in 1966.2Of all the important works on Tathagatagarbhathought published by prominent Japanese Buddhologists-amongthem Hanayama Shinsh6, Kumoi ShGzen, Nakamura Zenryii, andOgawa Ichij6--Takasaki1s work, at least in
opinion, stands outas the most comprehensive. Vost of the others are devoted largelyto textual studies. European and American Buddhologists com-manding respect on the subject are E. Obermillerls
Sublime Scienceof the Great Vehicle to Salvation
(1930), David S. Ruegg's
LaThQorie du Tatnagatagarbha et du Gotra
(1969), Alex Wayman1s
The Lion's Roar of Queen skimila
(1974). This is not the place toreview all of this research in detail. Rather, let me briefly indi-cate the problenatics involved in an investigation of the historicaldevelopment of Buddhist thought so that we might be able tounderstand the significance of TatGgatagarbha thought withinthat context.Although Buddhism originated in India, it underwent a domesti-cation in China and Japan, accommodating concrete historicalneeds and circumstances in those countries. According to
remarkof Edward Conze, the late British Buddhologist, the limitation ofnot knowing Chinese and Japanese "is not as serious as it sounds.Most creative work was done in India.
(Conze 1962). Whilethere
no doubt those who would agree with him, those of uswho have access to Chinese and Japanese sources know better.New dimensions of thought and certainly "creative work1' emergedfrom the minds of the Chinese and Japanese in the course ofBuddhisnls domestication. There is simply no way to understandthe transinission of Buddhism through this historical processwithout taking seriously a comparative philological study ofBuddhist texts extant in Sanskrit and PEli and in the Chinese andTibetan translations, as well
contemporary Japanese Buddholo-gical works based upon such philological studies. But caution isrequired here, for, even though
comparative philological study ofthis kind enables us to expose errors in the translating of techni-cal terms and the interpreting of ideas in their transposition fromthe original Indian sources, it would be imprudent to challenge thevalidity of
given religious tradition simply on the basis oftextual orthodoxy.
tradition, after all, represents a living reli-