highest-priority omissions in the current article.)
  • Briefly survey the critiques of Buddha-nature posed by contemporary Japanese authors and mention the influence these had on policies and practices e.g. regarding Soto funeral rites for the Buraku. (Reserve complete coverage including the counter-critique for Critical Buddhism article.)
  • Does the term have special significance in Tibetan Buddhism?
Yes, the term "sangs-rgyas-kyi khams" is extremely important in all schools, though their understanding of its significance varies, not only between schools but also even masters within these schools. A positive understanding of buddha-dhātu was the central tenet of the Jonangpas. It is also central to the theory and praxis of tantra.--Stephen Hodge 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense the section regarding atman and address all sides of this most controversial issue comprehensively in Atman (Buddhism).
  • Did Mori Masahiro actually refer to Buddha nature rather than tathagatagarbha in his famous book about robots? If so, then the discussion of that book should be moved from tathagatagarbha to the current article.

--Munge 06:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist Pedantry

  • to do: compare and contrast the above pedantry with the medieval debate re how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

There was never any such debate: it was invented by Isaac D'Israeli centuries later. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rigpa Should Be Removed?

For some months now, I have felt uneasy about the section on Rigpa suddenly cropping up in this article on the Buddha Nature. I did add a linking sentence at the time to the effect that Rigpa could be seen as similar to the Buddha Nature - but in truth, I don't really think this Rigpa piece belongs here (I am not sure that Rigpa is exactly congruent with the Buddha-dhatu). This interpolated Rigpa piece sticks out like a sore thumb! It deserves its own special entry/article (in fact, I've just seen that it has been lifted from the legitimate main article on "Rigpa" - which in turn is lifted from Sogyal Rinpoche's "Rigpa" website) and need not be included under the "Buddha Nature". A mere internal Wiki-link to "rigpa" would suffice, I feel. Unless there is strong support to keep the section on Rigpa, I shall remove it in the coming days. Thanks! Tony. TonyMPNS 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Buddha Nature and Tathagatagarbha Articles Should Not Be Merged

I see that it has been proposed that the two entries, "Tathagatagarbha" and "Buddha-nature" be merged. While I can see why this might be suggested, I do believe (as a major contributor to those two articles) that it is best to keep the two articles distinct, as they contain quite a lot of separate material. I think it is better for people searching for information on the Internet about either Tathagatagarbha or Buddha Nature to be able to see two self-contained (though linked) articles on these two closely related concepts. I think keeping the two entries as they currently stand is not causing harm of any kind - so I would vote to maintain things as they are. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above: no merger ! Although there is a degree of overlap, tathagata-garbha and buddha-nature are not conceptually identical. Also, if they were to be mergered, there would also be a considerable amount of work needed to rewrite the article to include all the material currently distributed in the two articles.--Stephen Hodge 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article Not "POV" and Is Adequately Referenced

I have removed flags indicating the article is POV, not sufficiently referenced and is "original research". The article is in fact grounded solidly on published texts, is accurate, informative, and refers to relevant texts and large-scale websites. It has stood for years and been approved by some of Wikipedia's most active and knowledgeable Buddhism editors. The article is quite acceptable in my view. Tony. TonyMPNS 09:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It needs to be footnoted so that other editors can verify statements against sources. I'll take your word that it is not POV or OR. It seems to be rather idiosyncratically stated in places. Cundi 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm about ready to tag this again. It does seems to have a lot of uncited opinion. Yours? Every position must be the postion of someone (besides yourself) whom you can cite. This whole article argues for the opposite of the usual understanding in Mahayana Buddhism. It appears to be falling into the error of eternalism. So the question is, who actually believes this? Buddhists, or some specific Western interpreters of Buddhism? Whomever they might be, they seem to not "get it". Therefore, these opinions should be qualified with "According to so-and-so", so that the reader can evaluate the sources and know what value to give to the conclusions. If I do retag the article, please do not remove them unilaterally again. Quoting texts is one thing. Interpreting them is another. Cundi 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ms Cundi, I'll be happy to remove the tags again if inappropriate. If you claim to see a "lot of uncited opinion", could you please be a bit more specific. Just because you are clearly unfamiliar with them, that does not mean that they are opinions ! What I read here is quite uncontroversial and NPOV, and if you think it "argues for the opposite of the usual understanding in Mahayana Buddhism", then I can only assume you are working from a rather limited POV knowledge-base as far as Mahayana is concerned. The overall understanding presented here is very well-known in East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, and can hardly be termed "opinion". On the Tibetan side, perhaps you might like to read through Jeffrey Hopkins' recent "Mountain Doctrine", his translation of Dolpopa's famous Ri-chos, which spells out all this in extensive detail. If you can read Tibetan, which I suspect not, you could also look at the voluminous writings of Shakya Chokden, or Taranatha which adopt the same basic view. The same understanding will be found in the writings of Longchenpa etc for the Nyingmapas, Kongtrul etc for the Kagyupas. So, basically, it seems to me that there are literally tens of thousands of articles in Wiki that are far more deserving of your attention.--Stephen Hodge 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ms Cundi, supplemental to the above, I was curious to see how consistent you are with your "citation crusade" and had a quick look at a selection of articles you recently edited: Mudra, Mahamudra, Yongey Mingyur, Prana, Garab Dorje, tulku etc etc. Since all of these articles (and all the others) have few or no citations by which an editor can check the facts, would you kindly tag all of these articles in the same way as you are trying to do here ? If you are reluctant to do so, the conclusion is obvious: you must have some kind of agenda or animus in undermining this article on Buddha Nature. I do hope you will prove me wrong.--Stephen Hodge 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What a bunch of red herring. You are free to tag those articles yourself. It is this one that I find in need of attention. I have no interest in "undermining" the article. That borders on personal attack and is certainly a breach of the guideline to assume good faith. I just want to see the opinions cited. They have to be someone's opinions or interpretation, and thus must be cited. Otherwise, they are original research and must be removed. Ciao. Cundi 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ms Cundi, it just seems strange to me that you have spent an inordinate amount of time on this article -- even though you seem quite unfamilar with the subject matter -- when there are many which are far more deserving of your talents, including, as I pointed out, nearly every one of the other articles you have visited over the past months. You say that you are not "undermining" the article, but had you been left unchecked you would have chopped out a number of passages without any justification, beyond your apparently limited knowledge of the material. So I find it hard to assume good faith on your part, because of your propensity to cut passages from this article without any discussion. If you have problems with anything, stop acting like a bull in the proverbial china shop and DISCUSS it first. Act with respect to others and then they will probably assume good faith. Simple.
You say, "they have to be someone's opinions or interpretation" -- why ? I see from your edits elsewhere (18/06 Bon "proportion of quotes to original text is too large, information in quotes need to be summarized and quotes reduced") that you do not like excessive quotes and suggest summaries instead. That is precisely what has been done here. If you had any familiarity with the sutras concerned, you would realize that what you think are opinions or interpretations are nothing of the sort -- such passages are merely summaries. Summarizing matter from the primary sources does not count as original research either.
Then you make odd statements like "... is it precisely opposite of my understanding: the only permanence is the fact of impermanence". Where on earth did you get that idea ? Don't take this the wrong way, but could I suggest that you learn something beyond Buddhism 101 before you wade in and make a arrant fool of yourself. Some of the people who have contributed to this article have studied the material for decades and have a degree of expertise to which you might like to aspire some day.--Stephen Hodge 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Stephen for your very valid comments. You make some very telling points. Yes, Cundi, you seem unfamiliar with vast stretches of Mahayana doctrine. What I have put in the article (those parts that are by me, anyway) is not my opinion but simply an accurate transposition of what is centrally found in key TG sutras. I have now supplied some references (page numbers, etc.) and will try to add a couple more - so you should be satisfied now. The article is pretty well referenced as it currently stands, I would say. There is a list of good books at the end of the entry (under "References"), plus external links to vital websites on the subject: so I fail to see how anyone could have serious problems with the article. It may not be the type of Buddhism that everyone likes, but it is an important and influential body of Buddhist doctrine from the sutras (not some commentator's "interpretation") and has been given accurate representation in the article. There are also (within the article) mentions of opposing points of view (e.g. Nagarjuna). I noticed, too, that you earlier changed my mention of "in the Buddha-nature / Tathagatagarbha sutras" (plural) to "the Tathagatagarbha Sutra" (singular and specific) - which is plain wrong. The point I was making was not specifically or wholly covered by that one individual sutra. It is a good rule in Wikipedia to stick to the editing of subjects of which one really has strong and sound knowledge. I would also remind you that other Wiki Buddhism editors (some of the most active and most respected in the Wiki Buddhism forum) have approved this article. So I really can do little more (beyond what I have suggested above) to improve the article at this time. Again, let me reiterate: just because a teaching from Buddhism may not be popular or may receive distorted interpretation at the hands of some Buddhists - does not mean that it should not be accurately reflected within the pages of Wikipedia. I have stuck faithfully to the key points of the Buddha Nature doctrine as enunciated in the key TG sutras. I could only wish that other editors would be as painstaking in their search for accuracy as I always strive to be! Best wishes. Tony. P.S. Thank you, Cundi, for inserting the superscript citation numbers - that looks better. TonyMPNS 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srimala Sutra

There's a footnote referencing a specific page number, but there is no edition listed in the References section, which makes the page number rather meaningless. Cundi 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hallo Cundi. Actually, the full reference to the text is given in the References section at the foot of the article. That is why I did not repeat it in the body of the article text. The reference is: Hookham, Dr. Shenpen (tr.) (1998). The Shrimaladevi Sutra. Oxford: Longchen Foundation. Tony. TonyMPNS 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I'll modify the footnote to make that more obvious... Cundi 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work!

I think the article is really improved, though not yet NPOV. Cundi 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article briefly mentions that the viewpoint expressed is not universally accepted within Buddhism. For the article to be NPOV, we need details on this. Are the texts universally accepted as being attributed to the Buddha, or do some Buddhists believe they are later compositions? What are the arguments against the position expressed? What sect or sects do not accept this particular viewpoint? What are the arguments against it? and so on and so forth. Once this is included, the article will be up to Wikipedia standards. Cundi 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ms Cundi, the article mentions this: "Buddha-nature is not at all accepted by Theravada Buddhism" -- simply because, as is well-known, Theravada does not recognize the validity of any Mahayana sutras. As for Mahayana, the doctrine of Buddha-nature is accepted universally ispo facto, since it derives from universally accepted Mahayana sutras. However, for some Mahayanist scholars and schools, Buddha-nature is important while for others it is only peripheral. Different viewpoints regarding the precise significance of Buddha-nature are interpretational, based on sectarian differences. But the situation is exteremely complex in the case of Tibetan Buddhism. Even within the same sects, some scholars accept these teachings literally, while others give them a more figurative, interpretation. Thus, for example, amongst the Sakyapas, Shakya Chokden accepts them at face value, while Gorampa does not. Or at times, the interpretation will depend upon the level of discourse and audience involved. To do justice to this would require years of research since there are virtually no translations of primary sources that would help. So your request is some what unrealistic at this point in time.--Stephen Hodge 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you have your own limitations too. Who knew? Fortunately, you and Tony aren't the only editors of Buddhist articles on WP. Perhaps over time, we'll see some additions which balance the article. Thank you for your acknowledgment that the article is indeed unbalanced and for not removing the tag as you previously threatened. Also for the improvements to the article in response to my previous tags... Cundi 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ms Cundi, any intelligent or wise person ipso facto should know their limitations, as Socrates stated long ago, hence I do not get involved in matters of which I am ignorant. The problem is with those who do not recognize their own limitations.--Stephen Hodge 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say about assumptions... You might note that I'm ignoring your veiled insults based on your lack of knowledge of who I am and what I may or may not know. While it is certainly outside the guideline of WP:CIVIL to go to such lengths to criticize someone, such criticism simply rolls off me like water off a duck. You might however want to read WP:TPG, which indicates that long lectures on talk pages are not likely to be read, and suggests adopting a shorter, more conversational style. Ciao. Cundi 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ms Cundi, I wasn't making any insults, veiled or otherwise -- if the cap fits, wear it, as they say. I am not the slightest bit interested in who you are and I only know you by what you write (eg. "the only permanence is impermanence" etc) and come to my own conclusions, as will others. I offered you constructive criticism, but it is up you whether you reflect on that or take it on board. And, regardless of the Wiki suggestions to which you draw my attention, I know enough about human nature to know that people diligently read what is addressed to them in such circumstances, regardless of length. Anyway, we're about done here, so see you around elsewhere.--Stephen Hodge 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I myself do not regard the article as POV but simply factual representation of the primary Buddha Nature sutras, I have added a section on "Varying Interpretations of the Buddha Nature", which should meet the wishes of Cundi, as it offers alternative understandings of the Buddha Nature concept. I have thus now removed the "POV" tag. Thanks, Cundi, for your praise of our "great work" and for the more effective-looking superscript numbering. Tony. TonyMPNS 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Buddha-nature

I have tagged this section since it is ill-informed nonsense. As time allows, I may get around to writing something a little more reliable.--Stephen Hodge 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced content

Arrow has removed sourced content.[1] Can he/she explain himself?Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here BS uses an edit summary that ignores my edit summary points regarding the fact that the MPNS view is an extreme minority view, and here he does it again. His talk page post sounds like I gave no justification. Arrow740 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that say that the view is "an extreme minority view"?Bless sins (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't insert personal interpretation of primary sources into this article without understanding the subject matter. In response to your question, you can get started by reading anatta. If you have further questions I can direct you to some websites or books detailing the views of Buddha-nature held by various Buddhist sects. Arrow740 (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please direct me to reliable source. A wikipedia article is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article contains a good introduction to the issues involved, BS. I'm afraid your insistence that I provide you with a reliable source for background reading is unreasonable. Please don't insert personal interpretation of primary sources into this article without understanding the subject matter. In response to your question, you can get started by reading anatta. If you have further questions I can direct you to some websites or books detailing the views of Buddha-nature held by various Buddhist sects. Arrow740 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow740, you must provide reliable sources for all claims you will make on wikipedia. You must. It's not optional. Similarly you can hold me accountable for providing sources for all claims I make.Bless sins (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can show me the section of the guideline that you're referring to? I'm afraid your insistence that I provide you with a reliable source for background reading is unreasonable. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking you for "background" reading. You have removed content from the article, have you not? You said it was a minority view? But only you say it is a minority view. I have not seen reliable scholars says that this is a minority view.Bless sins (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So? Arrow740 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Making claims and not backing them up with sources is also a violation of WP:NOR. And if you don't provide reliable sources, I'm under no obligation to consider the viewpoint a minority one.Bless sins (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying these things in a talk page, BS. Arrow740 (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we remind ourselves of Wikipedia policy here? Anything, particularly anything controversial, as much of this article seems to be, should be backed up by citations from reliable sources, which most of this article seems not to be. Citations must be verifiable, which means, as explained in the policy page, that any reader with access to the source cited, but without any specialist knowledge, except knowledge of the language in which that source is written, can easily & straightforwardly verify that the source does indeed say what the areticle says it says. This means NO INTERPRETATION. All interpretations must themselves be cited, &, if controversial, be ascribed in the article proper, not just in the footnote, to the relevant source. Peter jackson (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain whether "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra" is a reliable source on the topic? It doesn't seem to be.Bless sins (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)