《Pruning the Bodhi Tree》导论明确概述袴谷、松本把佛性、如来藏与本觉判为非佛教的立场；卷内直接收松本〈The Doctrine of Tathāgata-garbha Is Not Buddhist〉及Sallie King、Peter Gregory等多方回应，足证其国际回响。脚注只把它作为现代“梵化”指控而不采其判教，表述准确。
按
封面核书名、副题与两位编者；出版年月及 ISBN 另据 University of Hawai‘i Press 官方目录逐项核过。本卡只核书目著录。
composition of the TGS in the second half of the third century is thus a fairly plausible assumption；同页 not the work of sophisticated philosophers…an air of pragmatism。
判确，惟两层限度已补进脚注。脚注所记出版社與 2015 年皆确；（二）两项论旨逐项合：Part I 标题即「Is the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra “Our Earliest” Tathāgatagarbha Text?」，齐默曼〈序〉概括其说作「against the understanding of previous scholarship that the eponymous Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra was the earliest text…he suggests that in fact, we are best to regard the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra as most likely to be earlier」。
核查全文
幻身一层，其〈导论〉自陈「I argue that tathāgatagarbha originates, in the context of MPNMS, as another such positive corollary to negatively framed docetic Buddhology. Buddhas are not engendered by painful processes, from impure human mothers, touched by filthy physical organs; Buddhas properly have their genesis in a soteriologically loaded “womb” (garbha) found within all sentient beings」，与脚注「佛不当有血肉母胎，如来藏为替换的清净之胎」正合（docetic 一系词全书一百四十二见，docetism 九十二见）。（三）「不出于对梵我的对冲」一句须标明是本书的推论：通检该书，ātman 十四见、Brahmanical 一见、Upaniṣad 三见、Vedānta 二见，Radich 并未立说驳斥梵我对冲一路，他只是另给一套起源解释。已在脚注标明。（四）并须录出一层反向的材料：该书书内第 28 页一条长注记 Stephen Hodge 之说并称其「provocative and promising」——《大般涅槃经》最早一层所说很可能是 ātman 而非 tathāgatagarbha，后者是在成书史中经「imperfect process of annotation, substitution and over-writing」把前者覆写掉的；Radich 自谓其成立与否「must await Hodge’s future publications」。又其第三章判该经前半（MPNMS-dhk）已倡「四倒」常乐我净并谓「the Tathāgata is ātman」，tathāgatagarbha 反在后半（MPNMS-tg）才出。这两笔于本章题目（梵化的引力）关系甚切，而脚注原本只取了合于正文的一半，已一并补入。（五）一处检索坑：齐默曼序作 flesh-and-blood（带连字符），按「flesh and blood」检零命中。
[0605] The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine - Michael Radich - 年份不详
书页
書 28（版心作 28 The Mahāpa…）
核查结论
判确，惟两层限度已补进脚注。脚注所记出版社與 2015 年皆确；（二）两项论旨逐项合：Part I 标题即「Is the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra “Our Earliest” Tathāgatagarbha Text?」，齐默曼〈序〉概括其说作「against the understanding of previous scholarship that the eponymous Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra was the earliest text…he suggests that in fact, we are best to regard the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra as most likely to be earlier」。
核查全文
幻身一层，其〈导论〉自陈「I argue that tathāgatagarbha originates, in the context of MPNMS, as another such positive corollary to negatively framed docetic Buddhology. Buddhas are not engendered by painful processes, from impure human mothers, touched by filthy physical organs; Buddhas properly have their genesis in a soteriologically loaded “womb” (garbha) found within all sentient beings」，与脚注「佛不当有血肉母胎，如来藏为替换的清净之胎」正合（docetic 一系词全书一百四十二见，docetism 九十二见）。（三）「不出于对梵我的对冲」一句须标明是本书的推论：通检该书，ātman 十四见、Brahmanical 一见、Upaniṣad 三见、Vedānta 二见，Radich 并未立说驳斥梵我对冲一路，他只是另给一套起源解释。已在脚注标明。（四）并须录出一层反向的材料：该书书内第 28 页一条长注记 Stephen Hodge 之说并称其「provocative and promising」——《大般涅槃经》最早一层所说很可能是 ātman 而非 tathāgatagarbha，后者是在成书史中经「imperfect process of annotation, substitution and over-writing」把前者覆写掉的；Radich 自谓其成立与否「must await Hodge’s future publications」。又其第三章判该经前半（MPNMS-dhk）已倡「四倒」常乐我净并谓「the Tathāgata is ātman」，tathāgatagarbha 反在后半（MPNMS-tg）才出。这两笔于本章题目（梵化的引力）关系甚切，而脚注原本只取了合于正文的一半，已一并补入。（五）一处检索坑：齐默曼序作 flesh-and-blood（带连字符），按「flesh and blood」检零命中。
按
注中第二层限度（Radich 于 書 28 长注记 Stephen Hodge 一项假说并称其 provocative and promising）之据。第一层限度（「不出于对梵我的对冲」系本书之推论，Radich 本人未立说驳斥梵我对冲一路）系据该书目次與 Part I 标题所见其正面论证之范围而定，非其明文，据栏已言明。
①与下田之关系：「Following Shimoda Masahiro, I interpret *buddhadhātu doctrine as a similar positive corollary to docetic Buddhology – in this case, as a response to and modification of the relic cult」；②地域：「the group espousing these texts, and the life of the texts themselves, probably began in the South, in Andhra country, under the Śātavāhanas」，同页注并言西方学界久已把案达罗与大众部、如来藏connect，与脚注所引印顺之说相合。
