Будда табиғатының зердесі: Ratnagotravibhāga трактаты

The Ratnagotravibhāga (Sanskrit, abbreviated as RGV, meaning: Analysis of the Jeweled Lineage, Investigating the Jewel Disposition) and its vyākhyā commentary (abbreviated RGVV to refer to the RGV verses along with the embedded commentary), is an influential Mahāyāna Buddhist treatise on buddha nature (a. k. a. tathāgatagarbha). The text is also known as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (The Ultimate Teaching of the Mahāyāna). The RGVV was originally composed in Sanskrit, likely between the middle of the third century and no later than 433 CE. The text and its commentary are also preserved in Tibetan and Chinese translations. The authorship is of the text is uncertain. Chinese sources state it was written by a certain Indian named Suoluomodi 娑囉末底 (or Jianyi 賢慧, Sanskrit reconstruction: *Sāramati) while Tibetan tradition (as well as later Indian sources) state that it was taught by the bodhisattva Maitreya and transmitted via Asanga. Modern scholarship favors the Chinese attribution.

The Sanskrit gotra is a figurative term for family or lineage, while ratna means jewel or precious stone. In Yogacara Buddhism, gotra has the meaning of certain "dispositions" or "innate potential for spiritual achievement" that sentient beings have and which place them in five "families" corresponding to the three vehicles, undefined and icchantikas (deluded hedonists). The Ratnagotravibhāga focuses on the family lineage and inner disposition (gotra) which allows all beings to become Buddhas, and thus is compared to a precious jewel (ratna). This is the unchanging buddha nature that is present in all beings.

A secondary title for this work is Uttaratantraśāstra (The Treatise on the Ultimate Teaching) or Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (The Treatise on the Ultimate Teaching of the Mahāyāna), indicating how it considers itself to be the highest and ultimate teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This title has also been translated as Treatise on the Supreme Continuum. Tantra can mean both "doctrine" or "teaching" as well as "continuum". The second way of interpreting the title refers to the fact that buddha nature is an "everlasting continuum of the mind" (as noted by The 14th Dalai Lama) or a "continuous flow" (as Rongtön Sheja Kunrig and Go Lotsawa gloss the title). This pure continuum may be covered over by fleeting stains, but nevertheless remains as a continuity through many lives and into Buddhahood. Brunnhölzl also notes that most scholars agree that the text is "a compilation of different elements" and they have "made attempts to identify the “original” core verses of the text". The work of Takasaki and Johnston has been critiqued by the extensive reviews of such scholars as De Jong and Lambert Schmithausen. Schmithausen disagrees with Takasaki's opinion that the earliest core of the RGV consists of 27 verses and instead opines that "the original RGV is constituted by the totality of basic verses. But this original RGV seems to have made use of several (perhaps only partly remodelIed) older materials."

The text is attributed to the Indian Jianyi (賢慧, Sanskrit reconstruction: *Sāramati or *Sthiramati) in the earlier Chinese tradition, a claim first found in the work of the sixth century scholar Zhiyi. Several scholars have suggested that the Chinese and Tibetan traditions may be reconciled if perhaps Sāramati was also given the epithet of "Maitreya" (or if, vice versa, Sāramati was an epithet of the bodhisattva Maitreya), but Kazuo Kano notes that there is no evidence to support this. According to Karl Brunnhölzl, modern scholars have varying opinions on the authorship of the RGV: "the main positions include a total denial of a historic person named Maitreya, the author of these texts being someone called Maitreya but not the great bodhisattva Maitreya, and these works being com posed by Asanga or other persons" The Japanese scholar Takasaki Jikido is certain that the author of the commentary is Sāramati through his comparison of the RGVV with the Chinese translation of the Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra (Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun 大乘法界無差別論) which is also said to have been authored by the same figure. Jonathan Silk also argues that both texts were by the same author. According to Shenpen Hookam, most modern scholars favor Sāramati (c. 3rd 4th century CE) as the author. Of the complete extant Sanskrit [Johnston, et al. (1950)], Tibetan and Chinese manuscript versions, recension or interpolations of the text (according to perspective), Takasaki (1966) considered the Chinese translation of a no longer extant Sanskrit text to be the oldest manuscript in existence, though it may not represent the original Sanskrit perfectly.