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

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Stephen,

> Could you please direct to even one text which is demonstrably a "partial"
> translation of the MPNS ? 

volume 12 of the Taisho has a bunch, and also Taisho v. 26. Nakamura, in Indian Buddhism discusses a few of them, if memory serves correctly. There are also a few texts whose filiation with MPNS has been debated. Xuanzang translated a text called Nandimitra-avadana (T.49.2030) which is an "excerpt"  or "partial" translation of a section of MPNS that circulated independently. This avadana was influential in art circles, and comes up in paintings and literature from Central Asia to Japan. Xuanzang also translated Fo lin niepan ji fazhu (T.12.390) which is one of those texts you mentioned that supposedly covers the same time period as the Nirvana Sutra (or just slightly before Buddha's nirvana). The Tang Lai bian jing (T.12.395) is another excerpt/partial MPNS. There are others, but my notes are 1300 miles away in another state, so this will have to do for now. There is quite a bit of Japanese scholarship on all this, though I haven't looked at this issue in years.

> are you aware
> that the text itself says it was first circulated in South India and then
> transmitted to Northwesterrn India ?

While Chinese colophons and catalogs can be very reliable (and sometimes not), such explicit self-explanation in a text, ironically, especially if it IS Indian, I would view with suspicion unless other factors tend to confirm it.

> >> 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 ?

I have no idea why certain texts got chosen and not others. I don't know why Candrakirti, Dharmakirti, Santaraksita, Dharmottara, Vinitadeva, et al. were NEVER translated in Chinese, even though missionary translators kept arriving in China and translating materials well into the Song dynasty. Go figure...

On the other hand, the close proximity in time between which the D and F translations were made suggests that both versions were circulating, at least somewhere, at around the same time. Which groups had affinities with which versions, and who was interested and circulating all the other Nirvana Sutras? I don't have a clear picture of that either.

> How early is the use of "fo-xing" in Chinese translations ?   Can we
> identify what underlying term was used ?

Actually attention to the term in China begins with the Nirvana Sutra. I don't know offhand of any significant earlier uses. From what I remember, most of the fo-xing references in MPNS seem to derive from buddha-dhaatu (as you stated), but also sa.mbuddha-gotra.

I don't know if anyone has made an exhaustive historical survey of occurrences of Fo-xing in comparison with extant Indic materials, but just speaking from experience over the years reading, admittedly, a limited range of Buddhist literature, buddha-taa, buddha-tva, buddha-gotra, etc. are typical; and there are also more than a few cases when the Chinese seems to introduce fo-xing where the Sanskrit offers nothing to justify it. Buddha-taa can usually be read as "Buddha-hood", an accomplishment, not an ontological pre-existing condition. Buddha-gotra is more ambiguous, since one can join the family of Buddhas while still only a Buddha in potentia. The Chinese discourse preserved both these prominent senses, talking about chengfo (Becoming a Buddha) often in the same breath they advocated tathagatagarbha potentiality theories.


> > 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 :)

Au contraire. If a Buddhist ever mounted a logical defense of tathagatagarbha theory, I have yet to read it.


> 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. 

If it seems bizarre, then you must think the concept of Buddha-nature existed, and possibly originated in India. I don't. What evidence would there be for that?

> Again, on the face of it, this seems to be a bizarre claim.  Could you
> possibly elaborate what you mean here by "buddha-nature". 

As stated above, Buddha-nature, as it came to be understood in China, is an ontological ground, a pre-existing condition, the only reality, the true essence, the dharma-dhatu, tathata, the Dharmakaya, donuts and coffee, the luminous, pure, ubiquitous hoohah.  Tiantai will insist it also has a nasty streak.

Dan Lusthaus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050321/183e3562/attachment.html