The RatnagotravibhÃÂga (Sanskrit, abbreviated as RGV, meaning: Analysis of the Jeweled Lineage, Investigating the Jewel Disposition) and its vyÃÂkhyàcommentary (abbreviated RGVV to refer to the RGV verses along with the embedded commentary), is an influential MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist treatise on buddha-nature (a.k.a. tathÃÂgatagarbha). The text is also known as the MahÃÂyÃÂnottaratantraà ÂÃÂstra (The Ultimate Teaching of the MahÃÂyÃÂna). 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 Ratnagotra focuses on the buddha nature present in all sentient beings, which is eternal, blissful, unconditioned and originally pure. This buddha nature is obscured by defilements, but when they are removed, the buddha nature is termed dharmakaya, the ultimate Buddha body. The buddha nature is what is referred to as the "jewel disposition" or "jeweled lineage" (ratnagotra) of the Buddhas. The RGVV often quotes from various tathÃÂgatagarbha sutras and comments on them. The RatnagotravibhÃÂga is an important and influential text in Tibetan Buddhism and was also important for the Huayan school.
The authorship is of the text is uncertain. Chinese sources state it was written by a certain Indian named Suoluomodi å¨ÂÃ¥ÂÂæ«庠(or Jianyi 賢栧, Sanskrit reconstruction: *SÃÂramati) 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 RatnagotravibhÃÂga 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 Uttaratantraà ÂÃÂstra (The Treatise on the Ultimate Teaching) or MahÃÂyÃÂnottaratantraà ÂÃÂstra (The Treatise on the Ultimate Teaching of the MahÃÂyÃÂna), 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.
A Sanskrit RGVV was brought to China by Ratnamati (Ã¥ÂÂé£æ©æÂÂ) in 508 CE where he translated the text to Chinese. This shows the whole text was available in India in the early 6th century. According to Kazuo Kano, no Indian texts quote the RGVV from the 7th to the 10th century, but it is cited in a significant number of Indian texts from the 11th to the 13th century.
According to Brunnhölzl, "the text known as RGVV consists of three parts: (1) basic verses, (2) commentarial verses, and (3) prose commentary." Brunnhölzl also notes that most scholars agree that the text is "a compilation of different elements" and they have "made attempts to identify the âÂÂoriginalâ core verses of the text".
In certain textual transmissions, the RatnagotravibhÃÂgavyÃÂkhyÃÂ (RGVV) commentary has become integrated with the RGV verses through the passage of time, even though there are also distinct standalone editions of the RGV and RGVV. Takasaki provided a valuable textual analysis of the Sanskrit critical edition edited by Johnston with those versions preserved in certain editions of the Chinese and Tibetan canon. Takasaki identified a textual core of the RGV with the most ancient verses of this core being extant in the Chinese. Extensive analysis of the critical Sanskrit text edited by Johnston (1950) with the Tibetan and Chinese versions, identified that the verses actually comprise two separate groups: a core set of 27 Ã Âlokas and 405 additional or supplementary verses of explication (Skt. kÃÂrikÃÂ). 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 (賢栧, Sanskrit reconstruction: *SÃÂramati or *Sthiramati) in the earlier Chinese tradition, a claim first found in the work of the sixth century scholar Zhiyi.
The Tibetan tradition considers the verse portion to have been composed by the bodhisattva Maitreya and the prose commentary by Asanga. The attribution of both the root verses and commentary to bodhisattva Maitreya is found in some late Indian sources (post 11th century). The discovery of a Sanskrit fragment of the RatnagotravibhÃÂga in Saka script (dated to the 9th century by Kazuo Kano) which mentions Maitreya bodhisattva as the author of the 'root' (mà «la) verses also shows that Central Asian Buddhists also attributed the work to bodhisattva Maitreya. Meanwhile, the Sanskrit manuscript found in Tibet contains no attribution.
Several scholars have suggested that the Chinese and Tibetan traditions may be reconciled if perhaps SÃÂramati was also given the epithet of "Maitreya" (or if, vice versa, SÃÂramati 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 composed by Asanga or other persons" The Japanese scholar Takasaki Jikido is certain that the author of the commentary is SÃÂramati through his comparison of the RGVV with the Chinese translation of the DharmadhÃÂtvavià Âeá¹£aà ÂÃÂstra (Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun 大ä¹Âæ³ÂçÂÂç¡差åÂ¥è«Â) which is also said to have been authored by the same figure. Jonathan Silk also argues that both texts were by the same author.
Peter Harvey also finds the attribution to Maitreya / Asanga less plausible than the Chinese attribution. According to Shenpen Hookam, most modern scholars favor SÃÂramati (c. 3rd-4th century CE) as the author.
The critical edition of the RGVV in Sanskrit was first published by Johnston, et al. (1950). This critical edition of Johnston is founded on two manuscripts discovered by Rev. RÃÂhula SÃÂñká¹ÂtyÃÂyana (1893âÂÂ1963) in Tibet.
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.
According to Takasaki (1966: p. 7), the Chinese Canon retains one translation of the RGVV, which is titled Jià «jìng yìchéng bÃÂoxìng lùn (究ç«Âä¸Âä¹Â寶æ§è«Â, which can be back-translated into Sanskrit as: Uttara-ekayÃÂna-ratnagotra-à ÂÃÂstra). Its Taisho Daizokyo canon location is No. 1611, Vol.31. The work was translated by Ratnamati at Luoyang in 511 CE.
According to Zijie Li, "there are major differences" between the Chinese version of the RGVV and the Sanskrit version. Li writes that "in comparison to the surviving Sanskrit text, the Chinese version of the RatnagotravibhÃÂga downplays the significance of the expression gotra and instead reflects a strong interest in zhenru çÂÂ妠(Skt. tathatÃÂ) and foxing ä½Âæ§ (Buddha-nature) â for instance, <nowiki/>'zhenru foxing becomes the foundation or reason for transmigration in the world. In this context, reality (Skt. tathatÃÂ) acts like a conditioned dharma, an idea that deeply influenced later understanding of Buddha-nature in East Asian Buddhism."
Takasaki holds the Tibetan Tanjur to retain two versions of the RGV:
Both of these versions were translated in Srinagar (Kashmir) by Matiprajña (Sanskrit, 1059âÂÂ1109, also known as Ngok Loden Sherab) under the guidance of Kashmiri Pandits 'Ratnavajra' (Wylie: Rin-chen rdo-rje) and Sajjana, towards the close of the 11th century CE.
Shenpen Hookham affirms that there are precious few records of the RGV or RGVV in India and that their traditional recorded history commences with their 'rediscovery' by the 11th century yogin Maitripa (who was also named MaitreyanÃÂtha). According to Hookam, there is no evidence that the work was associated with the bodhisattva Maitreya before the time of Maitripa. However, Klaus-Dieter Mathes has shown that Maitripa's teachers, Jñanasrimitra (980-1040) and RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti, must have had access to the RGV, RGVV and/or their extracts, since it is quoted and paraphrased in Jñanasrimitra's SÃÂkÃÂrasiddhià ÂÃÂstra and SÃÂkÃÂrasamgraha, as well as in RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti's Sà «trasamuccayabhÃÂá¹£ya.
Tsering Wangchuk has examined the intellectual history of the RGV in Tibet from the 12th century to the early 15th century.
Eugène Obermiller (1901âÂÂ1935) pioneered the research into the Ratnagotra literature through his translation of the Tibetan RGVV under the name of the Uttara-tantra-shastra in 1931. Obermiller interpreted the text as an example of monism. The verse portion of the RGV has been translated several times into English, including by E. Obermiller (1931) and Rosemary Fuchs (2000).
The English translations by Takasaki Jikido (1966, from Sanskrit, with reference to the Chinese) and Karl Brunnhölzl (2015, from Tibetan) are the only English translations of the complete RGVV, which includes the commentary.
The text consists of about 430 Sanskrit verses with a prose commentary (vyÃÂkhyÃÂ) that includes substantial quotations from tathÃÂgatagarbha oriented sutras (amounting to up to one third of the RGVV).
The RGV structures its doctrinal content through seven main topics, which it calls the seven "vajra points" or "adamantine topics".
These seven topics are:
The basic relationship among these topics is explained in RGV I.3:<blockquote>From the Buddha [comes] the dharma and from the dharma, the noble saá¹Âgha.
Within the saá¹Âgha, the [tathÃÂgata] heart leads to the attainment of wisdom.
The attainment of that wisdom is the supreme awakening that is endowed with the attributes such as the powers that promote the welfare of all sentient beings. (RGV I.3)</blockquote>
The RatnagotravibhÃÂga is notable for its exploration of the doctrine of the buddhadhÃÂtu ("buddha nature", "buddha source" or "buddha essence", Chinese: ä½Âæ§, pinyin: fóxìng), also called buddhagarbha, jinagarbha and tathÃÂgatagarbha (Wylie: 'de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po; Chinese: å¦ÂæÂ¥è rúláizàng). According to the RGV, all sentient beings have this permanent Buddha element within even though it is covered over by defilements (which are fully absent in a buddha). The buddha-nature is the common element shared by sentient beings, bodhisattvas and buddhas and as the RGV states "all corporeal beings are said to contain a Buddha" (Sanskrit: sarve dehino buddhagarbhÃÂḥ).
The RGV verses describe buddha nature as follows:<blockquote>Always, by nature, unafflicted; like a clear jewel, the sky, or water; it follows from faith in the dharma, superior insight, concentration and compassion (30); [its] results are the perfected qualities of purity, selfhood, bliss, and permanence, with the functions that are aversion to suffering and the appetite and aspiration for the achievement of peace (35); like the ocean, being an inexhaustible store of treasured qualities, and like a lamp, being naturally conjoined with qualities that are inseparable from it (42). What is taught by those who perceive reality is the distinction between ordinary persons, noble persons and Buddhas in terms of reality (tathatÃÂ): hence is it taught that this womb/chamber for a victor exists in sentient beings (sattveá¹£u jinagarbho âÂÂyaá¹Â) (45); [depending on whether this reality is] impure, impure yet pure or perfectly pure, it refers to the realm of sentient beings, the bodhisattva or the TathÃÂgata [respectively] (47). (RGV 1.30, 35, 42, 45, 47).</blockquote>According to the RGV, this essence or basic element (dhÃÂtu) is always present in all beings and is the true essence of every living being and the source of all virtuous qualities, including Buddhahood. The RGV states:<blockquote>This [dhÃÂtu] is of unchanging character, due to its conjunction with inexhaustible qualities; it is the refuge of the world, due to it having no limit ahead of it; it is always non-dual, due to being without discrimination; it is also characterized as indestructible, as its nature is uncreated. (RGV 1.79).</blockquote>The RGV teaches that buddha nature has three main characteristics: (1) dharmakaya, (2) suchness, and (3) disposition, as well as the general characteristic (4) non-conceptuality.
Regarding the main function of buddha nature, the RGV states that it is what causes sentient beings to seek an escape from samsara, and to aspire to nirvana.
The RGV also describes buddha nature as âÂÂthe intrinsically stainless nature of the mindâ (cittapraká¹Âtivaimalya). The RGV thus equates the tathÃÂgatagarbha with the luminous mind, stating: "the luminous nature of the mind Is unchanging, just like space." It also describes it as the pure Buddha wisdom (buddhajñÃÂna) which is said to be all pervasive. This all pervasiveness is compared to space that is the same everywhere, whether it is the space within an ugly vase or a beautiful one.
Furthermore, according to the Ratnagotra, there are three reasons why it can be said that all sentient beings have buddha nature: (1) the Buddha's dharmakÃÂya permeates all sentient beings; (2) the Buddha's thusness (tathatÃÂ) is omnipresent (avyatibheda); (3) the Buddha's gotra (lineage/disposition) is in all sentient beings.
The RGV equates buddha nature with dharmakÃÂya, liberation and with the Buddha (the TathÃÂgata):<blockquote>Hence [the dhÃÂtu] is the dharmakÃÂya; it is the TathÃÂgata; it is the truth of the noble ones; it is the ultimate liberation (paramÃÂrthanivá¹Âtti). Hence, it not being separate from its qualitiesâÂÂin the manner of the sun and its raysâÂÂthere is no liberation apart from buddhahood. (RGV 1.84)</blockquote>Thus, in the RatnagotravibhÃÂga, buddha-nature is ultimately the same as the dharmakÃÂya (the ultimate buddha body, the 'body' of ultimate reality). While the tathÃÂgatagarbha is enclosed in the defilements, the dharmakÃÂya is the same phenomenon free of the defilements. This is compared to how the sun (dharmakÃÂya) is not tainted by clouds (defilements), only obscured by them. The dharmakÃÂya is held to be originally pure (praká¹Âtiparià Âuddha), unconditioned (asaá¹Âská¹Âta), unborn (ajÃÂta), unarisen (anutpanna), eternal (nitya), changeless (dhruva), and permanent (à ÂÃÂà Âvata). These elevated qualities make also elevate the Buddha to a supreme status that is worthy of extensive devotion.
An important schema in which the RGVV (as well as buddha nature sutras like the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda) present the dharmakÃÂya (the buddha nature freed of defilement) is through its four perfected qualities (guá¹ÂapÃÂramitÃÂ) of eternity (nitya), bliss (sukha), Self (ÃÂtman) and purity (à Âuddha). These qualities are described as results (phala) of the tathÃÂgatagarbha. The four qualities are also explained as being reversals of the four misperceptions (viparyÃÂsÃÂ), that is, perceiving samsaric phenomena as being pure, self, blissful and unchanging. The RGVV explains that when applied to samsaric phenomena, these are indeed misperceptions, but when applied to the dharmakaya, they are actually correct perceptions.
The four perfect qualities are said to be revealed through four âÂÂcauses of purificationâ (à Âuddhihetu). These are the ways in which the tathÃÂgatagarbha can be âÂÂcleansedâ to reveal the dharmakÃÂya, and they are: (1) faith in the dharma (dharmÃÂdhimukti), (2) superior insight (adhiprajñÃÂ), (3) concentration (samÃÂdhi), and (4) compassion (karuá¹ÂÃÂ).
Furthermore, the RGVV also lists various obstructions to the path, such as hostility to the dharma, false views of the self (ÃÂtmadarà Âana) and indifference to sentient beings. The RGVV makes it clear that the dharmakÃÂya as âÂÂsupreme selfâ (paramÃÂtman), is not the self of the non-buddhists or a self amid the five aggregates, but rather is something that is realized after understanding the absence of self in all phenomena (dharmanairÃÂtmya). The RGVV echoes the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàsutras by stating that the right view is to let go of all views and it even states that all affirmative statements about the BuddhaâÂÂs self ultimately refer to the absence of self. However, as Jones notes, the earlier Chinese version of the RGVV instead states that ÃÂtman as "absence of self" means absence of "erroneous notions of selfhood to which non-Buddhists remain attached" and it also states that ÃÂtman can refer "to the achievement of a âÂÂpowerfulâ or âÂÂsovereignâ self (zizaiwo èªå¨æÂÂ)."
According to RGV (RGV 1.24, 1.25) there are four points about buddha nature which are inconceivable:
The RGVV is clear that only high level bodhisattvas and Buddhas can realize the true meaning of these.
The RGV gives three widely quoted reasons why "all sentient beings always possess the buddha nature":<blockquote>Because the Perfect Buddha body (buddhakaya) radiates, because the Tathata (Suchness) is inseparable,
Because the gotra (disposition, lineage) is present, all beings have the essence (garbha) of Buddha.
Because Buddha wisdom (buddhajñana) is present in the mass of beings, because the stainless nature (svabhava) is non-dual,
Because the Buddha gotra is named after its fruit, it is taught that all beings have the Buddha Essence (garbha).</blockquote>
The RatnagotravibhÃÂga also seeks to explain the relationship between the emptiness teachings and the buddha nature teaching. According to the RGV, buddha nature is taught because there are "five defects" which can only be remedied by this teaching.
The five defects are:
C.V. Jones also argues that these five defects show that the Buddha-nature teaching is seen as a corrective by the RGV to the view that only teaches emptiness or to certain miscomprehensions about emptiness.
The RGV also uses the term "empty" to refer to how the buddha nature is empty of defilements, however it also claims that buddha nature is not empty of its innate buddha qualities:<blockquote>There is nothing to be removed from it and nothing to be added. The real should be seen as real, and seeing the real, you become liberated. The [buddha] element is empty of adventitious [stains], which have the defining characteristic of being separable; but it is not empty of unsurpassable qualities, which have the defining characteristic of not being separable. (RGV I.157-58)</blockquote>To support this, the commentary quotes the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda which states that "Buddha nature is empty of the sheath of all defilements, which are separable and recognized as something disconnected. It is not empty of inconceivable buddha qualities, which are inseparable..."
The secondary title for this work, Uttaratantraà ÂÃÂstra, highlights the text's claim that buddha-nature teachings represent the final, definitive and highest (Sanskrit: uttara) teachings (tantra) of the Buddha, in contrast to the earlier teachings on emphasizing emptiness, such as those contained in the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàsutras.
The Uttaratantra claims that its teachings include and yet go beyond the Prajñaparamita doctrine of emptiness. It emphasizes a more positive metaphysical doctrine than the apophatic emptiness teachings. The Uttaratantra sees this cataphatic teaching as complementary to the Prajñaparamita emptiness teaching. Since the Uttaratantra claims its teachings as supreme, it holds that without this teaching, the emptiness of PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàremains an incomplete teaching that must be completed by the higher and final (uttara) teaching of buddha nature.
Various commentaries were written on the RGVV, some by Indian Sanskrit authors. The three Indian works on the RGVV which have been preserved are:
Late Indian Buddhist scholars like JñÃÂnaà Ârëmitra (fl. 975-1025 C.E.), RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti (c. 10th-century CE) and JayÃÂnanda (late 11th â early 12th century) also cited and commented on passages of the RGV.
JñÃÂnaà Ârëmitra interprets the RGV teaching of buddha nature in line with his sÃÂkÃÂravada yogacara view which holds that the Buddha-body is represented by images (ÃÂkÃÂras) that exist ultimately. According to his interpretation of the three bodies (trikaya) doctrine, the sambhogakaya and its accompanied true image (ÃÂkÃÂra) is the ultimate reality that truly exists, and the dharmakaya is a conventional quality of the sambhogakaya. For JñÃÂnaà Ârëmitra, the buddha nature is the emptiness of this ultimate reality, i.e. the sambhogakaya, and this emptiness is synonymous with dharmakÃÂya and dharmadhÃÂtu.
RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti disagrees with this view, since for him it is the dharmakÃÂya (which lacks any images or forms) that is the ultimate reality, and this gives rise to the saá¹ÂbhogakÃÂya as its outflow (niá¹£yanda). RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti does accept the existence of a unchangeable pure nature which resides in some sentient beings, as is taught in the RGV. However he also equates buddha-nature with the Yogacara theory of bodhisattvagotra, and thus, for him, only those beings that have the disposition to become a bodhisattva have buddha-nature. This is said to be rare and thus he does not accept that all beings have buddha nature. According to Brunnhölzl, RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti also equates buddha nature with the perfected nature and argues that it is empty of both the imaginary and the dependent natures. Brunnhölzl sees this as an Indian precedent for the Shentong view.
Maitripa, a student of both JñÃÂnaà Ârëmitra and RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti, is closely associated with the RGV by the Tibetan tradition, though he wrote no work on it and only quotes it twice in his corpus.
Meanwhile, the Kashmiri pandit JayÃÂnanda sees buddha-nature as a way of attracting inferior people and as a provisional teaching (as stated in the Lankavatara sutra).
An early Tibetan commentary is A Commentary on the Meaning of the Words of the âÂÂUttaratantraâÂÂ. This text claims to preserve the teachings of Marpa Lotsawa on the RGV and may have been compiled by a student of Marpa Dopa Chökyi Wangchuk (1042 - 1136, a student of Marpa Lotsawa and Rongzom). The text contains Mahamudra like meditation instructions as well as more scholarly material that draws on Yogacara thought. It also often makes use of Dzogchen terminology like kadag (original purity) and rigpa.
Another important commentary is Dashi Oser's (15th-16th century) Heart of the luminous sun, which is based on the Third Karmapa's (1284âÂÂ1339) topical outline of the RGV. Other notable Tibetan exegetes of the RatnagotravibhÃÂga have been Ngok Loden Sherab, Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, Gö Lotsawa Zhönnu-pel, Gyaltsab Je, Mikyö Dorje (8th Karmapa), Jamgon Kongtrul and Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso.
Various interpretations and understandings of the RGVV have developed in Tibetan Buddhism, such as the view that buddha-nature is a non-implicative negation (influenced by Madhyamaka), the Shentong (empty of other) view and the Dzogchen view.
Various Tibetan Buddhist scholars (especially those of the Gelug and Sakya schools) follow the RGVV tradition of Ngok Loden Sherab which "identifies the tathagatagarba as the factor of the natural purity of all phenomena, which pervades all knowable objects and is a space-like nonimplicative negation." This interpretation generally understands buddha-nature to be just a term for emptiness as it is explained in the Madhyamaka treatises of Nagarjuna and Candrakirti. These authors see emptiness and buddha nature as the lack of an independent nature in all phenomena.
According to the Shentong view, buddha nature refers to "the naturally pure wisdom, luminous by nature, that pervades [everyone] from buddhas to sentient beings." This non-dual Buddha wisdom is empty of defilements and samsara (what is other than wisdom), but it is not empty of its own nature. As such, it is an "implicative negation", that is, a negation which implies that there is something (that is, wisdom) that remains after analyzing what buddha nature is not. Shentong is associated with figures like Dolpopa, Mikyo Dorje, 8th Karmapa and Jamgon Kongtrul.
In the Dzogchen system of the Nyingma school, the three jewels of Sangha, Dharma and Buddha are identified as the three vajras (body, speech and mind). According to Namkhai Norbu, the three vajras along with the Buddha qualities and Buddha activities, constitute the 'continuum' or Mindstream of either a sentient being (with adventitious obscurations) or a buddha (without adventitious obscurations). In Dzogchen, buddha nature, the 'everlasting' continuum, is often explained as the unity of "primordial purity" (Wylie: ka dag) and "natural perfection" or "spontaneous presence" (lhun grub). An important Dzogchen doctrinal view on buddha-nature (also called sugatagarbha) is how it explains it in terms of the 'basis' (gzhi) and its three aspects: 'essence' (i.e. purity, emptiness), 'nature' (rang bzhin, i.e. natural perfection) and 'compassionate energy' (thugs rje).
The Nyingma commentary of Ju Mipham from a Dzogchen view has been rendered into English by Duckworth (2008). Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche (2008/2009) commenced the Rigpa Shedra teachings on Mipham's view of Buddha Nature which has been followed by Khenpo Dawa Paljor (2009) of Rigpa Shedra's oral word by word commentary of Ju Mipham's exegesis of RGV in Tibetan with English translation.
The Chinese RGVV remains lesser known in East Asian Buddhism. No commentaries on it were written in Chinese and thus scholars have assumed it was less influential than other Buddha nature works. However, the RGVV was an important work for the southern Dilun school of Ratnamati and was also highly esteemed by Fazang (æ³Âè 643-712), a key patriarch of the Huayan school. According to Zijie Li, Fazang's theories of zhenru çÂÂ妠(Skt. tathatÃÂ), Huayan xingqi (è¯å´ æ§起 Arising of nature on Huayan) and zhongxing 種姠(Skt. gotra) thoroughly relies on the RGVV.
The RGVV also impacted other East Asian scholars, traditions and texts, including ParamÃÂrtha çÂÂ諦 (499-569), the Mahayana Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun 大ä¹Âèµ·ä¿¡è«Â), the Sanjie school (ä¸ÂéÂÂæÂÂ), Wonhyo å Âæ (617-686) and the Japanese authors Juryà  (寿éÂÂ) and Chikei (æºæ¬) of Nara Japan (710-784).