Amazing and at once a strange relief.
Mar. 11th, 2008 09:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusMy Eastern Religions teacher has made some strange statements about Tibetan Buddhism that seemed a little... off. But I've trusted her scholarship over my own, of course.
Today she made the incredible statement that the Indian texts on "Buddhanature" were written in India, in Sanskrit, and transported from there to China, but then -- get this -- Buddhanature teachings developed in China.
Uh. My hand started waving immediately.
"Wait. Didn't you say these originated in India?"
"Yes. But there is no evidence of a practice tradition in India."
You know, that would be a convincing answer if I didn't know that almost all historical evidence from this period was destroyed. Sometimes Islam is blamed, sometimes internecine war, sometimes natural disasters, but the bottom line is there's not much historical evidence for anything in that time period. We don't assume, however, that India ceased just because much of the evidence is destroyed. It is highly illogical to assume that texts written in India were left unread, unpracticed, until such time as they appeared in China.
But I let that go. Instead my hand went up again.
"What about the Uttaratantra?"
This is a sanskrit text dated roughly from the fourth century on Buddhanature. It's studied and practiced in Tibet and serves as evidence that Buddhanature practices didn't start in China.
She rambled about "tantric practices" not really being relevant to a discussion of Buddhanature. It became quickly clear that she had never even heard of the Uttaratantra because, uh, it's not about tantric practices.
Whoa. Wait. I'd been assuming that her somewhat anti-Tibetan Buddhist standpoint had some basis in knowledge. She's a Buddhist scholar after all. But if she's never even heard of this seminal Tibetan Buddhist text....
She went on to say that Tibetan Buddhism didn't teach anything on Buddhanature.
Huh, wha--?
She then said that Tibetan Buddhism more or less had to make it up on its own, and it's a mixture of some Buddhist ideas and the local Bonpo Shamanistic religion.
After class I approached her and let her know that the Uttaratantra, despite its name, is not a tantric text. "It's an exegesis on Buddhanature taught in Tibet."
She asked for evidence that it was an important Tibetan Buddhist text. I told her that I was aware it was important to my own schools of Nyingma and Kagyud, but I was not sure about Sakya and Gelugpa.
Important? Hell yeah.
I don't mind her questioning the validity of Tibetan Buddhism. But not from a basis of ignorance.
Not knowing the existence of this text is almost like not teaching about Christianity without having ever cracked open the bible.
Not quite that bad. Imagine the bible multiplying into quadrillions of texts and commentaries, a different handful for every sect. Then imagine discussing a sect without even learning the names of the dozen or so main texts (not even the names) and -- yeah. Like that.
Today she made the incredible statement that the Indian texts on "Buddhanature" were written in India, in Sanskrit, and transported from there to China, but then -- get this -- Buddhanature teachings developed in China.
Uh. My hand started waving immediately.
"Wait. Didn't you say these originated in India?"
"Yes. But there is no evidence of a practice tradition in India."
You know, that would be a convincing answer if I didn't know that almost all historical evidence from this period was destroyed. Sometimes Islam is blamed, sometimes internecine war, sometimes natural disasters, but the bottom line is there's not much historical evidence for anything in that time period. We don't assume, however, that India ceased just because much of the evidence is destroyed. It is highly illogical to assume that texts written in India were left unread, unpracticed, until such time as they appeared in China.
But I let that go. Instead my hand went up again.
"What about the Uttaratantra?"
This is a sanskrit text dated roughly from the fourth century on Buddhanature. It's studied and practiced in Tibet and serves as evidence that Buddhanature practices didn't start in China.
She rambled about "tantric practices" not really being relevant to a discussion of Buddhanature. It became quickly clear that she had never even heard of the Uttaratantra because, uh, it's not about tantric practices.
Whoa. Wait. I'd been assuming that her somewhat anti-Tibetan Buddhist standpoint had some basis in knowledge. She's a Buddhist scholar after all. But if she's never even heard of this seminal Tibetan Buddhist text....
She went on to say that Tibetan Buddhism didn't teach anything on Buddhanature.
Huh, wha--?
She then said that Tibetan Buddhism more or less had to make it up on its own, and it's a mixture of some Buddhist ideas and the local Bonpo Shamanistic religion.
After class I approached her and let her know that the Uttaratantra, despite its name, is not a tantric text. "It's an exegesis on Buddhanature taught in Tibet."
She asked for evidence that it was an important Tibetan Buddhist text. I told her that I was aware it was important to my own schools of Nyingma and Kagyud, but I was not sure about Sakya and Gelugpa.
Important? Hell yeah.
Library of Tibetan Classics lists:
17. Treatises on the Buddha Nature Theorum
Translated by John Whitney Pettit
This composite volume contains several of the key texts presenting theprincipal Tibetan understandings of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of the Buddha nature.
- The central text of this volume is the great classic on the subject by Butön Rinchen Drup
(1290-1364)entitled An Ornament Beautifying the Nucleus of Buddhahood. This is aseminal work that established a standard interpretation of the Buddhanature theorum and the development of hermeneutics of reading thescriptures associated with this
important Mahayana Buddhist concept.
- The Shentong (note: a Kagyud view) perspective, which represents an
alternative standpoint, on the Buddha nature theorum is provided in detail in Dölpopa's Sherap Gyaltsen (1292–1361)
Ocean of Definitive Meaning, vol. 7 of THE LIBRARY OF TIBETAN CLASSICS.
-The volume also contains a succinct commentary on one of the most important root Indian Buddhist works on the subject, Maitreya's (fourth century) classic The Sublime Continuum by the noted Sakya author Rongtön Shakya Gyaltsen (1367-1449).
- This is followed by Shakya Chokden (1428-1507) (Sakya school) lucid commentary on the seminal text on the Buddha nature theorum attributed to Nagarjuna (second century) entitled Hyms to the Ultimate Expanse.
- The final section of the volume consists of two important texts.One is the general exposition of the Buddha nature theorum by the Geluk author Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen (1469-1544), which is based upon the reading of two Indian sources – Maitreya's Sub-
lime Continuum and his Ornament of Mahayana Scriptures.
- The second is a short work by the Nyingma author Ju Mipham (1846-1912) entitled Lion's Roar on the Nucleus of
Buddhahood which succinctly presents a critical analysis of the interpretation ofthe Buddha nature theorum in Tibet. (Note: Mipham is the most important scholar of the Nyingma school. Nyingma monasteries shutdown and celebrate Mipham's birthday with 24 hours of rituals and debate. I saw less effort expended on the Buddha's birthday.)
Translations and a copy of commentaries on these are available for you to peruse online. Source: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1949421541 .html Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism – Level 6: Major Indian Mahayana Texts
Suhrllekha (Letter to a Friend) - NagarjunaChatuhshataka (Four Hundred Verses) - Aryadeva
Abhisamayalamkara (Filigree of Realizations) - Maitreya
Uttaratantra (The Furthest Everlasting Continuum) - Maitreya
Bodhicharyavatara (Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior) - Shantideva
The order of these is according to the Dalai Lama's Gelugtradition, but the last three in particular are standard to Nyingma,Kagyud, Gelugpa (and presumably Sakya which I have not studied).
I don't mind her questioning the validity of Tibetan Buddhism. But not from a basis of ignorance.
Not knowing the existence of this text is almost like not teaching about Christianity without having ever cracked open the bible.
Not quite that bad. Imagine the bible multiplying into quadrillions of texts and commentaries, a different handful for every sect. Then imagine discussing a sect without even learning the names of the dozen or so main texts (not even the names) and -- yeah. Like that.
