Buddha nature Reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and tathagatagarbha debates

A central issue for Tibetan post-classical Bka brgyud Mahamudra exegetes was how to reconcile two basic models of truth that had long been debated by Indian and Tibetan Buddhists: [1] a differentiation model based on clear distinctions between conventional and ultimate truths and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness, and [2] an identification model of the two truths and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness. While the differentiation model was typically aligned with the view that the ultimate (buddha nature, the nature of mind, or the nature of reality) is inherent to the mind which underscored its sublime otherness from all that is conventional and adventitious, the identification model focusses on the view of a common ground uniting all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. It emphasizes the pervasiveness of the ultimate and its immanence within the conventional in order to indicate how the ultimate permeates the mind-streams of individuals in bondage. A key philosophical aim of this project will be to determine how Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507-1554) and his coreligionists sought to synthesize and reconcile these differentiation and identification models in the context of buddha nature theory and how this shaped their understanding of the two truths (satyadvaya), the three natures (trisvabhava), the two modes of emptiness (rang stong and gzhan stong), and the hermeneutics of the three turnings of the dharmacakra. The reconciliation of the differentiation and identification models was in many cases accompanied by an attempt to chart a middle courseemploying Madhyamaka canons of dialectical reasoningbetween the polarized gzhan stong and rang stong positions that had divided most Tibetan schools since the 14th century. On the one side, post-classical masters such as Mi bskyod rdo rje sought to avoid any imputation of a permanent metaphysical reality, a view they linked with the Jo nang school. On the other side, they steered clear of the kind of unwarranted depreciation of human reality that they saw as the undesirable result of taking as the view of the ultimate an exclusive or sheer emptinessa complete absence of anything whatsoeverthat was the scope of a non-affirming negation, a view that they associated in particular with the Dge lugs pa school. In this context, the research will set out to address questions such as how does Mi bskyod rdo rje articulate and mediate between rang stong and gzhan stong views of emptiness? What are his views as to the developmental and disclosive paradigms of goal-realization and how did his own buddha nature views develop in response to rival buddha nature theories?

Buddha Nature Reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and Tathagatagarbha debates (P 28003- G24) was a project that grew out of a preceding research (FWF P 23826-G15) in the course of which it became evident that the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (15071554) is to be counted as one of the most important authors of Tibetan Buddhism but has up to now hardly received scholarly attention. Having presented his overall view on Buddhist philosophy based on our preceding research in various articles and a monograph, the project Buddha Nature Reconsidered focused on his prodigious writings on the notion of innate goodness in sentient beings, that is, buddha nature, which marks one of the most essential subjects of Mahayana Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular. Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rjes writings reveal a persistent concern to reconcile two divergent lines of interpretation of buddha nature that had long divided Buddhist thinkers in India and Tibet. One was a view advanced in the earliest extant tathagatagarbha texts which takes buddha nature to be an innate unchanging constituent of a human being that exists throughout the flux of sentient existence and persists after death. The other line of interpretation considers buddha nature as nothing but emptiness in the sense of a nonaffirming negation, a potential that just provides the room for spiritual development. The Eighth Karma pas position on buddha nature which constitutes a middle way between these polarized positions, seeks to combine the virtues of each while avoiding the vices of playing off one against the other. His method is dialectical to the extent that he aims at accommodating the central affirmative and negative strains of Buddhist thought and practice while avoiding the kinds of extreme views that may all too often result from taking either strain as an end in itself. The project was conducted in the Department of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. A number of research trips were undertaken by my assistants and me to India, China, and Nepal which provided the opportunity to work closely with Tibetan scholars. The majority of the research, however, has been undertaken in Vienna, working closely with Indologists and Buddhologists and the Tibetan scholar Khenpo Konchok Tamphel. During the course of the project, my assistants and I had the opportunity to share our research findings at three international conferences at which we hosted panels: The 14th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies (IATS) in Bergen, June, 2016, the 18th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS) in Toronto, August, 2017, and the 6th Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, also in August, 2017. The findings of this research perfectly complement previous publications on buddha nature in the field of the Tibetan Bka brgyud tradition (f. e. Mathes 2008). It is therefore of considerable interest to scholars in Buddhist and Tibetan studies. Furthermore, the continued establishment of Buddhism in the West and pockets of resurgence in traditionally Buddhist countries led to a strong interest in and a desire to access the fundamental works on Buddhists views. Thus, many contemporary Buddhists turn to scholarly translations and studies for clarification, elucidation and elaboration. A number of articles of my assistants and myself published already during the course of the project in peer-reviewed journals as well as a two-volume monograph slated for publication in the Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde (WSTB, 95.1-2) makes the findings of this research project easily accessible.