Richard King

Vijñaptimātratā and the Abhidharma context of rarly Yogācāra

Abstract Contemporary accounts of early Mahāyāna Buddhist schools like the Madhyamaka and the Yogācāra tend to portray them as generally antithetical to the Abhidharma of non‐Mahāyāna schools such as the Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda. This paper attempts to locate early Yogācāra philosophical speculation firmly within the broader context of Abhidharma debates. Certain key Yogācāra concepts such as ālayavijnāna, vijnapti‐mātratā and citta‐mātra are discussed insofar as they relate to pre‐existing concepts and issues found in the Vaibhāsika and Sautrāntika schools, with specific reference to the Abhidharmakośa and the corresponding bhāsya of Vasubandhu. Finally, some remarks are made about the, benefits of approaching the history of religious ideas without the benefits and distortions of hindsight, particularly as this relates to the attribution of an idealistic position to the early Yogācāra literature.

Is “Buddha-Nature” Buddhist?

Recent controversies in Japanese Buddhist scholarship have focused upon the Mahāyāna notion of a “Buddha nature” within all sentient beings and whether or not the concept is compatible with traditional Buddhist teachings such as anātman (no-abiding-self). This controversy is not only relevant to Far Eastern Buddhism, for which the notion of a Buddha-nature is a central doctrinal theme, but also for the roots of this tradition in those Indian Mahāyāna sūtras which utilised the notion of tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-embryo or Buddha womb). One of the earliest Buddhist texts to discuss this notion is the Queen Śrīmālā Sūtra ( Śrīmālādevīsūtra ), which appears to display a transitional and revisionist attitude towards traditional Mahāyāna doctrines such as emptiness ( śūnyatā ) and no-abiding-self ( anātman ). These and related issues are examined as they occur in the Śrīmālā Sūtra and as they might relate to the issue of the place of Buddha-nature thought within the Buddhist tradition. Finally some concluding remarks are made about the quest for “true” Buddhism.

A case of misrepresentation: James L. Cox and Steven J. Sutcliffe, ‘‘Religious studies in Scotland: A persistent tension with divinity’’ [Religion 36 (1) (March 2006) 1e28]: A response from Religion at Stirling

A PhD student1 in our department who has a background in classical studies and is now researching the use of the World Wide Web by pagan groups was the first to see this survey on religious studies in Scotland. She felt worried at the time by the way the article misrepresented what we did at Stirling. Coming from another country to do postgraduate studies in religion here, she felt people in her country reading this journal would be given a false impression that could affect her career prospects. In particular the article stated that the typical orientation of the department at Stirling was ‘traditional textual-hermeneutical methodologies of Theology and Divinity’ when she, and subsequently the rest of us, felt this bore little relation to the breadth of what was actually being taught. Why was there no mention of the interdisciplinarity of our approach or the centrality of feminist, critical and postcolonial theory? Overall we felt there had been too little investigation of the kinds of modules which were actually being offered at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, or of the kinds of research and publications that members of the department were producing, including Fiona Darroch e not mentioned at all in the report e who at that time was and still is researching and teaching Caribbean literature and religion.