[Buddha-l] MPNS & Buddha-nature (Lusthaus) [was: G-d, the D-vil and other imaginary friends]

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan,

> You might also have pointed out that there are not only very different
> recensions of the NS in terms of the so-called Southern and Northern
> recensions,
True, the Northern version of Dharmaksema's MPNS and the later Southern
recension which is based upon it do differ but my impression, though only
based on the first 17 chapters, is that divergences are mainly stylistic --
I feel that it is overstating the case to say that they are "very
different".

> but lots of "partial" translations collected in the Taisho of
> sections which obviously circulated independently of the main text.
Could you please direct to even one text which is demonstrably a "partial"
translation of the MPNS ?  True, there are many texts that are
"[maha]-parinirvana-sutras", that is, texts which deal with the Buddha's
passing but I was not aware that any of them had anything but the most
tenuous connection with the MPNS.

>> Their source text was the one compiled and used in India.
> Maybe. The Skt text for the Faxian version probably was also acquired in
> Central Asia.
I would put my money on it being Indic in origin -- a detailed study of the
contents will corroborate this.  As for your suggestion that Faxian's
version was acquired in Central Asia, does this mean you discount the
account of Faxian acquiring from the house of a brahmin in Varanasi ?  That
account seems fairly plausible to me.  If you are unaware of this, I'll dig
out the reference for you.

> Since we no longer have an extant NS in Sanskrit, what might
> have circulated at various times in India is a judgement call, not a clear
> fact. Texts produced in Central Asia did travel back to India and
> circulate,
> and some took root.
No, but we have fragments of Skt mss mostly found in Central Asia, as it
happens, but they are all very close to the Tibetan version and secondarily
to Faxian.  Dharmaksema is the furthest from them.  I agree with you that
texts were produced in Central Asia (which end ?) and then gained some
popularity in India, but again I suggest that you really need to look at the
Faxian / Tibetan version in greater detail -- for example, are you aware
that the text itself says it was first circulated in South India and then
transmitted to Northwesterrn India ?

>> There is no evidence that the extended version
>> translated by Dharmaksema was even know in India
> And no evidence that it was not. We don't know.
OK, there may have been one or two copies floating around but, if it was
reasonably well known in India, why did the Tibetans choose to translate the
Dharmaksema version from Chinese and not from a Skt exemplar ?




>> Dharmaksema had no ideological or doctrinal connection with
>> the originators of the Indic version.
> That's another judgement call. Hopefully your work on the NS will document
> this.
You will have to give me the benefit of the doubt since I have spent quite
some time looking at the issue.  As you say, I hope to publish some
documenatio ofthis although most of my interest is focussed on the Faxian /
Tibetan version -- it's much more important.

> "A detailed examination of" what I wrote suggests the use of the word
> "like"
> in the phrase "terms like buddhatva" is an indication that there are more
> words, besides buddhatva, that were possible sources of the Chinese foxing
> (Buddha-nature) [pronounced fo shing, not foxhunt].
How early is the use of "fo-xing" in Chinese translations ?   Can we
identify what underlying term was used ?

>  The most interesting one, at least in terms of an unexamined Chinese
>  development, is buddha-gotra
[snip]
> This happened to many texts, and in some (like CWSL) the fact that gotra
> xing/family was originally intended and written is unquestionable.
Thank you for this information.

> Borrowing a page from Richard's book, one might say that whenever
> Tathagatagarbha appears, Buddhist minds turn to mush, get sloppy, say
> and do stupid things, and Buddha-nature is the spawn of that disease.
You are, of course, referring to the reaction in the minds of people not
predisposed to the TG doctrine :)

> That Tibetans adopted the idea of Buddha-nature with its attendant
> mushiness is one of the most powerful refutations of the Tibetan myth
> that their Buddhist transmission came directly, in pure form, from India
> without Chinese corruptions.
On the face of it, I find this a very bizarre claim -- that the Tibetan
adopted the Buddha-nature concept from the Chinese.  If you have time, could
you provide some corroboration or documentation to back this.  To begin
with, if the Tibetans adopted the idea of Buddha-nature from China, what
term do you think the Tibetan term for "Buddha nature" is ?

As for the second half of your assertion, then your impression must be
derived primarily from Gelukpa sources, the self-appointed arbiters of
orthodoxy in Tibetan Buddhism..  The Nyingmapas, at least, were quite happy
to acknowledge the Chinese debt.  That such a myth does exist is well-known
but there were obvious and documented political reasons for the suppression
of the Chinese input.

> Buddha-nature is not an Indian idea, but a Chinese one, so that every
> Tibetan who has tried to account for it, in any way, is wrestling with
> Chinese demons and ghosts.
Again, on the face of it, this seems to be a bizarre claim.  Could you
possibly elaborate what you mean here by "buddha-nature".  Then we can start
discussing whether it was Indian or Chinese in origin.  You also say, "so
that every Tibetan who has tried to account for it" -- any names come to
mind ?  I have not encountered any Tibetan authors who have difficulty with
it except for the Gelukpas and perhaps some Sakyapas.  The Gelukpas seem to
have a problem because they have painted themselves into a corner due to
their obsession with Prasangika Madhyamika.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge