@article{oai:icabs.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000035,
 author = {津田眞一},
 issue = {15},
 journal = {国際仏教学大学院大学研究紀要, Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies},
 month = {May},
 note = {110008690329, It was when I was stuck on a passage of the Ratnagotravibhāgamahāyānottaratantraśāstra, abbrev. RGV) quoted from the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, abbrev. AAN), which should have formed the last wall for my present problem to reconstruct the original image of the Tathāgatagarbha thought that the great earthquake and tsunami hit the Tohoku district of Japan on the 11th of March this year. The quotation from AAN found in RGV was as follows: 
ayam eva śāriputra dharmakāyo ’paryantakleśakośakoṭigūḍhaḥ / saṁsārasrotasā uhyamāno ’navarāgrasaṁsāragaticyutyutpattiṣu saṁcaran sattvadhātur ity ucyate / sa eva śāriputra dharmakāyaḥ ...... daśapāramitāntargataiś caturaśītyā dharmaskandhasahasrair bodhāya caryāṁ caran bodhisattva ity ucyate / sa eva punaḥ śāriputra dharmakāyaḥ sarvakleśakośaparimuktaḥ ....... sarvadharmaiśvaryabalatām adhigatas tathāgato ’rhan samyaksaṁbuddha ity ucyate / (Johnston., pp. 40-41)
“O Śāriputra, this very dharmakāya is called the world of living beings when it is transmigrating in the deaths and births being limited in the (personal) side (koṭi) of the boundless limitations of defilements. When the same dharmakāya is practicing the practices of ten pāramitās aiming the enlightenment, it is called a bodhisattva. And furthermore, when the same dharmakāya having been liberated from the limitations (koṭi) of defilements and become cleaned perfectly, it is called a tathāgata, an arhat and a samyaksaṁbuddha”. 
The writing was first planned to provide materials for the third chapter of my next publication: Schelling beside Buddhism, the chapter treating the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism in which I include the system of the tathāgatagarbha thought, as the first chapter treats the original Buddhism of Śākyamuni himself and the second, the Mahāyāna Buddhism. It had, however, become urgent for me as I had come to a sudden idea to contribute it to the volume XV of the Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, the volume for the felicitation of Professor Hubert Durt on the occasion of his retirement which was to be published in March of this year. As my understanding goes, the process of the development of Buddhist thoughts which goes from the original Buddhism to the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism via the Mahāyāna Buddhism is none other than the process of deepening of the meaning of śūnyatā from the śūnyatā of level I for śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas of the original Buddhism to the śūnyatā of level III for tathāgatas of the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism via the śūnyatā of level II for bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna Buddhism. Therefore, to reconstruct the system of the tathāgatagarbha thought should be very defining of the notion of the śūnyatā of level III as is clearly expressed in the following quotation from the Śrīmālā-sūtra (abbrev. ŚM) found in RGV:
tathāgatagarbhajñānam eva tathāgatānāṁ śūnyatājñānam (Johnston., p. 76)
“The understanding of (the meaning of ) tathāgatagarbha is not other than the understanding (the matter of) śūnyatā (which is possible only) for tathāgatas”.
And here comes the first problem to define the essence of the deeds for the people of the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism. The notion of śūnyatā should mean in all of those three levels the fact that the deed (Tat or Handlung in Schelling’s terminology) of a person existing in the terrestrial, human world (the world Ⓑ) exerts influence on the manner of existence of the corresponding celestial world of the Tathāgata or the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata (the world Ⓐ, Gott absolut betrachtet in Schelling’s word). What the essence of the human deed (das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit in Schelling’s expression) should be then? It cannot be the brahmacaryā to be practiced by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas of the original Buddhism of Sākyamuni any more, nor can it be the deeds of bodhisattvas in the case of the Mahāyāna Buddhism, but it should be the deeds the essence of which is open broadly to everyone of the common people (sattvadhātu), as is suggested in the above quotation from AAN, who are, seeing from the standpoint of the eka-yāna or the buddha-yāna of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra (abbrev. SP) which precedes the system of the tathāgatagarbha thought in the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism, already tathāgatas. Here exists another problem to be solved: The world Ⓐ of the Tathāgata, the existence of which is to be influenced also in this post-Mahāyānic Buddhism by the deed of a man who is to exist in the world Ⓑ, cannot anymore be merely ideal as was the world of preceding Mahāyāna Buddhism, but it should be substantial in some manner or other. How can the existence of the substantial world be affected by the deeds of human existences then? How and where can we find the substantiality of the world in the scriptures of the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism? I was recognizing the end of the tendency of the substantialization of the world Ⓐ, which had started in the stage of ŚM, in the above quotation from AAN, which insists excessively the oneness of the world of living beings (sattvadhātu, the world Ⓑ) and the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata (the world Ⓐ), but I was not able to find logics connecting the oneness of the world with its substantiality. And it was when I was at a standstill at these difficulties that the earthquake occurred. The great disasters of the earthquake, the tsunami and especially the collapses of the nuclear power plants of Fukushima shock me from these scholastic problems and made me drift in the flood of rambling thinking concerning more actual problems such as the meaning of my own existence in the world or the meaning of the existence of the world itself which might, as my fancy goes, necessitate these disasters for its own existence and continuation. However, when I drifted ashore at my old favorite book: Nietzsche’s Also sprach Zarathustra, I found myself standing inside of the above quotation from AAN getting over the problems mentioned above. It was more than twenty-five years ago that I came across the phrase: “O Wille, Wende aller Not, du  m e i n e  Notwendigkeit!” in the Also sprach Zarathustra (Reclam., S. 224, 225). I took it for the meaning “destiny is the turn of difficulty”, and adopted it the motto of my life; I was not hesitant at all applying this notion of turning the difficulty of his destiny when I came to the necessity to define the essence of the deed of a man in the post-Mahāyānic Buddhism this time. I was slightly hasty at that time not caring the fact that the word “Notwendigkeit” was to be taken for the meaning of “necessity” first, but I know I was not wrong as I notice this time anew the expression: “ich gab dir selber den Namen ,,Wende der Not“ und ,,Schicksal“” (“I gave you yourself the name ,,the turn of difficulty“ or ,,destiny“”, Reclam., S. 234, Z. 3). More impressive for me was the exact similitude of the notions of the word I found this time in both Nietzsche and AAN: In Nietzsche’s idea of the “eternal returns” (die ewige Wiederkehr) or the “will to might” (die Wille zu Macht), the world is one and substantial neither increasing nor decreasing just as is shown in AAN with its title: Anūnatvāpūrṇatva-nirdeśa, “the scripture proclaiming the fact that the substantial dharmakāya of the Tathāgata neither decreases nor increases”. What is the śūnyatā of the existence of the substantial world then? I find the “dialectic” of the śūnyatā of level III, for example, in Nietzsche. There, the substantial world eternally returning from the first returns anew at the moment of the deed of a man who exerts his might to turn the difficulty of his destiny as is told in the “Zarathustra” with the fantasy about a young herdsman who bit off the head of the black, thick snake having come into his throat and made him suffocated responding instantly to the cry of Zarathustra: “bite! bite! bite off the head! bite!” (Reclam., S. 162). I feel that I now stand on the starting point in my attempt to describe the philosophical figure of the tathāgatagarbha thought.},
 pages = {214--135},
 title = {如来蔵思想の本質とそのシェリング的展開　―（仮）『シェリングの仏教学』の草稿の一つとして―},
 year = {2011},
 yomi = {ツダ, シンイチ}
}