본문 바로가기
  • Home

The Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507-1554) on the Relation between Buddha Nature and its Adventitious Stains

  • 불교학리뷰
  • Abbr : Critical Review for Buddhist Studies
  • 2017, (22), pp.63-104
  • DOI : 10.29213/crbs..22.201712.63
  • Publisher : Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies
  • Research Area : Humanities > Buddhist Studies
  • Received : April 26, 2017
  • Accepted : December 5, 2017
  • Published : December 31, 2017

Klaus-Dieter Mathes 1

1University of Vienna

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Among the positions within the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates, the Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje’s pointedly stands out by reason of his categorical denial that the mind-stream of sentient beings contains a buddha nature, not even one in the sense of subtle seeds of buddha qualities. The entire repertoire of one’s psycho-physical aggregates consists of nothing but adventitious stains. What is covered up by them is an all-pervading but ontologically separate buddha. Consequently the ‘profane’ and ‘sacred’ also have different foundations, the ‘all-ground consciousness’ (kun gzhi rnam shes) and ‘all-ground wisdom’ (kun gzhi ye shes), two categories that are typical of the Jonangpas. In the introduction to his Madhyamakāvatāra, Mi bskyod rdo rje also criticizes the popular interpretation of the Mahāmudrā teaching that thoughts appear as the dharmakāya and excludes the possibility that the two are one in essence. In the present paper I will seek to further our understanding of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s position on buddha nature by looking at how he describes it in relation to adventitious stains in comparison to ‘Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481) and Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361). The main focus will be his commentaries on the Madhyamakāvatāra (introduction), the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (introduction), the sKu gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, the Phyag rgya chen po’i sgros ‘bum and Mi bskyod rdo rje’s independent work on gzhan stong, the dBu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me. Of particular interest will be also Mi bskyod rdo rje’s review of ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Kālacakra commentary rGyud gsum gsang ba, on the basis of which Mi bskyod rdo rje’s denial of a buddha nature in the sense of an individual nature of mind that differs from a Buddha is most forcefully made.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.