Chapter 12

EXPLORATIONS OF BUDDHIST DOCTRINE

The Buddhist renaissance of the late tenth to early twelfth centuries (chapters 6–7) was characterized above all by the renewed attention given to the transmission of Indian Buddhism in Tibet, including both textual translation and practical techniques of ritual and yoga. By the mid-twelfth century, however, Buddhism in India was declining rapidly, and the Tibetans found themselves heir to a vast body of written and oral tradition that was fast disappearing in the land of its birth. Under these changing circumstances, the chief concerns of the Tibetan religious elite began to turn from the reception of Indian Buddhism to its interpretation. This shift was accentuated by the interest of particular Tibetan Buddhist lineages in asserting their own authority and preeminence, giving rise to a competitive spirit in which the merits of differing traditions of thought and practice came to be topics of intensive debate. A growing emphasis within the programs of the monastic colleges on commentary and logical disputation supported this reorientation.

“Scholasticism” is the term generally used to describe Western philosophy and intellectual practice during the Middle Ages. It refers to the fact that, during that time, formal knowledge was transmitted and developed chiefly on the basis of commentarial notes (scholia in Latin) on a small number of texts transmitted from classical antiquity. It also suggests that the study of classical logic and rhetoric constituted the major methodological disciplines. “Scholasticism” in the context of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism is used by analogy. As in the medieval West, Indian traditions generally, and Buddhism in particular, favored the elaboration of learning through commentary on a few major works by past masters. In later Indian Buddhism, for example, the writings of figures such as Nāgārjuna (second century), Vasubandhu (fifth century), and Dharmakīrti (seventh century) were especially privileged, and in this respect the Tibetans followed Indian learned traditions. Moreover, logic—above all the logic taught by Dharmakīrti—and rhetoric, especially as developed in the context of Sanskrit poetics, provided the methodological framework for philosophical education and composition.

Understood in this way, Buddhist scholasticism had begun to penetrate Tibetan learning as early as the eighth century, when the emperor Tri Songdetsen clearly became interested in this area of study (see chapter 4). With the decline of Central Tibetan monasticism following the fall of the Tibetan empire in the mid-ninth century, however, scholastic education seems to have all but disappeared. Interest began to renew only with the resumption of intensive translation activity, beginning with the career of Rinchen Zangpo during the early eleventh century (see chapter 6). The development that ensured a lasting place for scholasticism in Tibetan education and intellectual life was the establishment of the philosophical college at Sangpu monastery in Central Tibet. The monastery had been founded in 1071 (or 1073) by Ngok Lekpé Sherap, one of the prominent disciples of the renowned Indian master Atiśa. As was often the custom, the abbacy passed down to his nephew, Ngok Loden Sherap (1059–1109), a major translator in his own right, who was particularly interested in Indian Buddhist philosophy and logic. The college that was created under his leadership and flourished under his successors remained for many centuries one of Tibet’s premier Buddhist educational institutions, providing the model curriculum for monastic schooling down to the present day.

The course of study at Sangpu reposed upon the mastery of debate, practiced on the basis of the logic of Dharmakīrti. Other compulsory topics of study included Buddhist doctrine as taught in the Abhidharma (early Buddhist metaphysics) and in the “Perfection of Wisdom”; in the monastic code, or Vinaya; and in the dialectical philosophy of Nāgārjuna, often called the “Middle Way” (in Sanskrit, Madhyamaka). The latter, seeking the ultimate nature of things through insight into the Buddha’s teaching of conditioned existence and emptiness, was regarded as the highest philosophical pursuit, but, no doubt for this very reason, was particularly contested.

The selections given here, illustrating the development of Tibetan Buddhist thought from the eleventh through fifteenth centuries, begin with an overview of the history of the Madhyamaka system in India and Tibet, composed by a controversial fifteenth-century Sakyapa master. This is followed with extracts by or pertaining to some of the major philosophical figures of the period, illustrating their contributions and views on a number of topics, including the study of logic and rhetoric, Madhyamaka thought, and Buddhist education. MTK

THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIBETAN SCHOLASTICISM

SHAKYA CHOKDEN’S HISTORY OF MADHYAMAKA THOUGHT IN TIBET

Serdok Paṇchen Shakya Chokden (1428–1507) stands out as one of the most remarkable thinkers of Tibet. The enormous body of his collected works is notable for the diversity and originality of the writings it contains, and for their exceptional rigor. One of the few Tibetan intellectuals affiliated with both the Sakyapa and Kagyüpa orders, which were often doctrinal and political rivals (see chapters 7 and 11), he was also among the sharpest critics of Jé Tsongkhapa (chapter 16), the founder of the Gelukpa order that would come to dominate Tibet under the Dalai Lamas. For this reason Shakya Chokden’s works were eventually banned by the Central Tibetan government. They are known to us today primarily thanks to a beautifully produced eighteenth-century manuscript from Bhutan, where the Central Tibetan ban did not extend and the religious leadership was congenial to the blend of Sakyapa and Kagyüpa perspectives that lent Shakya Chokden’s texts much of their unique flavor.

Among the distinctive aspects of Shakya Chokden’s oeuvre are his several contributions to the history of Buddhist thought. Historical writing in Tibet (chapter 11) was interested above all in important political or religious events, and the lives of the major actors. Doctrinal or intellectual history was generally ignored, no doubt in part because the outlook fostered in the monastic colleges was one of perennialism: the truths revealed in the Buddha’s teaching were eternal, and thus exempt from the process of historical change. Knowledgeable scholars were, of course, aware that commentarial and interpretive traditions did have a history of sorts, but this awareness tended to be expressed in their own commentarial notes, not in dedicated doctrinal histories. In Shakya Chokden’s writings, however, we find sustained historical essays on Indian and Tibetan traditions of logic and epistemology, and of the Madhyamaka philosophy inspired by Nāgārjuna. The selections given here are drawn from his work on the latter, and may serve as an introductory guide to the philosophical writings included in the remainder of this chapter.

Shakya Chokden’s discussion turns on the distinction made by Tibetan thinkers between two types of argument, termed in the present translation “autonomous reason” and “consequence.” The first refers to the method of using positive proof to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of a given proposition. The second, by contrast, only seeks to undermine the propositions advanced by a (real or presumed) opponent by drawing out their untenable consequences, and so is similar to reductio ad absurdum, or “indirect proof,” in Western systems of logic. This distinction was often considered by Tibetans to be the basis for designating two distinct schools of Madhyamaka philosophy, Svātantrika (Autonomous Reasoning) and Prāsaṅgika (Consequentialist). MTK

HOW THE TRADITION PIONEERED BY NĀGĀRJUNA AND HIS FOLLOWERS APPEARED IN THE LAND OF NOBLES (INDIA)

As Nāgārjuna said in the Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning: “With the origin of all faults, nonexistence, having been abandoned, listen to that reasoning by which existence is also abandoned.…” It is explained that “the Protector Nāgārjuna three times roared with a lion’s roar on the earth.” It is well known that “first Nāgārjuna composed the treatises of the Collection of Discourses which primarily explain the side of the extensive deeds; next he composed the treatises of the Collection of Reasoning which primarily explain the dharma of the profound view as the emptiness related to severing superimpositions by listening and thinking; and finally he composed the Bodhicitta Commentary, Praise to the Mind Vajra, etc., which primarily explain emptiness which is experienced through meditation.” Āryadeva, holding the traditions of all of these with equal emphasis, became his main holy son. He composed many treatises such as Four Hundred Stanzas and so forth.

It is known that the holder of his tradition, the Fearless Dharmapāla, composed treatises explaining the intents of the above-mentioned father and son as “mere knowing.”1 He did this in accordance with the way of interpreting the intent of the Second Wheel of Dharma by the means of the Third Wheel of Dharma, as it appears in the Sūtras of the Third Wheel of Dharma themselves.² It is known that the Proponents of Entitylessness responded to this interpretation with sarcasm, explaining: “If, in spite of having distinguished the two truths, great charioteers [the major philosophers] were deluded, there is no need even to mention others,” etc.

The meaning of these words is as follows: “False truth3 has to be explained in accordance with worldly conventions. That is the Madhyamaka tradition. But you explained it as mere knowing. That which is temporarily explained as ultimate truth finally also has to be explained as false truth, since it does not withstand analysis by reasoning. But you always explain ultimate truth as mere knowing. This is a mistake.” Which of these two opinions accords with the way of positing the definitive meaning in Vajrayāna [Tantric Buddhism] will be analyzed below.

The disciples of Nāgārjuna who came next are known as Buddhapālita and Bhāviveka. They agree in classifying the Collection of Reasoning explanatory style as exclusively that of the tradition of the Proponents of Entitylessness. In that context, they agree in explaining that “all objects of knowledge are empty of their own entity.”

There are two types of entity. A pillar (for example) being empty of pillar means a pillar being empty of false entity. Emptiness understood as that pillar being empty of itself is temporarily posited as the ultimate nature of a pillar. But if that emptiness in its turn is analyzed by reasoning, it will also be found to be empty of itself. Thus a pillar is empty of an ultimate entity as well. In this way, since both entities are not seen in a pillar, it also does not exist. But then it is not accepted as nonexistent either, because “existence”—the basis of dependence of “nonexistence”—is not accepted. Interpretation applying such a method to all objects of knowledge is the common tradition of Proponents of Entitylessness. As their source they use the following passages: “If nonempty were a little existent, empty would also become a little existent,” and “One phenomenon is the entity of all phenomena.” Those teachers, who composed the Madhyamaka commentaries, arrive at the same identification of the meaning of emptiness, the object to be determined. But their way of determining emptiness is different. The difference is as follows.

AUTONOMOUS REASONING (SVĀTANTRIKA) MADHYAMAKA

First, when the master Buddhapālita was commenting on the meaning of [Nāgārjuna’s words] “Neither from self nor from other …,” he wrote: “It is said that phenomena which exist in their nature also don’t need production; if something exists yet gets produced, it will be never produced,” etc. The master Bhāviveka wrote the following refutation of this line of reasoning: “It is not reasonable because (a) the reason and example are not stated, (b) the fault of what others have said is not eliminated, and (c) since these are the words of the consequence, by reversing the given meaning, the reversed meaning of a probandum and its predicate becomes clear [i.e., things are not produced from self], and thus phenomena will turn out to be produced from other and contradiction with your tenets will arise.”

The meaning of this is as follows: “Is the reasoning, with which Buddhapālita was refuting the Sāṃkhyas,4 used as autonomous reason or consequence? If it is the first, then there is the fault of proof and example being the same. If it is the second, it is also faulty: Consequence which does not imply autonomous reason cannot produce inferential understanding. If it implies that reason, then production [i.e., production from other] must be accepted as the reversed meaning of the consequence. Thus it will become production in the frame of ultimate reasoning. Then it will contradict Madhyamaka tenets.”

Everybody who holds the explanatory lineage of this master in that way is known as [adhering to] Autonomous Reasoning [Svātantrika] Mādhyamika. That group has two further subdivisions: one which comes from Śrīgupta, Jñānagarbha, etc., and one which comes from the bodhisattva Śāntarakṣita and his spiritual son [Kamalaśīla]. They are called Sautrāntika Mādhyamika and Yogācāra Mādhyamika respectively in the Notes on the View composed by the Great Translator Yeshé-dé [ninth century].

The main treatises composed by these teachers are: the root text and the autocommentary of Engaging in Two Truths by Jñānagarbha, the root text and the autocommentary of Madhyamaka Ornament by the bodhisattva Śāntarakṣita, and the treatise of Madhyamaka Vision by his disciple Kamalaśīla. These texts are known as the Three Madhyamaka Treatises of Eastern Svātantrikas. They were translated and their meaning was determined at the earlier time of the Dharma king Tri Songdetsen. The Great Translator Ngok composed many commentaries of abbreviated meaning and word meaning on those treatises, and the explanatory lineage of those commentaries survived unbroken up to the present time. It has yet to be determined whether the Great Translator studied these treatises in India or with his uncle [Ngok Lekpé Sherap].

One of the followers of Śāntarakṣita is the master Haribhadra. He interpreted the meaning of the Mother [Prajñāpāramitā, the Perfection of Wisdom] according to the Yogācāra approach. Thus, everybody in the Land of Snows agrees that in his method of refutation of grasping at signs he used the reasoning of the Proponents of Entitylessness, while he explained the object of meditative experience in terms of the Yogācāra tradition.

Similarly, the Great Translator commented that Śāntarakṣita and his spiritual son had taught that the intent of the author of the Commentary on Valid Cognition [i.e., Dharmakīrti] was to explain the way of severing superimpositions in terms of the self-emptiness reasoning (such as the reason of separation from one and many, etc.) and the object of meditative experience in terms of the mode of other-emptiness. The Great Translator himself also asserted the intent of the Commentary on Valid Cognition in the same way.

The Lord of Reasoning Chapa (Chökyi Senggé, 1109–69) taught that the Sautrāntika and Cittamātra [“Mind Only”] traditions temporarily presented in the Seven Pramāṇa texts [of Dharmakīrti] are not suitable to express the actual intent of the author of the Commentary on Valid Cognition. Thus, he explained that emptiness, in terms of both being determined through reasoning and experienced in meditation, is exclusively that emptiness which is a nonaffirming negation [i.e., a negation with no positive entailments]. This is just a brief account of the explanatory approach of Autonomous Reasoning (Svātantrika) Madhyamaka.

CONSEQUENCE (PRĀSAṄGIKA) MADHYAMAKA

It is known that the beginning of the explanatory tradition of what is commonly known as Prāsaṅgika is dated from the time when the Glorious Candrakīrti introduced a rebuttal to the faults ascribed to Buddhapālita by Bhāviveka. According to him, Buddhapālita’s assertion lies in consequence, which Bhāviveka did not explain. Candra’s explanation of the points which Bhāviveka didn’t understand is as follows:

If a person is a Madhyamaka follower, he does not make a refutation with autonomous proofs for his own statements; neither does he create consequences which imply a reversed meaning of an opponent’s statements. This is because when one engages in pondering the ultimate mode of abiding, there is no acceptance of one’s statements, and if there is such an acceptance one will fall into the extremes of conceptual elaborations. So, the reasonings refuting Buddhist and non-Buddhist extremists are: “inferential cognition known to others,” “consequence revealing contradictions,” “equalizing by similar reasons,” and “nonestablishment due to the similarity of the proof and thesis.” With these reasonings it is enough just to refute in one’s mind the assertions of an opponent’s statements. One does not have to generate the inferential valid cognition ascertaining one’s own statements.

Regarding these explanations, later Svātantrika teachers taught that Bhāviveka’s explanatory approach cannot be undermined by ascribing to, as its consequence, the fault of illusion established through ultimate reasoning. This is because when the object of negation, a mass of conceptualization, is negated, its opposite, the absence of conceptualization, is also negated.

In that context, both Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika arrive at nonaffirming negation of the whole mass of conceptualization. No difference in subtlety is accepted in that negation. Later Tibetans explain the difference between Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika in another way and thus deviate from correct explanation.

HOW AUTONOMOUS REASONING MADHYAMAKA CAME TO TIBET

It is clear that at the earlier time of the Dharma king Tri Songdetsen, when the Three Madhyamaka Treatises of the Eastern Svātantrikas were translated, just a brief explanatory tradition of those texts emerged. But the person who extremely clearly determined them through listening and explaining was Ngok Loden Sherap: “Beyond the eastern sea, at the edge of nomad lands, there will come an Intelligent One [Loden], different from Lohita. In his name, Wisdom [Sherap] is at the end. Likewise, the Snow Land in the North.…” That great being, prophesied by this and other Sūtras, greatly clarified Svātantrika through many commentaries. Among many holders of his explanatory tradition, the main one was Khyung Rinchen Drak. Among his disciples, known as Gyamar Jangchup Drakpa, Gangpa Sheu, etc., Drolungpa Lodrö Jungné was the holder of the tradition of all the excellent words of that great individual. Chapa Chökyi Senggé studied with both that Drolungpa and Gyamar Jangchup Drakpa. He composed many commentaries on the excellent words in general, and many on the Three Treatises of the Eastern Svātantrikas in particular. The words of explanations of the Dharmas of Maitreya and Madhyamaka by that teacher came down to Tsek Wangchuk Senggé. From him, they were received by Sakya Paṇḍita, by whom they were passed down to Uyukpa, who passed them to Zhang Dodepa and others. From that lineage they came to the Lord of Dharma, Lama Dampa, and then reached Rinpoché Yakpa.

HOW CONSEQUENCE MADHYAMAKA CAME TO TIBET

Atiśa said: “The follower of Nāgārjuna is Candrakīrti. With instructions passed down from him, the truth of reality is realized.” Thus, although at the time when Jowo Atiśa came to Tibet, the texts of Candrakīrti himself were not actually translated, Atiśa composed separate small treatises, such as the Thorough Distinction of the Two Truths, etc., explaining Candrakīrti’s intent. Atiśa taught them to the virtuous spiritual friend Dromtönpa. Then, in the text on the Stages of the Path of the Three Individuals,5 he used Candrakīrti’s tradition as the basis for the presentation of the factors of the profound view; this approach has survived until today.

The tradition of the actual commentaries on Candrakīrti’s texts begins with Nyima Drak of the Patsap family in Penyül Gyel. He studied in India and Kashmir for twenty-three years, and invited to Tibet three paṇḍitas—Kanakavarman and others. In Rasa Trülnang [the Jokhang Temple of Lhasa] and other places, he translated many of Candrakīrti’s texts in general, and in particular translated and determined by explanation and study Nāgārjuna’s Root Wisdom, Candrakīrti’s Engaging in the Middle Way, Āryadeva’s Four Hundred, and so forth. It is known that he was active at the same time as the spiritual friend, the Great Sharawa, was engaged in explanation and study of Perfection of Wisdom, and when the Lord Düsum Khyenpa [1110–93, the first Karmapa hierarch] was practicing in Jazang Drak. The Great Sharawa created many favorable conditions for Translator Patsap’s scholarly activities and encouraged his own intelligent disciples to study Madhyamaka with Patsap.

At that time there were four disciples known as the Four Sons of Patsap. Learned in both words and meaning was Mapcha Jangchup Tsöndrü. They also say that he might be the same person as Chapa’s disciple Mapcha Tsöpé Senggé. Learned in words was Sarbö from Tsang. They say that a small number of monks who followed his style of study and teaching existed in the Nyang region. Learned in meaning was Rinchen Drak from Daryül. They say that although he taught extensively, nobody capable of holding his lineage appeared. The one equally learned in both words and meaning was Zhang Jungné Yeshé. He established the Dharma University in Tangsak. He relied on the Translator Patsap’s interlinear commentaries and outlines of the texts, and himself also composed various commentaries whose lineage is uninterrupted up to the present day. He also taught the Root Wisdom, Engaging, and Four Hundred treatises, and gave guiding explanations of the view of the Madhyamaka of Prāsaṅgika tradition.

At the end of approximately ten generations in the lineage transmitted from Zhang, there came a scholar whose name was Martön Zhönnu Gyeltsen. Many scholars from Ü-Tsang studied with him. He had lots of disciples, and the Great Lord Rongtön (1367–1449) also was his disciple. In later times, they say, the Noble Lord Rendawa (1349–1412) studied the Madhyamaka of Prāsaṅgika tradition with the Great Dokdokpa. I don’t know with whom the later one had studied. Rendawa wrote commentaries on the Root, Engaging, and Four Hundred and also composed guiding explanations of the view. The one who studied with him was the Great Tsongkhapa (1357–1419).

HOW ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF THESE TWO CAME INTO BEING

While Chapa was teaching and studying Svātantrika Madhyamaka, a holder of Candrakīrti’s lineage, the paṇḍita named Jayānanda, who wrote a commentary on the Engaging in the Middle Way, came to Tibet. At that time Chapa directly challenged him through debate and indirectly challenged Prāsaṅgika followers by composing a treatise with a great variety of refutations of both the words and meaning of Candrakīrti’s treatise. Regardless of how his refutations hit the target, he definitely grasped the opponent’s point of view.

Although at the time of the Great Translator Ngok, the Prāsaṅgika texts were not translated, by relying on their sayings (which he heard either in the Noble Land or in Tibet), in refuting Prāsaṅgika the Translator Ngok wrote a refutation of acceptance of the existence of the realization of the Madhyamaka meaning without relying on the three-moded syllogism: “Without the thought in their minds: ‘This collection of conditions does not exist,’ both those people who proclaim apparent things or their perfect refusal, deviate from the path of valid cognition and definitely fall into the great empty desert of wrong views.” He also wrote a refutation of the followers of Yogācāra and Svātantrika Madhyamaka: “Both those who accept some phenomenal existence by the power of reasoning and those who ascertain by valid cognition the suchness which is beyond the way of compounded phenomena, fall into the mouth of the great demon of unbearable grasping at things and are held fast by the sharp fangs of wrong views.” As for his own tradition, he explained that Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka has to be understood with the help of the reasoning of the author of the Commentary on Valid Cognition.

In later times, the Great Jonangpa [Dölpopa Sherap Gyeltsen, 1292–1361] said that what is explicitly taught as Madhyamaka in the texts of the master Candrakīrti belonging to the Vehicle of Reasoning is not suitable to be Madhyamaka, because it is the Dharma of the Age of Disputes. Madhyamaka is to be understood as it is explained by the Dharma language of Shambhala.6 This implies that Svātantrika Madhyamaka cannot be interpreted in other ways either.

Also in later times, the Great Tsongkhapa explained that no correct view exists in those forms of Madhyamaka that are known to be different from the Madhyamaka taught in texts of Glorious Candrakīrti. He also said that all pure views of the sūtras and tantras necessarily belong only to this Prāsaṅgika tradition.

[Shakya Chokden, Three Texts on Madhyamaka, trans. Yaroslav Komarovski (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2000), 9–14, 21–24. Revised by the translator for the present publication.]

THE LIFE OF NGOK LODEN SHERAP, THE TRANSLATOR

The exceptional contribution of the “Great Translator” Ngok Loden Sherap (1059–1109) to the development of Tibetan Buddhist education and scholarship has been discussed briefly above. Ngok himself acquired his learning in the course of almost two decades spent in India, where he mastered Sanskrit Buddhist traditions in Kashmir, northeastern India, and Nepal. On his return to Tibet, he became a remarkably prolific translator, who inspired and trained a number of talented disciples at the Central Tibetan monastery of Sangpu, founded by his uncle. Among his main followers was Drolungpa Lodrö Jungné, the author of the account of his master from which key passages are presented here. Not strictly a biography, Drolungpa’s text is in fact an elaborate praise poem (given in italics) accompanied by a prose commentary. This literary form was frequently employed to extol the achievements of leading religious figures. As will be seen in these selections, Ngok’s transmission of the logical and epistemological works of the Indian philosopher Dharmakīrti was regarded as his quintessential contribution. MTK

One can say that [Ngok] dwelled well in those [practices] mentioned [by Bhāviveka in his Heart of the Madhyamaka]: “Not renouncing the Thought of Awakening, correctly accepting the ascetic restraint of the Sage, and seeking for the knowledge [of] reality, [this] is the conduct that accomplishes all.” In particular:

The noble science of reasoning, excellent ship for [sailing] the ocean of scriptures [and] excellent wings for [crossing] the sky [of] reality, was well established by Śākyamuni himself.

From among these [fields of learning] too, the foundation of logical thinking—the great science of reasoning, which is the sole [means for] deliverance through such means as of a ship or of wings, by which [one is enabled] to experience the distinguished and inconceivable great feast as a result of having arrived on the great island of the jewels [of] good qualities and the excellent place of Great Liberation, after [one] has mainly sailed over the Sugata’s ocean [of] scriptures and crossed the sky of reality—has been explained in manifold ways by parts of the statements of Śākyamuni himself.

[That science] was clarified by [masters] such as the venerable Nāgārjuna, Dharmatrāta, and Vasubandhu, but its defining characteristics were [only] expounded definitively by [Dharmakīrti] the author of the Commentary on Valid Cognition.

Masters who clarified that [science] included those such as the exalted Nāgārjuna and such as Dharmatrāta and Vasubandhu. Nevertheless, for [making it] very clear and thorough, [it was only] due to the noble master Dignāga that it was established. However, that [science] was not even correctly explained by the master Īśvarasena, the student of that one (i.e., Dignāga) himself, [but it was] later properly expounded through the seven great treatises on logic and epistemology (pramāṇa) [composed] by that king of reasoning, the glorious master Dharmakīrti, who appeared in a district of the south [of India], being renowned as an emanation of the Victorious One’s [spiritual] son Samantabhadra.7 Nevertheless, those [works that Dharmakīrti] composed through unfathomable intellectual powers were not comprehended even by [his] students such as Devendrabuddhi, and therefore, even though they wrote many explanations, they did not clarify [his works] well. Through the excellent explanations of the finely discriminating mental eye, possessing the excellent reliance of moral conduct and faith, such as of the masters Dharmottara, Prajñākaragupta, and the Brahman Śaṃkaranandana, the basic texts, the whole meaning and parts were entirely explained, [and] the world was illuminated as if by sunlight, moonlight, the light of jewels, and the light of the Sage.

Moreover, in the past in this land, the exegetical traditions of just parts of even the basic texts were simply the stupid errors of a place crossed gropingly in the dark.

Moreover, as for that [tradition] here in Tibet, even no more than just small parts [of its] basic texts had been translated, and its exegetical traditions were very small. They could be seen as not more than just approximations [made by] the groping [hands of one] driven about from behind by a wind of arrogance, [arisen] from an erroneous mind through groping about in the dark.

After having seen this state of affairs, [Ngok] with great diligence properly studied under such supreme scholars as Bhavyarāja⁸ and thoroughly illuminated the science of reasoning here [in Tibet] like penetrating sunlight.

Therefore [he] considered those [exegetical traditions] very important and gladdened many great scholars such as Parahitabhadra, Bhavyabhadra, and Sunayaśrī through the great pains [he took in his studies],⁹ and through resorting to the great burden of outstanding diligence, even regarding extremely subtle aspects of both text and sense, he gained perfect intellectual illumination, and therefore he became a great “Eye” of the Dharma.

Furthermore, having seen the supreme difficulty of understanding the Prajñāpāramitā [Perfection of Wisdom] and that its basic texts had mainly been faultily translated, [Ngok] entirely expounded it, properly accomplishing and completely clarifying [the texts] through his outstanding hardships [of studying].

Even so, as for the state of the Prajñāpāramitā [tradition], mother of paths of all exalted ones, its meaning portion (i.e., doctrinal content) was extremely profound and vast, while the groupings of the texts’ [words] too were hard and for the most part also wrongly translated; therefore, [Ngok] thought that [a correct understanding] depended on the instructions of a noble lineage. Even though the knowledgeable living in this [land of Tibet] were for the most part partial to that, all were disturbed by the turmoil of groping in the dark, and [they] were seen as being deceived by many unknown diseases like a vessel on the ocean that is disturbed in [every] direction. Therefore, motivated by the strong force of his kindness toward those [ignorant Tibetans], he felt great faith and respect toward those [followers] of Śākyamuni’s tradition in Magadha who possessed the wealth of intelligence and were an “Eye” for that. Consequently, he sought [them] out in the southern paths (i.e., in India) that were so difficult to traverse, through exalted renunciations and applications of exertion hundreds and hundreds of times greater than before, so that on some [occasions he] was deceived by bad messengers wasting his possessions and [faced] pointless difficulties because of lying. But since he thought that the result of deeds directed at an excellent thing will later arise, he did not even show mental weariness and despondency.

At a later time, [Ngok] risked his life and, adopting the dress and lifestyle of a beggar, he traveled facing repeated difficulties on frightening paths, [but he] somehow escaped all misfortune. And he resorted to many [teachers] possessing good characteristics, preachers of the Dharma, such as the glorious Gomi Chimé,10 a great wish-granting jewel through many sources of excellent virtues, a great scholar of East [India] who was renowned everywhere because of his coming to Magadha and who had obtained benefit for many beings and spread over the entire surface of the world the ornament of his good qualities, as well as Sthirapāla,¹¹ whose neck was adorned with three hundred thousand texts. And [Ngok] gladdened them through worship and great respect, so that as a result, whichever excellent teaching he wanted, he received [from them] correctly. After having accomplished his intended purpose according to his wishes, he properly made major [translation] corrections of the main texts as well as correctly clarifying their doctrinal contents, in the manner expressed [in these verses]:

Through equally practicing compassion and discriminative understanding all the time, [a bodhisattva] is not distracted from accomplishing the highest accumulation, such as of the [Six] Perfections12 and the [four] ways of attracting [disciples].¹³ And at all times a bodhisattva thinks again and again: “What have I done today for the accumulation of merit and knowledge or for the benefit of others?”

[Ngok’s] powers were infinite [regarding] the Six Perfections, the four ways of attracting [disciples], and the practice of the Dharma divided into ten [activities].¹⁴ [Examples were] his compassion that embraces all beings and worship of the three refuges as part of the two accumulations [of merit and knowledge], preceded by affection for the students, [those] seekers of knowledge in Tibet in particular, and [those of] the continent of Jambudvīpa in general, [including those] who are considered the foremost in possessing the good fortune of highest virtuousness. Since his power was unlimited and since it was supremely difficult to find [someone like him], it was correct to call him a “wish-granting jewel.” And since he was not distracted from accomplishing the infinite [number of] means for the attainment of objects, which guide beings through meditative practice that consists of many excellent practices, he was not even satisfied by the gathering of excellent virtues, like the accumulation of water in a great ocean [that knows no end].

[Ralf Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109). Collectanea Himalayica 1. Munich, 2007. Edited for the present publication by MTK with the author’s permission.]

A LIFE OF LEARNING: SAKYA PAṆḌITA

THE LIFE OF THE SCHOLAR OF SAKYA

If Drokmi Lotsawa (chapter 7) contributed to the formation of the Sakya school by successfully transplanting a system of Indian spiritual practice to Tibet, Sakya Paṇḍita (the “paṇḍit” from Sakya) secured the reputation of the school as a major center of learning and intellectual life through his sophisticated and innovative scholarly writings. Taking advantage of the preceding two centuries of translation work undertaken by scholars such as Drokmi, Sakya Paṇḍita was among a new generation of scholars in the early thirteenth century who forged new synthetic presentations of Buddhist thought and practice, thereby creating a truly Tibetan Buddhism.

Sakya Paṇḍita, whose given name was Künga Gyeltsen, was born in 1182, a scion of the Khön family ruling the principality of Sakya in southwestern Tibet, and he was educated in the religious traditions of Sakya under the tutelage of his uncle, Drakpa Gyeltsen (1147–1216), a renowned lay scholar and adept (chapter 7). In 1204 the Kashmiri master Śākyaśrībhadra arrived in Tibet, accompanied by an entourage of Indian scholars. Sakya Paṇḍita was one of a number of up-and-coming Tibetan thinkers who were inspired by this opportunity to learn directly from knowledgeable Indian teachers, and he applied himself to mastering Sanskrit grammar and other aspects of Sanskrit linguistic and literary learning, training that would lend a notably “Indological” perspective to his scholarship in later years. In 1208 he received the full monastic ordination of a bhikṣu from Śākyaśrībhadra, an event marking the inception of the Sakyapa as a properly monastic order. Following the death of his uncle in 1216, Sakya Paṇḍita came to be recognized as the leading successor within the religious tradition of Sakya.

Sakya Paṇḍita’s writings include over one hundred individual texts ranging from short poems to extended systematic treatises, a collection noteworthy for the diversity of the subjects treated and for the unusual influence his major writings have had throughout much of Tibetan intellectual and literary history. Among those presently available, the Gateway to Learning (Khepa Jukpé Go), from which selections are given below, comes closest to setting forth a general program representing Sakya Paṇḍita’s ideals of Sanskritic learning. He presents here a curriculum stressing the mastery of composition, rhetoric, and debate. The emphasis on the full range of Indian learning that Sakya Paṇḍita’s project entailed was perhaps best exemplified by the extensive efforts of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–82) and his regent, desi Sanggyé Gyatso (1653–1705), to codify in detail the full range of the arts and sciences (rikné, Skt. vidyāsthāna) known in Tibet, explicitly acknowledging the contributions of Sakya Paṇḍita as their precedent (see chapter 15).

The life story of Sakya Paṇḍita begins with a expression of despair, for his biography holds no hope of accurately conveying the scope of his learning. His association with the great tradition of classical Indian scholarship is signaled early, as he emerges from the womb with a full knowledge of Sanskrit, the classical language of India. Like Drokmi Lotsawa, Sakya Paṇḍita studied with Indian Buddhist intellectuals, though he never left Tibet to do so. Rather, he worked with a visiting scholar from India, Sākyasrī, who had fled India after the demise of the last of the Buddhist universities. From Śākyaśrī and other Tibetan teachers, Sakya Paṇḍita received an education in the major philosophical systems. After a lengthy career as a monk, a writer, and a teacher, he died in the Gansu corridor—having traveled there at the insistence of Mongol imperial leaders—a scholar of international repute. MTK/KRS

The Master Translator [Sakya Paṇḍita], the relative of this great Jetsün [Drakpa Gyeltsen], abandoned the concept of family relation, and viewing him as no different than Vajradhara, pleased him with great devotion. He precisely mastered absolutely all the tantras, the Oral Instructions of the Lamdré [the “Path and Fruit,” the main esoteric system of the Sakyapa], and so forth.

Moreover, the life story of this Master Translator, if expressed in detail, I have heard to be like this: In regard to the Dharma Lord’s life story, Rinpoché commented, “Ācārya Mātṛceṭa stated, ‘Not being omniscient myself, while you are omniscient, how can I understand you, Omniscient One?’ Likewise, the expression of Sakya Paṇḍita’s qualities must be spoken by one equal to him. Others are not able to express them. Nevertheless, since blessings will come, I will express a little.

BIRTH

This Dharma Lord, at the time he first entered into the womb of his mother, displayed incredible dream signs. A nāga king adorned with a jeweled headdress and so forth came. So it has been stated. While he was residing in the womb, fine dream signs, such as fine meditative concentration, came to the mother. I have heard that at birth, after which the signs of the birth of a bodhisattva occurred, and not long after, when he had been somewhat reared, he was able to understand a little of the Sanskrit language by the force of awakened propensities. When he spoke in Sanskrit, the mother exclaimed, “Is this one actually retarded?” The lord replied, “He knows Sanskrit, so have no fear that your son is retarded.” Also, when he was just able to crawl, he would write Indian letters in [the scripts called] nāgarī, rañjanā, and so forth, on the ground with his finger, act like he was reading them, and then erase them. So it has been stated. He stated that he understood early both the Indian and Tibetan scripts, without studying, and didn’t remember which one he understood first.

Furthermore, his excellent behavior was pleasurable to everyone. He was calm and disciplined, and had a fine disposition. He was gentle, moderate in speech, and bright, and fully upheld good qualities. He was devoted to his masters and elders, and very polite and respectful. His sense faculties were restrained, and he was compassionate to sentient beings.

EARLY STUDIES

He then grew older, and without studying, perfectly understood the types of scripts, the reading of Indian script and the reading of Tibetan script; the specifics of astrology; and the various specifics of the arts, such as medical diagnosis and painting. The entire world was amazed, and everyone praised him.

Then he carefully received all the Dharmas of his ancestors from that same Dharma Lord, and mastered them. When he reached the age of nine, eight is also said, he taught the text [on the Hevajra Tantra] by Saroruha. At twelve he taught the Taknyi [the Hevajra Tantra in two sections]. At fourteen he taught the Sampuṭa [a major tantra]. By the age of fifteen he had mastered all the Dharma of his ancestors. All the many people in the institute at Sakya were amazed.

Thereafter he also precisely taught the great treatises, fully bestowing the eye of discernment on his disciples.

When he was eighteen years old, it is said he dreamed that in front of the stüpa of the great master Sachen’s mother, up above Sakya, he received the Abhidharmakośa once from a pale blue young monk, who said, “I am the teacher Vasubandhu.”

Also, at another time, in a dream he went to a cave that was said to be the teacher Dignāga’s. There were many volumes of epistemology, and he was told, “The door keys for these are given to you.” When he thought to first look at the Pramāṇasamuccaya [Dignāga’s Compendium of Logic], someone shook him and he awoke from the dream. He looked at it later when he traveled to a foreign borderland. So it has been stated. Following that an exceptional realization arose.

Then, at the age of nineteen, he also received the Doctrines of Maitreya (Jamchö) and some epistemology from the spiritual friend Zhurül in Trang.

When he was twenty years old he received the first section of the Pramāṇavinīścaya [Dharmakīrti’s Ascertainment of Valid Cognition] four times and the last section twice, from the spiritual friend Tsurtön Zhönnu Senggé at Kyangtur in upper Nyang, and mastered absolutely all the meaning of the words. While he was staying in Kyangtur, his father, the teacher, [who was Drakpa Gyeltsen’s] younger brother Pelchen Öpo, became ill, and he went back. After the teacher, the younger brother Pelchen Öpo, passed away, he performed the various final rites. He asked Tsur to delay the Dharma teachings for several days, but the students insisted. In particular, Yama Takteng insisted, saying, “If the noble son of Sakya is student enough, we are leaving. If not, teach the Dharma!” Then Tsur taught. After that he took many things, and when he arrived in Kyangtur, there was a summer Dharma council. He made vast offerings there. He offered the three extensive, medium, and brief Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. Tsur asked, “Shall I repeat the Dharma from the beginning?” He replied, “Please do not.” Sakya Paṇḍita began the Pramāṇaviniścaya from the beginning and from the section on benefit for others. Teaching in two Dharma sessions every day, he completely taught the treatise by heart, from beginning to end, and everyone held him in awe. At a later time he also received the Üma Riktsok [Nāgārjuna’s Collection of Reasonings on the Madhyamaka philosophy] from that same master.

MEETING MAHĀPAṆḌITA ŚĀKYAŚRĪ

After then returning to Sakya, he completed the final rites, such as the funeral ceremony, for the teacher, the younger brother Pelchen Öpo. On the road, when he was going to Kyangtur to deliver offerings, the foremost of which was much gold, he met master Śākyaśrī at Chumik. He arrived while the teaching of the Dharmottara commentary was in progress. When the teacher Sakya Paṇḍita spread out his Tibetan texts and listened, the lesser paṇḍitas ridiculed him, and laughed, and master Śākyaśrī said, “What use is it to spread out Tibetan texts?”

Master Śākyaśrī read to a stopping point, and after that said, “You read!”

When the teacher Sakya Paṇḍita read out the Tibetan text in the Sanskrit language, as though he were reading an Indian manuscript, it is said that Śākyaśrī was extremely pleased and exclaimed, “What are you laughing at? The one from Sakya understands.”

At that time he received teachings on epistemology from Dānasīla, a disciple of master Śākyaśrī, who was a paṇḍita and a great dialectician. From the Newar Saṃghaśrī he received grammar, the Pramāṇavārttika, and so forth. The Dharma Lord stated, “I have great merit. From the east to the west of India there is no one more expert in grammar than Saṃghaśrī, and he has come to my place.”

Then the teacher Sakya Paṇḍita traveled to Kyangtur and presented the earlier offerings into the hands of the teacher Tsur. When he returned, master Śākyaśrī went to Ü. The teacher Sakya Paṇḍita invited paṇḍita Sugataśrī to Sakya, and received and mastered grammar, epistemology, poetics, metrics, and so forth.

TAKING ORDINATION

Then, at a later time, master Śākyaśrī returned to Tsang and stayed at Nyungchung. At that point, when the teacher Sakya Paṇḍita came to receive Dharma, he decided to take ordination. Accordingly, he offered a letter into the hands of Jetsün [Drakpa Gyeltsen] requesting permission, which was granted. When he had reached the age of twenty-seven, he requested the master Śākyaśrī to be abbot and the teacher Chiwo Lhepa to be master of ceremonies. The spiritual friend Zhü acted as the secret preceptor. In the midst of a saṅgha sea of monks in the temple of Gyengong in lower Nyang, he was ordained, it is said, but except for shaving his head and dressing in the robes there, he took the vows at Nyungchung, and was beautified with unsullied moral discipline. Lord Drakpa Gyeltsen was also pleased at the ordination, and said, “Having now taken ordination, you must be diligent in your conduct and in guarding the vows.” He placed a strict monk in the presence of the Dharma Lord, one who found faults down to his usual way of eating and manner of sitting. So it has been stated.

He received Dharma from that same abbot Śākyaśrī, both before and later. He received all the great commentaries [on Dharmakīrti’s writings], such as the Alaṃkāra and the commentary of Dharmottara, together with the affiliated texts, for the Set of Three from among the Seven Sets on Epistemology.15 He later received from another paṇḍita the sections of the Alaṃkāra and Dharmottara’s commentary that had not quite been completed. From that same great master Śākyaśrī he also received the Abhidharmakośa, the Vinayamūlasūtra, the Prātimokṣa, the Bhikṣukārikā, and so forth, as well as the Vinayakṣudrakavastu.¹⁶

From the same master he also received the twelve thousand-line Vimalaprabhā commentary on Śrī Kālacakra and so forth, together with the branches. He also received [the tantric teachings of] Saṃvara and the cycles of Guhyasamāja according to Ārya Nāgārjuna, according to Jñānapāda, and so forth. He also requested the bestowal of their initiations, and mastered them all.

After that, from the teacher Chiwo Lhepa he received the Prajñāpāramitā, through the commentaries on the Aṣṭāsāhasrikā and the Viṃśatisāhasrikā, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, and so forth, the texts concerning conduct, several minor oral instructions of secret mantra, and all the teachings of the Kadampa and so forth.

SAKYA PAṆḌITA’S SPECIAL QUALITIES

Furthermore, by engaging in meditation he gained control of numerous meditative concentrations. I have seen his prophecies that several future events would “happen like this,” happen exactly like that, due to the force of his mastery of the movements of the profound outer and inner dependently arisen connections. At a time when there were none but a few disciples, he stated, “At a later time I will go to a place where there is a different kind of language, and some benefit will come to the Doctrine.” That happened exactly. Moreover, he was endowed with uncommon signs of having pleased Mañjughoṣa [i.e., the bodhisattva of wisdom, Mañjuśrī]. On several occasions when he engaged in meditation, inconceivable meditative concentrations arose. He never had ordinary thoughts, and whatever he did in the midst of many people, such as considering something, he could not be distracted by other influences. He had inconceivable such qualities. He had enormous blessing, and the perfect power to achieve the desired goal if it was prayed for.

In brief, by reaching the far shore of knowing the five fields of knowledge, he has become a great consummate paṇḍita. Obtaining numerous realized meditative concentrations, the fame of his reputation has filled all directions, and he has brought infinite trainable beings to spiritual maturation and liberation. Furthermore, with true devotion we should study under this great being who is truly expert in what is done by experts, such as the three activities of explication, disputation, and composition. Then, when he had reached the age of seventy, he passed into bliss at the capital Liangzhou, on the fourteenth day of the eleventh month in the wood-pig year [1251].

The extensive life story of this being cannot be expressed. It should be known that he is without doubt Mañjughoṣanātha himself.

[Cyrus Stearns, Luminous Lives: The Stories of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras Tradition in Tibet (Boston: Wisdom, 2001), 159–167.]

SAKYA PAṆḌITA’S GATEWAY TO LEARNING

The selections that follow are drawn from one of Sakya Paṇḍita’s several renowned treatises, the Gateway to Learning, the work in which he most clearly and succinctly sets out his program overall. Here he formulates his conception of a trivium based upon the mastery of composition, rhetoric, and debate, and the first chapter, on composition, supplies a series of short, fine surveys of the elements of grammar and poetics, including the theory of designation and meaning, the theory of aesthetic emotion, and a relatively detailed introduction to the study of poetic ornament. In his introduction to the work as a whole, he summarizes his ideals of learning with reference to his own achievements, emphasizing his mastery of grammar, logic and epistemology, poetry and poetics, meter, lexicography, drama, medicine, art and architecture, astrology, and, of course, Buddhist philosophy. This list was not put forth merely in order to brag, but was intended above all to enforce a particular ideal of learning, to be studied and emulated by others. Moreover, many of its constituents could not have been widely known in Tibet in Sakya Paṇḍita’s time, as in some cases there were not yet Tibetan translations of the works he mentions. Thanks to the authority his work achieved, many new translations were undertaken by his successors, and Tibetan scholarship in subsequent generations came to be notably marked by the rhetorical refinement embodied in the Indian models that Sakya Paṇḍita assiduously promoted. The following selections, from the first and third chapters of the Gateway to Learning, illustrate his approach to the formal features of composition and to the practice of monastic debate. MTK

FROM CHAPTER I, ON COMPOSITION

If someone should ask, who gets called “scholar”?—He is someone who knows without error everything that can be known. Alternatively, for someone who knows teachings in some specific field, in that and that alone he gets the name “scholar.” The fields of study for that scholar are the five sciences:

The fields of grammar, reasoning, medicine, the inner, and the outer are called “the sciences.”

Grammar is [the science of] language; reasoning is [the science of] logic; the outer science is crafts; the inner science is the transmitted Buddhadharma; and medicine is the science of remedies—[so are the sciences] explained.

Furthermore, as the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Sutras of the Mahāyāna) says:

Without becoming a scholar in the five sciences

Not even the supreme sage can become omniscient.

For the sake of refuting and supporting others,

And for the sake of knowing everything himself, he makes an effort in these [five sciences].…

There are three chapters here in the Gateway to Learning: Entry into Composition, Exposition, and Debate.… So, with the intent to explain the entry into composition first, we explain the verse of reverence at the start of a treatise:

An excellent author of a treatise should give a verse of reverence to the teacher [i.e., the Buddha]. In order that the teachings may flourish, pure words are here seen to be proper and good.

Verses of reverence have three [aspects]: the purpose, the summary, and the meaning of the words. There are two kinds of purpose: that which arises in the composer’s own continuum, and that which is realized in the continua of others—[including both the people] who have explained and [those who have] listened to [the treatise]. The meaning in summary form is to whom, by whom, and in what manner the praise is offered, and so on. As for the meaning of the words: Once [the composer] has examined the statement’s meaning in the manner of a lion’s glance, [he can then proceed to] explain the subject matter with the gait of a tortoise.17 Each subject matter must be understood at length in the context of its own composition and exposition.

Suppose someone should ask, is it certain that verses of reverence are of only one kind?

[Verses] whose nature are reverence, praise, homage, auspicious wish, etc. are non-contradictory, because they all teach only the greatness of the teacher [i.e., the Buddha].

Verses of reverence include verses that end with [an expression] of reverence, and likewise those ending with praise, going for refuge, or auspicious wish. As for the first, the Madhyantavibhāgabhāṣya (Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Distinction Between Middle and Extremes) says:

Having honored the noble composer of this treatise, born of the nature of the well-gone one, and the ones who expounded [it] to myself and others, I will make an effort to analyze the meanings.

Likewise praise, going for refuge, and auspicious wishes should be understood. Although these are different words, their meanings are non-contradictory, because they are alike in stating the virtues of the Buddha or the favored deity.

The Oath of Composition

As for the oath of composition and so forth, suppose someone should think that if you’re going to give an exposition, it is unnecessary [to say what you’re going to say again anyway], and if you aren’t going to give an exposition, [a promise to do so] is meaningless:

Oaths, exhortations, and so forth

Indicate one’s enthusiasm to give the exposition.

Since it will bring about the achievement of supreme realization,

There is no inconsistency in the promise.

The oath of composition is threefold: The meaning in its intent, the meaning in summary form, and the meaning of the words.

First, the promise “[I] will give an explanation” indicates one’s enthusiasm to give an exposition on this subject matter, and the cause of [that] enthusiasm is that one is starting in on a good topic. For instance, a king promises to give away the throne, or to turn the wheel of the dharma, but even though he does engage in lesser activities, such as playing dice and checkers, he doesn’t promise to do so in the middle of the assembly. Additionally, because of the promise one is recognized by others as himself a scholar in that topic. If he is not a scholar how can he make the promise in the middle of the assembly? Furthermore, the oath will be the cause of achieving the [goal]. For, as it is said, “Noblemen will give up their life, but not their promise.”

Likewise, exhortatory expressions such as “Come here to listen to the supreme dharma,” or “Make yourself happy: Listen up!” and so on should be understood like that.

The meaning in summary form is threefold: Object, agent, and action. [For the first,] “What is being explained?” The treatise. [Second,] “By whom?” By the composer. [Third,] “How is it being explained?” The statement meaning is summarized and taught in an expanded, middle-length, or concise version of the expression “It is being explained like this” as is appropriate to the occasion. The word meaning should be understood according to its subject matter.

The Expression of Humility

Now, if one should ask, what is the expression of humility [that appears] in some treatises?

Even though I may not have the ability, in accord with my effort

I yet begin the treatise—such expressions exist,

With respect to treatise and author,

In order to demonstrate the excellence of both.

“By nature I am of weak intellect, and by the condition that I have studied little, I may not be capable of composition. Nevertheless, I should make an effort for the sake of myself, those like me, and those inferior to me.” This statement indicates [first] the excellence of the treatise. The examination comes when someone thinks, “Even if [the author] is not [fully] capable, if an effort like this is made, there [must be] a great prospect here. For instance, it’s like the merchant who goes to get a jewel from [across] the ocean.”

Also, the author is himself recognized to be an excellent person. If one examines the humility like this, in which even such as a scholar of words and meanings [says,] “I don’t know,” there is the [inevitable] recognition that the composer is an excellent person.

Here too the summary and word meanings should be explained however it is appropriate.

The Outline

Now, if someone should ask, what is the purpose of placing an outline of the body [of the treatise] at the beginning:

For ease of explanation and ease of comprehension, and also the elimination of disputes about the treatise, some scholars summarize the body of the treatise and place an outline at the beginning.

There are three benefits to placing an outline of the body [of the treatise] at the beginning: ease of exposition by the expositor; ease of comprehension by the listener; and generation of certainty about the treatise.

First, knowing the outline of the body [of the treatise] has three benefits [for the expositor]: it acquaints him with what will be said, keeps the order undisturbed, and by indicating the order brings about the meaning with ease.

Second, easy comprehension by the listener has three benefits: when hearing, easily becoming acquainted with what will be said; when contemplating, ease of comprehension without disturbing the order; and when meditating, due to the practice being in summary form, the quick arising of meditative wisdom.

Third, generating certainty about the treatise is where, since the body and limbs are connected, the conviction arises that “This treatise is perfect,” because it is free from the faults of being disordered, broken, or unnecessarily long.

The meaning in summary form and the meaning of the words of these [outlines] should be explained [each] just as they are understood in their specific section of the treatise.

The Statement of Purpose

If one should ask, what is the purpose of placing a statement of purpose and connection at the beginning of the treatise?

In order to indicate the excellence of the treatise,

The teacher [i.e., the Buddha] indicates the purpose in the beginning.

If one with supreme knowledge is seen [doing] this,

Why not begin [one’s own] analysis as well?

The up-front placement of the statement of purpose and connections is threefold: The purpose, the summary, and the meaning of the words. First, as the purpose is explained in the Vyākhyāyukti (Vasubandhu’s Commentarial Reason):

Since, having heard the great significance of the sūtra,

Listening and accepting it, and so forth,

That listener becomes faithful,

The purpose should be stated up front.

Here the purpose is, some say, to generate a beautiful text; some want to refute a wrong understanding of [some] meaning. It may be that these are not inappropriate as temporary goals. But the [final] purpose is the creation of a point of departure.

The summarized meaning is fourfold: The intended meaning, the purpose, the ultimate purpose, and the relations. With respect to these, there are three [topics] that should be understood at length as I have explained them elsewhere: Refuting an opposing tradition, presenting one’s own position, and eliminating objections to it.

[Jonathan C. Gold, The Dharma’s Gatekeepers: Sakya Paṇḍita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet (Albany: SUNY Press, 2007).]

FROM CHAPTER III, ON DEBATE

To debate in accordance with the Dharma, one should debate for the sake of dispelling erroneous notions, but [one should] not [debate] under the influence of attachment and hatred, desiring victory and for the sake of vanquishing the adversary.

A noble person should debate as proponent or respondent for the sake of dispelling error and for making understood the unmistaken facts of the matter, with the aim of maintaining his own doctrine. But debate that is motivated by desire and hatred, and aimed at one’s own victory and the vanquishing of the adversary is not accepted by noble persons because it cannot protect the doctrine and because it develops into anger and enmity. For as Vasubandhu has stated in detail: “Someone who debates only out of a desire to win is not noble, whereas [a noble debater] resolves doubts about that very [matter].”

Therefore a [true] scholar will defeat [others in debate] by truthfully stating the defects of [the opponent’s] philosophical tenets, whereas a scholar will condemn [attacks against] personal faults and the praising of oneself, for these are the causes for [birth in] miserable existences.

The debating of a noble person establishes his own philosophical tenets, and it refutes the error in the tenets of others while not refuting that which is not erroneous. [But] to be deceitful, to praise oneself, to dispraise others, to torment others by picking out their faults, to maintain one’s own philosophical tenets out of attachment even though they are erroneous, to cavil at the tenets of others out of hatred even though they are not erroneous, and to approve of overcoming the mental composure of the opponent by way of such things as nonsensical prattle, laughter, dancing, changing one’s recitation, extreme speed [in one’s speech], excessively high and low tone of voice, and unclear articulation—[all these things] amount to a defeat for oneself either by way of not stating something that makes up part of a sound proof or by stating something that does not make up a proof. These methods are not capable of defeating the other [debater], and [such] debating that does not accord with Dharma is something that learned persons should avoid since it is a cause for birth in evil realms of existence.

The elimination of objections:

If one says that it is permissible for even a noble person to speak deceitfully for the sake of defending his doctrine, [I answer that] through deceit one cannot uphold doctrine. Such [deceits] have been rebutted [by Dharmakīrti] in the Vādanyāya [Debate Reasoning].

Some non-Buddhist Indian sectarians in order to defend their doctrine also proceed deceitfully, calling out “I have won” even though that time the opponent is [merely] sitting silently. Concerning [such practices], if one has to defend one’s doctrine through deceit, the doctrine itself will become impure. And if the matter at issue can become established merely by [the opponent] becoming silent, there would ensue an extreme consequence [i.e., a fault of overextension of the term “defeat”] because even silence caused through threatening with a weapon or with fire would then amount to such [an occasion for defeat]. [As Dharmakīrti] said in the Vādanyāya: “A noble person will not engage in [debate] nor compose treatises for the sake of tormenting others.”

THE CONCLUSION OF THE CHAPTER ON DEBATE

The Summary and Communication [of What Transpired During the Debate] for the Sake of Making It Easily Understandable to the Assembly

Having thus properly settled [the debate], [finally] for the sake of making [the contents of the debate] retained, the witness should summarize and proclaim the statements made in the debate. This is the traditional practice of [great] scholars.

After the matters to be proved or negated have been established by way of assertions and replies in the actual debate, and after the acceptance and rejection of tenets have thereby been made understood, [the witnessing arbiter] should bring together any statements that have become a bit dispersed, and state them so that the assembly can easily understand.

If the assembled [witnesses] are ignorant, or if through attachment or aversion they do not take heed, one should in that place write down the words [of the arguments] and [afterward] show them to another learned, upright [judge].

If the witness is an ignorant person who is unlearned in the procedure of debate, or if even though he understands he does not pay attention on account of desire or anger, or if he falsely detracts [something] from one’s honestly stated words, or falsely imputes something by slightly changing the wording—where such witnesses are found, the debating of [true] scholars will not be praised, just as in a place where there is a poisonous snake, a lamp will not be bright. Therefore in that place with the witness present, one should set down in writing the words [of both opponents], and by sending [this record] to the gathering of another assembly of upright scholars, the learned virtues [of the two debaters] will be exactly understood. This procedure is the liberated conduct [followed by] the great scholars of the past.

By sounding forth the lion’s roar of the Doctrine of the Tathāgatas, may I defeat all the wild animals of erroneous views, and dwelling in the incontrovertible attainment, may I continually uphold the doctrine of the Buddha!

[David Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III): Sakya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Tradition of Pramāṇa and Philosophical Debate, 2 vols., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 17 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1987), 2:364–365.]

THE SKEPTICISM OF KARMA PAKSHI

Karma Pakshi (1204 or 1206–83), identified as the reincarnation of Karmapa Düsum Khyenpa (1110–93), one of the four preeminent disciples of Gampopa (1079–1153), is often regarded as the first representative of the most distinctive Tibetan institution, the identification of a future hierarch as the rebirth, or “emanational embodiment” (trülku), of his deceased predecessor. The successive Karmapas, who, like the Dalai Lamas, are thought to be emanations of Tibet’s patron bodhisattva, Avalokiteśvara, played a major role in Tibetan religious, and sometimes also political, life down to the present time.

Karma Pakshi hailed from far eastern Tibet and was educated under the tutelage of Düsum Khyenpa’s most illustrious disciples. Besides mastering the special doctrines of the Kagyüpa tradition with which he was personally affiliated, he studied the teachings of the Nyingmapa school under Jampabum (1179–1252), the abbot of Katok monastery in what is today western Sichuan. In 1255/6, responding to the invitation of the Mongol emperor Möngke Khan, he traveled to the Mongol imperial camp to participate in a religious conclave sponsored by the Khan. Though he debated with the adherents of other religions, primarily Daoists but also Confucianists and Nestorian Christians, he came to be a strong proponent of the Mongol imperial policy of religious tolerance, and praises the Khans for this at several points in his autobiography. With the ascension of the leaders of the Sakyapa school to the predominant position in Mongol–Tibetan affairs, Karma Pakshi may have fallen out of favor, and his relations with Qubilai Khan (1219–94), the Mongol founder of the Yuan dynasty in China, seem to have undergone considerable fluctuation. Nonetheless, he adopted, and is primarily remembered by, the epithet bestowed on him at the Mongol court, Karma Pakshi, “the magus Karmapa.”

Karma Pakshi’s autobiography reveals that, like many leading Tibetan Buddhist masters, he was prone throughout much of his life to intense visionary experiences, and these formed a major part of his inspiration as a doctrinal author. He seems to have regarded all of his writings as disclosing a unified, comprehensive vision of Buddhist teaching and practice, which he entitled The Limitless Ocean Cycle. According to his own testimony, the text translated below was central to his thought, and this reveals a distinctively skeptical frame of mind. Like some of the skeptical fideist philosophers and theologians of seventeenth-century Europe, he maintains that conflicting philosophical and religious doctrines must lead us to doubt and to a suspension of judgment. In this case, however, that suspension provides an opening not for Christian faith, but precisely for letting go of the limiting views and opinions that obstruct our realization of the liberating vision of Buddhist enlightenment, as taught in the Great Seal and Great Perfection meditational precepts of the Kagyüpa and Nyingmapa traditions. MTK

It is held that saṃsāra has a beginning and end, and it is held that saṃsāra is without beginning or end. It is held that minds are of identical nature throughout all saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and it is held that all minds are of differing natures. It is held that sentient beings are newly produced, and it is held that sentient beings are not newly produced.18 It is held that in understanding and practicing by means of various reasonings, one definitively establishes [the doctrine] by reasoning, and it is held that one definitively establishes it [without relying on natural reason] through the transmitted precepts spoken by all the buddhas, and it is held that the trio of Buddha, doctrine and teaching has not been experienced as emerging and thus is not. It is held that there is no karma, and it is held that there is karma and the ripening of karma. It is held that when offspring are born to the males and females of all creatures, they are generated by body [alone], and [it is held] that they are generated by both body and mind. It is held that there is a connection between the illusion and the illusionist, and it is held that there is no connection between the illusion and the illusionist. It is held that there is a connection between the echo and the place where the echo occurs, and it is held that there is no connection between the echo and the place where the echo occurs. It is held that there is a connection between the cause and the result, but if there were a connection between the cause and the result, then there would be the fault of the Buddha reverting into sentient being, just as the result reverts to the cause;¹⁹ and if there were no connection between the cause and the result, there would be the fault of meaninglessness [with respect to the proposition that] all phenomena subsumed in saṃsāra and the path to nirvāṇa are formed [as the results of causes]. It is held that there is a connection between both body and mind, and it is held that there is no connection between body and mind. It is held that there is ultimate truth, and it is held that there is the truth of superficial appearance.²⁰ It is held that the eight aggregates of consciousness²¹ have objects, it is held that they are subjects, and it is held that they have neither objects, nor causal conditions. It is held that scriptural authority is true and that reason is untrue, and it is held that reason is true and scriptural authority untrue. It is held that there is a connection between all material substances and their shadows, and it is held that they have no connection with their shadows. It is held that there is a connection between all the particulars of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and the names with which they are designated, and it is held that there is no connection between all the particulars of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and the names with which they are designated. It is held that [for some types of sentient creatures] fire relieves the affliction of thirst, and it is held that water makes [those creatures] warm and thirsty. It is held that the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa have a beginning and an end; and it is held that if [they] were incessant, then [everything] would have to come to be everywhere; and it is held that, abiding without going and coming [in a state of equipoise], they have come to be all-pervading. It is held that there is a connection between cloud and sky, and it is held that there is no connection between cloud and sky. It is held that there is no connection between day and night, and it is held that there is a connection between day and night. It is held that there is a connection between this birth and the next, and it is held that there is no connection between this birth and the next, and it is held that there is no birth at all after this one. It is held that there is a connection between fire and smoke, and it is held that there is no connection between fire and smoke. It is held that there are connections among the three poisons [i.e., stupidity, hatred, passion], and it is held that there is no connection among the three poisons. It is held that there is a connection between both happiness and suffering, and it is held that there is no connection between both happiness and suffering. It is held that there is a connection between both the locus of a real property and reality per se, and it is held that there is no connection between the locus of a real property and reality per se. Please know, by means of the two types of epistemic authority,²² the inconceivable extent to which appearances of there being connections are imputed where there are no connections. One who comprehends everything [in this way] is the king of all-knowers and omniscient ones. It says in the transmission of the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā):

Tenets are like the edge of a sword. Tenets are like a poisonous plant. Tenets are like a flaming pit. Tenets are like the [poisonous] kimpaka fruit. Tenets are like spittle. Tenets are like an impure container. Tenets are reviled by all.²³

Therefore, whatever tenets—whether good, bad or mediocre—one might harbor are the causes of good, bad or mediocre [conditions of] saṃsāra. They are devoid of the life force of nirvāṇa. Therefore, whatever tenets, hankerings or particular philosophical positions you hold, they cause you to be buddhaless, and make you meet with saṃsāra. You should know the masses of tenets, [each one] in particular.

You must realize the essential nature of the Buddha. You must realize the essential nature of the doctrine and community. You must realize the essential nature of the deity and of the mantra.… There is a limitless ocean of tenets pertaining to the principles of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and to the particular philosophical systems. You must realize it to be neither conjoined with, nor separate from, the limitless ocean of realization, which is free from all acceptance and rejection, and which is spontaneously present, pristine cognition.

[“The Limitless Ocean of Tenets” (’Dod pa rgya mtsho mtha’ yas), from Rgya mtsho mtha’ yas skor, vol. 1: 611, line 1; 614, line 1; 625–626, translated in Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, 101–103.]

BUTÖN RINCHENDRUP AND THE FORMATION OF THE CANON

Zhalu monastery in Tsang became a major center for learning, teaching, and cultural production by the fourteenth century. The following two passages offer a vivid picture of Tibetan approaches to Buddhist scripture during this period, albeit from very different perspectives. The first passage is drawn from the history and survey of the Buddhist tradition in India and Tibet composed in 1322 by Zhalu monastery’s most famous abbot and scholar, Butön Rinchendrup (1290–1364). The second is a brief excerpt from the biography of Butön composed by his student, Dratsepa Rinchen Namgyel (1318–88). The first prescribes the correct means to teach and learn Buddhist scripture and scholastic literature. The second describes the production of this literature, the Buddhist canon, under Butön’s direction in 1334. Together they depict the activities of Buddhist scholars as highly refined and idealized, yet at the same time practical and grounded. The scholar engaged in years of intellectual training under qualified tutors but might also, when called upon by local rulers, oversee the manufacture of the very texts he had studied.

Butön’s History of Buddhism remains a classic work not only on the history of the religion but also on the pedagogical theory of the tradition. He begins by defining the ideal teacher of Buddhist scripture and his necessary qualifications. Drawing on a vast array of Indian treatises, he explains that the teacher must be wise, have deep and broad knowledge of the textual tradition, and possess great skill in verbal expression. Yet these skills may only be successfully implemented to the extent that the teacher has qualified students, and to this end Butön describes the proper way to learn scripture. It is not enough merely to listen to the words of the teacher; the successful student must understand them deeply through careful attention, wide reading, and deep contemplation. Only then might one be worthy of serving on the editorial team that produced a major edition of the Kangyur, the “Buddha’s Word in Translation” under the sponsorship of the lords of the Zhalu manor. According to Butön’s biographer, the stakes are high in this type of intellectual labor, for “the names of the prayerfully prepared treatises on the Dharma in translation are now listed in a Catalog in order to make the precious Teaching which is the source of present and future happiness spread and flourish, to make healthy and long lived the rulers who act as religious patrons.” Even scholarly activity as mundane as listing the titles of Buddhist texts might have grave social, ethical, and soteriological ramifications. KRS

BUTÖN’S JEWELRY OF SCRIPTURE

DEFINITION OF THE TEACHER

In the various treatises many different characteristics of the (spiritual) teacher are given. The Śramaṇera-kārikā says:—

Whoever is morally pure, who knows the rules of religious Discipline,

is merciful to the distressed and (surrounded by) faithful adherents,

whoever is zealous in administering help by means of the Doctrine and of material objects,

And who teaches at due time,—you are to revere as your spiritual teacher.

The teacher Nāgārjuna says:

Know thou in short the definition of teachers:

They are well versed in the rules of Discipline, endowed with Great Commiseration and pure morality,

and with the Highest Wisdom, that removes all defilement.

You must rely upon such teachers,

Be full of reverence toward their wisdom.

Śantideva has:

(Never forsake) the Teacher,—him who is proficient in the meaning of the Great Vehicle.

And Candragomin:

A teacher, who observes the vows [and] is learned and efficient, must be chosen (as preceptor).

Moreover, we read in the Sūtrālaṃkāra:—

Rely upon the Friend, who is well disciplined,

self-controlled and perfectly calming (all passions),

endowed with exclusive merits, energetic and rich in (his knowledge) of Scripture,

perceiving the Absolute Truth, skillful in speech,

merciful by nature and never weary (to teach).

Here ten qualities are mentioned. (The teacher is):—

  1.   Well disciplined, being endowed with pure morality,

  2.   Self-controlled, since he practices profound meditation,

  3.   Perfectly calming all passions, through being endowed with Highest Wisdom,

  4.   Of exclusive merits, since his virtues are superior to those of others,

  5.   Zealous, as he is not indifferent toward the needs of others,

  6.   Rich in (his knowledge of) Scripture, through extensive study (of the latter),

  7.   Perceiving the Absolute Truth, that is to be cognized,

  8.   A skillful orator,

  9.   Merciful, since he does not look to profit, and

10.   Never tired to expound the doctrine.

And again:

The Bodhisattva, the Highest of human beings,

is known to be greatly learned,

perceiving the Absolute Truth, eloquent,

full of compassion and free from lassitude.

Accordingly, (the teacher appears here) as endowed with five distinctive qualities. (He is):—

  1.   greatly learned,—an advantage as regards the theory,

  2.   cognizing Absolute Truth,—an advantage that concerns practice,

  3.   an eloquent orator,

  4.   merciful, since his mind is not directed toward material gain,

  5.   free from lassitude in thought and action.

Moreover, four qualities are known, as follows:

Extensive, clearing doubt, worthy of being heard, demonstrating the Absolute Truth in two aspects,—

such do we know to be the complement of the teaching (administered by) the Bodhisattvas.

Here (the Bodhisattva is characterized as):—

  1.   Endowed with great knowledge, by having extensively studied,

  2.   Clearing the doubts of the converts, by (his) great wisdom,

  3.   Worthy of being accepted as a teacher by being virtuous with regard to the three media (of body, speech, and mind),

  4.   Demonstrating the Absolute Truth, with a view to the (morally) defiling and purifying elements.

All these qualities are usually the (exclusive) attributes of a Saint and it is therefore not easy to become possessed of (all of) them. Three distinctive features, are however indispensable. These are:—

The High Wisdom, that characterizes the learned man,

A mind full of love and compassion,

Virtuous acts.

THE WISDOM OF A TEACHER

(The teacher must be):

Well versed in the Doctrine that is to be expounded,

Skillful, as regards the way of expressing himself,

Experienced, as concerns his behavior (toward the pupils and knowledge of the natural constitution of the latter).

THE TEACHER’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT TO BE TAUGHT

It is well if one knows thoroughly (all the different subjects of study), or otherwise the three Codes of Scripture, (but this is not all). We need (a teacher) who knows exactly what part (of the Doctrine) is to be taught, and who, with regard to words and sense, gives (good) instructions, that are based upon Scripture and Logic. Such (a teacher) is alone able to clear all the doubts of the pupils.

SKILL IN THE MEANS OF VERBAL EXPRESSION

(The skill in the way of expressing oneself consists in using) grammatically correct speech, (observing) the three rules of verbal connection,—accordance with the sources, proportion to the compass of teaching and precision in regard of the contents,—and finally, sweet and agreeable language, through which one is able to give pleasure to others. Moreover, we read in the Sūtrālaṃkāra:

  1.   Very eloquent through voice and style,
Indicating, analyzing, and clearing doubt, communicating repeatedly, for those that understand a brief indication, and those that need a description in detail,—

  2.   The teaching of the Buddhas is pure as regards its three aspects and is known to be free from the following eight defects:—

  3.   Indolence, unclear speech, inappropriate speech, want of certainty, impossibility to clear doubt and to confirm the absence of such,

  4.   Lassitude and concealment of the Truth,—such are the defects in speech.
The teaching of the Buddhas, since it possesses none of them, is superior (to all other Doctrines).

(As shows this verse) the teaching must be free from the eight defects (just mentioned) and, consequently, pure, (being viewed) from (its) three aspects. Otherwise, as says the Vyākhyāyukti,—twenty methods of communicating Doctrine, which act as antidotes against eleven defects in speech are to be considered,—as follows:—

  1.   Teaching at due time. This is an antidote against that defect, which consists in preaching to a person, who by his immoral conduct is unworthy of being taught. This method is observed by teaching only after having become convinced, that (the hearer) really wishes to study and is worthy to receive instruction. My own means of teaching and studying are defective, as regards this (first method); they are therefore without real value and do not attain their aim.

  2.   Teaching accurately, by admitting no carelessness in speech. This method is directed against the defect of incompleteness.

The following three methods are antidotes against the defect of broken, interrupted speech:—

  3.   Teaching in regular order,—by beginning with the communication of (subjects) which, as regards time, are to be mentioned first, namely charity etc., or of high, sublime matters.

  4.   Teaching in due connection,—with a view to the Sūtra, that is to be explained, and replying to the awkward questions of opponents.

  5.   Teaching, with a regard (for one’s hearers) by giving instructions in accordance with (their) questions, instructions in the form of one categorical answer, etc.

The methods, which act against the defect of unintelligible speech are (likewise) three in number, as follows:—

  6.   Causing delight to those who are devoted (to the Doctrine).

  7.   Arousing the desire (to study) in those that first meet (with the Doctrine) and are hostile to it.

  8.   Giving satisfaction to those, who are on the way toward apprehension but are still full of doubt.

The defect in speech, that consists in disregard (for the Doctrine), has the two following antidotes:—

  9.   Not speaking so as to gratify those who lead sinful lives,
And are therefore unworthy of being pleased.

10.   Not abusing (others) who through this become depressed.

An antidote against the defect of incorrect speech is—

11.   Having recourse to Logic in never being in conflict with the modes of right cognition.

That defect in speech, which consists in communicating Matters of profound meaning to (a pupil) of weak intellectual Faculties (unable to understand them) is avoided by—

12.   Gradual progress—from the preceding to the following.

Then come:—

13.   Precision,—an antidote against the defect of distraction,—by withholding from excurses on other subjects.

14.   Dependence on the Doctrine, that is—being in harmony with (the teaching of) virtue. This is an antidote against the defect of (communicating) useless theories.

15.   Accordance with the circle of adherents whosoever they might be,—an antidote against ill-suited speech.

The remaining five methods act against the defect of teaching, in being (at the same time) possessed of sinful thoughts. As to the latter, such may be of three kinds, namely, the consideration of oneself to be virtuous and trustworthy, that desire of being honored and praised, and envy (with regard to the merit of others). The first of these has three antidotes:—

16.   A mind full of love,

17.   A mind full of desire to help, and

18.   A mind full of compassion,—which manifest themselves in the desire (for others) to be happy, dispassionate, and free from suffering; otherwise, with regard to the virtuous, the vicious, and the indifferent—by (words) full of love etc. respectively, and in a third way, by wishing (others) to attain nirvāṇa, to obtain full knowledge of the Path, that leads to it, and to understand completely the meaning of that which is to be taught.

19.   Not to look to profit, honor and praise,—in rejecting the desire (of such).

20.   Not to be inclined to arrogance and deprecation of others,—that is to abandon the desire of being regarded as trustworthy, and to become free from envy.

Of these twenty methods, each group of five, respectively, shows: how, for whose sake, in what form, and by what kind (of teacher) the Doctrine is to be communicated, or otherwise, the course of teaching, its work, the qualities of the speech, and those of the speaker. To follow these twenty methods and to avoid the (eleven) defects in speech is to be skillful in the way of expressing oneself.

LISTENING TO THE DHARMA

On Listening to the Dharma the Bodhisattvapiṭaka says:—

The two causes and the two conditions,

By which living beings attain (moral) purification,

Are agreeable speech with regard to others,

And as concerns oneself, the right philosophical point of view.

Accordingly, the external conditions are:—reliance upon the teacher, and providing oneself with the due necessaries of life. The internal conditions are:—to listen attentively, enter upon an analysis of the subject studied and render it completely clear with the help of the sūtras and exegetical treatises, and by addressing questions to those, that are competent. Consequently one must bring study to complete achievement, and then exert oneself in profound meditation. We read in the Vyākhyāyukti: “As limestone is burnt with fire and then slaked by water, so is the stone of the residue of passions consumed by the fire of Highest Wisdom and then, slaked by the waters of profound meditation, is completely done away with. This High Wisdom cannot be obtained without having studied the Highest Doctrine. Therefore, listen devotedly to the Word of Buddha.”

He who merely bears the burden of words without understanding (their) meaning will never attain his aim, just as the boy who had a paper with a testament (putting him in possession of) a treasury, fastened it to his neck (and did not know what its contents was). Therefore, although one may have studied a great deal, still in order to get complete comprehension (of the subject), one must devotedly listen to (the explanation of) the meaning of the sūtras. The sentinel, who does not look attentively about, but (contents himself) with saying:—I am awake,—is at length killed by robbers. Just in the same way, one who has studied much, but only pays attention to the words, without analyzing (their meaning) will be soon overpowered by his enemies, the passions. As accurate analysis is itself impossible without the thorough knowledge (of the subject studied); one must strive to get a clear aspect of its meaning. We may give another example (to illustrate the failure of those who pay attention only to the verbal part), namely musicians, who being afraid of robbers, sing in order to remain awake, and are nevertheless killed by the robbers. As a blind man who holds a lamp administers help only to others (but not to himself), so is one who has studied and knows the words, but has not clear knowledge of their meaning. Therefore, exclusively for the sake of apprehending this meaning, one must zealously listen to its explanation.

[Eugene Obermiller, trans., The History of Buddhism (Chos ḥbyung) I: The Jewelry of Scripture (Heidelberg: Otto Harrassowitz, 1931), 62–67, 82–83.]

A BUDDHIST CANON FOR THE LORD OF ZHALU

Here in Tibet the great kings and the great ministers residing on a mahābhūmi [i.e., an exalted stage of the bodhisattva path] invited many learned and perfected paṇḍitas who were nirmāṇakāyas [emanational embodiments]; and the lotsawas [translators]—who by virtue of their knowledge of the two languages were counselors of the world or the eyes of the world—translated, explained and edited innumerable sūtras and śāstras coming from India, Kashmir, Zahor, Nepal, Khotan, China, etc. and made the teaching of the Sage shine here in the land of snows. Then the kings, ministers and Bodhisattvas of Tibet prepared as a prayer-vow all the Sūtras and Śāstras in translation. And the great lotsawas fixed lists of titles, the extent of the texts, their order and so forth; they arranged them in catalogs in the great palace of Tongtang Denkar and in Pangtang Kamé. Subsequently, since the Teaching was made to decline by those beguiled by the evil king [Lang Darma], these sermons were dispersed.

Later, the great kings beginning with Qubilai Khan, the mighty Cakravartinking, honored kalyāṇamitras [spiritual friends, i.e., qualified teachers of the Mahāyāna] as preceptors; and the latter, carrying out the duties of the Teaching, collected together the sūtras and śāstras in translation and prepared them, thereby becoming ornaments of the Teaching. Then, owing to the eldest son of the exalted great kuzhang [lord] Drakpa Gyeltsen, the great kuzhang Künga Döndrup who belongs to the family of the zhanglön [uncle-minister] of the kings of Tibet, Jé Jñānasiddhi, and of Jetsün Sherap Jungné, the exalted descendant of Jé Tridruk, etc.—a family which became allied by marriage to the great ācārya Dharmapālarakṣita and the others who were emanations of the Lord Mañjughoṣa in the immaculate lineage of the illustrious Sakyapas, and which was protected by the mighty Cakravartin-king, Qubilai Khan and his descendants—and who has undivided faith in the precious Teaching and is the donor to excellent beings upholding the Teachings, the excellent servant of the Gongma [ruler] by virtue of his knowledge of the duties of both the great Laws and the protector according to the Dharma of his dominion, the names of the prayerfully prepared treatises on the Dharma in translation are now listed in a Catalog in order to make the precious Teaching which is the source of present and future happiness spread and flourish, to make healthy and long lived the great Gongma Yönchös [rulers who act as religious patrons], who are the Friends of the Teaching, to produce the fruit of present and future happiness for all existences, and to spread a great feast of the Dharma for the excellent beings upholding the Teaching.

For the sake of pleasing the Buddha and his Sons [the bodhisattvas] by means of an excellent offering and so that the precious Teaching may last long without being the object of assumption and negation, a great feast of the Dharma was spread for the learned; with the intention in short of producing the great fruit of present and future happiness for himself and for others, the great Lord (of Zhalu) Künga Döndrup, eminent in family, form and merits and a donor who worships the Triratna [the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and saṅgha] well, invited the most learned scribes in the territory of Ü and Tsang and was well assisted by the kalyāṇamitras Śākya Senggé, Darma Jangchup and Zhönnupel, who were expounders of the scriptural tradition and its logical establishment. To the Śāstras in translation deposited in the great religious institution of Nartang, texts were added; and rare texts not available there and new translations were carefully sought for in the great and small religious institutions of Ü and Tsang. About one thousand new texts were added and, when all the duplicates contained in the texts were removed, the most excellent Śāstras were 3392 in number.

Work was begun on the first day of the eighth month of the wood-male-dog year [1334] and was completed on the fifteenth day of the twelfth month of the same year. Then the worthy scholars were gladdened by a feast, presents and parting gifts. On the tenth day of the second month of the wood-female-hog year [1335], 3468 years after the final nirvāṇa of the Buddha, a dedicatory ceremony was properly performed by the emanation of the Lord Mañjughoṣa, the lord of perfect wisdom and compassion, the excellent lama Dönyö Gyeltsen Pelzangpo. When the great dedicatory feast together with the gift of dharmatā [the ultimate nature of reality] was completed, the texts were respectfully deposited in the temple of the great religious institution of Zhalu, the great temple in which there is the self-produced image of Lokeśvara-Avalokita, the lord who unites the compassion of all the Tathāgatas—the palace which was consecrated by Dīpaṅkarajñāna [Atiśa], the great scholar of the five sciences; and the names of the śāstras, their extent and the colophons regarding the translation by the translators and scholars were put into a catalog. While the early Mantra and philosophical works were unclassified and the cycles had not been classified and were mixed together, they were differentiated after the text and sense had been well investigated.

And with regard to the missing translator’s colophons, available colophons from other texts representing corresponding translations have been supplied; and though the number of bampo [fascicle] measures and ślokas [verses] is not found in the text, they have been entered in the catalog as they were in the previous great catalogs. The texts now available found in the previous great catalogs and also rare works becoming available are to be added one by one.

[After D. S. Ruegg, The Life of Bu Ston Rin Po Che (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966), 30–35.]

THREE APPROACHES TO THE ABSOLUTE

THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF DÖLPOPA

The fourteenth century saw growing interest in topics associated with the “third turn of the doctrinal wheel”: buddha nature or the “matrix of the Tathāgata” (tathāgatagarbha),²⁴ the “consciousness of the ground-of-all” (ālayavijñāna), and the “luminosity of mind” (cittaprabhāsa) foremost among them. The effort to elaborate satisfactory accounts of these and related topics received impetus in part from the spread of contemplative and yogic techniques that used similar concepts in other contexts. The presence of the same terminology in some branches of Indian scholastic literature and in certain sūtras led many scholars to argue that the highest teachings of the Buddha were to be found in such texts. The debates to which this gave rise became some of the most hotly contested areas of Tibetan Buddhist thought, and among the richest in terms of the range of perspectives that emerged.

Indian Buddhist writers had long sought to distinguish the teachings of the consciousness of the ground-of-all and buddha nature from the various “doctrines of self” (ātmavāda) that characterized Brahmanical thought. Some thinkers held that these doctrines were not literally intended, but part of a soteriological strategy tailored for the needs of those not yet ready to apprehend the genuine purport of the Buddha’s teaching of no-self (anātman). But others maintained that they had been so intended, and their proper relationship with other discourses on the absolute, especially the concept of emptiness, had to be understood correctly. This latter approach was obviously problematic, as it suggested that, once emptiness was comprehended, there was nevertheless something more to be known.

The figure most often associated with controversial ontological speculations was Dölpopa Sherap Gyeltsen (1292–1361), who asserted that emptiness was not the intrinsic nature of the absolute, because the absolute was in his view a plentitude, not a void. It was thus only “extrinsically empty” (zhentong), that is, empty of all that constitutes relative reality. Dölpopa’s thinking sparked considerable controversy and he was condemned in some circles as a tacit adherent of the Hindu teaching of the ātman, or supreme self. After the order to which he adhered, the Jonangpa, was suppressed during the seventeenth century by the Fifth Dalai Lama for political reasons, his writings were even banned, and many believed this was due to perceived heresy. Nevertheless, Dölpopa’s insistence that the absolute could not be conceived as a mere nothingness touched a sore nerve among Tibetan thinkers, and his teaching has been repeatedly revived, albeit with modifications, down to the present time. His work made clear the great difficulties involved in reconciling the teachings of the “third turn,” as described above, with those of the “second turn,” the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras with their emphasis on emptiness. The noted editor of the canon, Butön Rinchendrup (1290–1364; see the preceding selections), for instance, insisted against Dölpopa that the Buddha’s definitive teachings were to be found just there, not in the third turn. This disagreement in matters of hermeneutics had important philosophical ramifications.

Dölpopa appears to have combined well-known assumptions regarding the decline of the doctrine with the notion of cosmic time embodied in the scheme of four yuga, or world ages. The task for the would-be interpreter of the Buddha’s teaching, accordingly, is to recover the teaching of the Perfect Age, or Kṛtayuga, and to shun the misunderstandings added by the mundane scholars of the Third Age, or Tretayuga, and later periods. (“Third” refers to the second age, and is called “Third” because three was the second-best score in the Indian game of dice.) The principles according to which Dölpopa distinguishes among the ages of the doctrine have yet to be adequately determined on the basis of his writings. It appears that he is concerned primarily with doctrinal classification, allocating philosophical doctrines to “eons” according to primarily dogmatic criteria. MTK

AN EXPRESSION OF HOMAGE TO THE ULTIMATE BUDDHA, THE THUSNESS OF SELF-ARISEN PRIMORDIAL AWARENESS

I respectfully prostrate to the absolute

perfect Buddha, the Blessed One,

who is thusness, ultimate purity,

self, great bliss, and permanence, …

THE PLEDGE OF COMPOSITION

… and will fully explain the classification

of the two sets of four eons.

A GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE TWO SETS OF FOUR EONS

The great four eons concern

the quality of the eons of a cosmic age,

and the lesser four eons,

the quality of the doctrine.

THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF THE TWO SETS OF FOUR EONS

The years of the first set are 4,320,000,

a quarter of which is taught to be a foot,

and one foot, two, three, and four, in sequence,

are taught to be the Kaliyuga, the Dvāparayuga,

the Tretāyuga, and the Kṛtayuga.

The lesser four eons,

concerning the quality of the doctrine,

last for 21,600 human years,

a quarter of which is the measure

of each of the four eons.

THE SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF THE LESSER FOUR EONS

The flawless, with qualities complete,

is the Kṛtayuga Dharma.

When a quarter then degenerates,

it is the former Tretāyuga.

If half has degenerated,

it is the latter Tretāyuga.

The remainder when three-quarters

has degenerated is the Dvāparayuga.

If there is not even one-quarter,

it is the Kaliyuga,

taught to be the wicked dharma

of the demon barbarians.

THE KṚTAYUGA DHARMA AS THE VALID WITNESS

Fully understanding each

of those divisions,

I wish to purge the doctrine,

and wishing for myself and others

to enter the fine path,

I honor the sublime Kṛtayuga Dharma

as the witness.

FLAWS HAVE ENTERED THE TREATISES OF THE TRETĀYUGA AND LATER EONS, SO ALL EXPLANATIONS FROM THEM ARE OF UNCERTAIN TRUTH

The Tretāyuga and later eons

are flawed, and their treatises

that have been diluted like milk

in the market are in every case

unfit to act as witnesses.

The higher refute the lower,

as the higher philosophical tenets

refute the lower.

BECAUSE THE KṚTAYUGA DHARMA IS FLAWLESS, PRISTINE VIEW, MEDITATION, AND CONDUCT ARE TAUGHT THERE

The Kṛtayuga Dharma is the stainless

words of the Conqueror,

and what is carefully taught

by the lords on the tenth level

and by the great system founders,

flawless and endowed with sublime qualities.

In that tradition all is not

empty of self-nature.

Carefully distinguishing

empty of self-nature and empty of other,

what is relative is all taught

to be empty of self-nature,

and what is absolute is taught

to be precisely empty of other.

AN EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION OF HOW THE TWO TRUTHS ARE IN CONTRADICTION

Why? Because concerning the two truths,

two modes of truth are taught,

two modes of appearance,

and two modes of emptiness,

and because the many forms

of exaggeration and denial,

flawed and flawless contradiction, and so forth,

phenomena and true nature,

and conditioned and unconditioned

are taught to be two great kingdoms.

THE REASON WHY THE TWO TRUTHS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE THE SAME OR ANOTHER ESSENCE

It is impossible for the two truths

to have a single essence,

but they are also not different in essence,

nor are they without any difference,

for there is the difference

of the exclusion of a single essence.

Concerning precisely this,

it is taught that the essence

is inexpressible as the same or another.

Precisely this process also applies

to phenomena and true nature,

and for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,

extremes and middle,

incidental and primordial,

fabricated and natural,

and husk and essence

the process is also precisely this.

THE OPINIONS OF THOSE WITH BAD VIEWS

Those of the Tretāyuga

and later eons say other than that.

Except for what are empty

of self-nature, what are empty of other

do not fit their definition of emptiness.

Therefore, what are taught to be

the ultimate, profound modes of reality,

such as the absolute basic space of phenomena,

thusness, natural luminosity,

natural coemergence, and the immutable nature,

the ultimate dharmakāya,

the ultimate perfection of wisdom,

ultimate Madhyamaka, ultimate nirvāṇa,

and ultimate great enlightenment,

the ultimate Buddha, ultimate Dharma,

ultimate Saṅgha, ultimate deities and mantras,

and ultimate tantras and maṇḍalas,

are all said to be precisely empty of self-nature.

They claim that what are

empty of self-nature are the ultimate,

profound modes of reality,

such as absolute truth,

the basic space of phenomena,

the true nature, and thusness.

Without dividing the two truths

into two kingdoms,

they claim that what is apparent

is relative truth and what is empty

is absolute truth.

They say that since those two,

the apparent and the empty,

are in essence indivisible,

they have a single essence

but are different conceptual isolates.

Without dividing saṃsāra and nirvāṇa

into two kingdoms, they say,

“The apparent aspect is saṃsara;

the empty aspect is nirvāṇa,”

and also claim that is the meaning

of the indivisibility of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.

“Flawed contradiction

is relative truth and flawless

contradiction is absolute truth,”

but without dividing them

into two kingdoms in that way,

they say what are apparent

and empty are the two truths.

“A dialectician’s field of

experience is saṃsāra and a yogin’s

field of experience is nirvāṇa,”

but without dividing them into

two kingdoms in that way,

they claim the pair of apparent and empty

to be the meaning of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.

[Cyrus Stearns, The Buddha from Dolpo, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2010), 135–140.]

LONGCHEN RAPJAMPA: HOW SAṂSĀRA IS FABRICATED FROM THE GROUND OF BEING

Longchen Rapjampa (1308–64), like the other thinkers considered in this section, belongs to the critical period in Tibetan history during which, in conjunction with the weakening and final collapse of Mongol power in China (1368), the Sakyapa hegemony (1264–1350) grew feeble, with the result that Tibet was engulfed in a civil war from which the Pakmodrupa hierarchs eventually emerged victorious (see chapter 11). Loyalties shifted rapidly, and Central Tibet was adrift in uncertainty. The formative tendencies of the Nyingmapa school, already evident in the work of earlier writers, such as Rongzompa (chapter 6) and Nyangrel Nyima Özer (chapter 10), now resurfaced as a powerful polemic, upholding the spiritual and temporal magnificence of Tibet’s imperial past against the decadence and factiousness of contemporary hegemonic leadership.

Longchenpa enjoyed a thorough Buddhist scholastic education at the old Kadampa center of Sangpu; there are suggestions that during his youth he had the reputation of a brilliant dilettante. Only some of the large corpus of poetry and works on poetics attributed to him is now available (see chapter 13), but the colophons of these works make clear that he was exceedingly proud of his accomplishments in refined Tibetan composition modeled on Sanskrit kāvya. Stylistic elegance would continue to characterize his writing, right down to his final testament. None of the philosophical writings (mostly commentaries) attributed to his early career appears to be currently available, though his command of the major traditions of Indian Buddhist philosophy known in Tibet is evident throughout his later expository writing on the Great Perfection, the distinctive contemplative tradition of the Nyingmapa (chapter 5).

When he was probably in his mid-twenties Longchenpa became disgusted with what he had come to regard as the pretensions of learning in the monastic colleges of Central Tibet, and decided to seek his enlightenment among the itinerant yogins who dwelled in the isolated hermitages of the Tibetan wilderness. There he encountered Kumārarāja (1266–1343), a renowned and saintly adept who specialized in the Nyingmapa teachings of the Great Perfection and had also been Karmapa Rangjung Dorjé’s master in this same tradition. The inspiration derived from this teaching would motivate the entire course of Longchenpa’s later career, and the volume of his literary work devoted to it is enormous. Though he apparently sought to live as an exemplary yogin and teacher of the Great Perfection tradition, he was not able to avoid political entanglement completely and spent some years in exile in what is today Bhutan. However, his biography, by one of his disciples, provides little detail concerning the charges brought against him and the manner of their resolution, save to indicate that he had been falsely accused of being a partisan of a faction rivaling the Pakmodrupas.

The corpus of Longchenpa’s writings on the Great Perfection may be divided into two broad categories: his contribution, as final redactor, to the eleven-volume collection of precepts, meditation texts, and ritual manuals known as the Fourfold Seminal Essence (Nyingtik yazhi), a particular system (or rather a group of closely related systems) of Great Perfection practice; and his numerous original treatises on the theory and practice of the Great Perfection. The works in the latter category include an extraordinarily rich blend of materials and genres—all branches of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist literature are drawn into his discussions, and he moves freely among allegory, rigorous philosophical argument, history, and didactic poetry as his discourses concerning the Great Perfection progress. So completely does the Nyingmapa tradition regard him as epitomizing this teaching that Longchenpa is called the “Second Samantabhadra,” Samantabhadra being the original Buddha of the Great Perfection.

Despite the high regard in which his work is held, Longchenpa’s influence on Tibetan Buddhist thought only became extensive after the eighteenth century, when Jikmé Lingpa (1730–98, see chapter 20), a visionary he inspired, initiated the widespread promulgation of his works. The present selection is drawn from one of Longchenpa’s celebrated treatises known as the Seven Treasuries: the Wish-granting Treasury, an encyclopedic survey of Buddhist doctrine in which his early scholastic education is still much in evidence. In the passage given here, from the first chapter, Longchenpa explains the emergence, from the pure ground of being, of the desultory and painful condition of mundane existence known as saṃsāra. MTK

Now we shall explain the subject matter which makes up the body of the text: the explanation of that which is to be given up (saṃsāra) and that which is to be taken up (nirvāṇa). The presentation of these two is the important part (of the treatise). First we shall explain the ground of going astray, from which saṃsāra, characterized by mistakenness and lack of intrinsic perceptivity, (has come):

Out of the motive force for well-being which is primordial sheer lucency,

The unconditioned, pivotal pervasive stratum,

From the very beginning pure like the sun in the sky,

When the experientially-initiated potentialities for experience, which come in the wake of a loss of intrinsic perceptivity, stir, sentient beings go astray (from the ground of their Being). The ground of Being, in regard to its being the foundation for the site of saṃsāra, is, like the sky, from the very beginning an open dimension without an essence. It is luminous like the sun and moon, and spontaneous (in its shining). Since beginningless time it remains what it is and does not change into something else. Since it is the reach and range which is beyond the limitations set by propositions, it is sheer lucency; and since it remains in the totality-field in which meaningful existence and pristine cognitiveness cannot be added to or subtracted from one another, it is the motive force for wellbeing. Since it is the existential presence of the foundation of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, it is called the pivotal pervasive stratum. Finally, it is unconditioned and has remained absolutely pure from the beginning.

Furthermore, conflicting emotions and unstable actions (that go with them) are founded (on this pervasive stratum), although they actually have no foundation, just like a mass of clouds (seems to) rest on the sun and sky. However, the ground of Being remains in its own reach and range—these (conflicting emotions and unstable actions) do not touch or join it. Since they are without any actuality, they appear as founded, although the founding and the founded cannot be established; they are mere ascriptions. As the Uttaratantra (The ‘Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna’) says: “Earth-solidity rests on water-cohesion, water on wind-motility, and wind on space-spatiality. Space does not rest on any of the elementary constituents of earth, water, or wind. In the same way, the psychophysical constituents, the elements of our experiential make-up, and the sense-field are founded on conflicting emotions and unstable actions; conflicting emotions and unstable actions rest on the improper use of the mind; the improper use of the mind rests on mind in its purity; and mind in its purity does not rest on anything.”

Nirvāṇa is also founded (on this pervasive stratum), but it is inseparable from it, like the sun and its rays, since from the very beginning it cannot be added to or subtracted from. Since we shall explain these things in detail below, we will not say any more here. From the reach and range of this ground of Being:

The clouds of incidental obscurations, the proliferating postulations coming in the wake of a loss of intrinsic perceptivity,

(Become) the potentialities for experience of objects, consciousness, and one’s body

By the rising of the latent tendencies for going astray into (the duality) of apprehending acts and apprehendable projects.

Thus, the motive force of sheer lucency, intrinsic perceptivity, has been obscured.

From the reach and range of the primordial existential presence of Being, which is naturally lucent, beginningless loss of intrinsic perceptivity arises as observable qualities which are able to shine in their own light. This rising of the latent tendencies of (the split into) the apprehending and the apprehendable, which have now become a sustaining factor, is an incidental obscuration. The three potentialities for experience which make up (the intentive structure) of mind become sedimented on the pervasive stratum. They are: objects, such as color-form, etc.; consciousness, the perceptive functions which apprehend these objects; and one’s body. Since these potentialities for experience, which make themselves felt although there has never been anything (to appear), have obscured, like dust which settles on a mirror, the motive force of sheer lucency, pristine cognitiveness informed by intrinsic perceptivity, which is the primordial ground of Being, one wanders about in saṃsāra. As the Tantra of the Secret Nucleus states: “Listen! Out of the motive force for well-being, conceptual fictions and unstable actions miraculously appear.” As an analogy for obscuration:

Just as the continuum of the sky has become obscured by clouds,

Buddha capabilities are no longer manifest and the mistaken mode of presencing, (consisting of) happiness and frustration, makes itself felt.

From the reach and range of the totality-field of primordial sheer lucency, which is like the sky, incidental obscurations like clouds (appear), although pristine cognitiveness, which is like the sun, remains from the very beginning spontaneously co-existent with this reach and range. The limitless capabilities do not make themselves felt on account of this obscuring activity in the situation of an ordinary being, although they are manifest in meaningful existence, as well as in meaningful existence in its absoluteness—the inseparability of pristine cognitiveness and its continuum of experience. This is due to the presence of the many clouds of potentialities for the experience of various happinesses and frustrations (which make up) the mistaken mode of presencing. The actuality of mind is sheer lucency, therefore all obscurations are incidental and can be cleared up. As the Verse Commentary on Epistemology says: “The actuality of mind is sheer lucency, obscurations are incidental.” If one asks how (the obscurations) are similar to clouds:

Just as the crop grows when rain falls from the clouds,

The rain of actions (leading to) happiness and frustration falls

By the stirring of the cloud of intentive mind, with its projects and acts of projection characterized by a loss of intrinsic perceptivity.

The crop produced is the three realms of saṃsāra.

Just like rain-clouds trembling in the sky and falling rain are necessary for the growth of the crop, out of the reach and range of Mind-as-such, naturally pure, involvement in the proliferating fictions of one’s projects and acts of projection begin to stir. By the accumulation of many actions, either positive or negative, which are the motivating force in saṃsāra, the six life-forms of the three realms appear with their corresponding modes of behavior. Since the crop of the variety of happiness and frustration multiples, saṃsāra is just like a circle of fire (i.e. like a torch waved in a circular motion). As it says in the Jewel Rosary: “The circle of saṃsāra has sustaining causes following one after another like a circle of fire. This is asserted to be ‘running around in circles’.” Now we shall explain extensively the division into the three potentialities for experience in saṃsāra:

From among the three potentialities for experience, which comprise the mistaken mode of presencing

The potentiality for experience of objects, the world-as-container

Appears as the objects of the five senses, color-form, etc.

Because the beginningless potentialities for experience which have three different characteristics are implanted on the universal ground, presencing also manifests itself in three different ways. The potentiality for experience of objects, color-form, sound, odor, flavor, and tangibility, which are summed up by the external world and its inhabitants, appear as if they existed externally although there is no such thing as internal or external. Having appeared before the mind, one becomes completely taken in by (the belief in) them as real objects; one makes them into objects of judgments, either affirming or denying (their reality). The object that one is involved with is called color-form; considered as external it is the postulate of the apprehendable. The same holds for sound and the others. As for oneself, the internal, appearance as mind:

The potentiality for experience of consciousness appears as the eight perceptive functions

And the healthy and destructive actions based on them.

The foundational-horizontal perceptive function has founded itself on the pervasive stratum (of the world-horizon) as the variety of potentialities for experience, and from this spread the five perceptions, seeing and the others; the conceptualizing perceptive function, which follows a cognition of a sense object; and the emotively-toned ego-act. These eight functions are called the apprehending mind. The split into these (eight) constitutes the concept of apprehending.

If one asks why it is (called) apprehending, the answer is as follows: since, on the level of the potentialities for experience implanted on the pervasive stratum, existentially it is a loss of intrinsic perceptivity and functionally it remains without conceptualizations connected with any apparent object, it is (called) apprehending as the potentiality for experience of the realm of formlessness. Based on this is a cognition which is only partially clear and lucent and which is not connected with an object; this is the foundational-horizontal perceptive function, called apprehending as the potentiality for experience of the realm of form. The five sense perceptions, which have spread from this and which are without conceptualization, are (called) apprehending as the potentiality for the experience of wholeness on the level of form. The conceptualizing perceptive function and the emotively-toned ego-act are (called) apprehending as the potentiality for the experience of the realm of sensuousness. These eight perceptive functions, since they apprehend their respective objects, both with and without conceptualization, are known as the apprehending mind. Unhealthy actions and merits accruing to healthy actions, which are founded on apprehending and rise as a whole by virtue of it, become sedimented in the mind, since they remain like tarnish on gold. Pacification of this involvement in mind and mental events is the intent of the Middle Way.

[Extracts from Kennard Lipman, trans., “How the Saṃsāra Is Fabricated from the Ground of Being,” in Crystal Mirror, vol. V (Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977), 344–364.]

KARMAPA RANGJUNG DORJÉ’S PRAYER TO THE GREAT SEAL

The Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorjé, was born in southwest Tibet in 1284. According to early stories of his life, at the age of five he received a blessing in the form of a white light striking his head from the famous statue of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara, in Kyirong on the southwest border of Tibet. This miraculous event led his parents to bring him before Master Orgyenpa Rinchenpel (1230–1309), who identified him as his deceased teacher, Karma Pakshi (see above). At the age of seven, Rangjung Dorjé took vows as a novice monk at the first Karmapa Düsum Khyenpa’s monastery of Tsurpu. At age twenty he took full monastic vows, again at Tsurpu. As an adult, when not studying at Tsurpu or maintaining solitary yogic practice in nearby hermitages, the Third Karmapa traveled throughout Central and eastern Tibet giving religious instruction, founding and renovating religious institutions, and acting as a political mediator in times of regional conflict. He attracted numbers of illustrious disciples, and all three of the major figures whose work we have just surveyed—Butön, Dölpopa, and Longchenpa—became associated with him. In 1331 the Third Karmapa received an order from the Mongol leader of the Chinese Yuan dynasty to join him at his capital. Rangjung Dorjé grudgingly acquiesced to this long journey, and in 1332 arrived at the court. Rangjung Dorjé returned a second time to China in 1338, and died there a year later. His close relationship with the Yuan emperors gained Tsurpu monastery tax-exempt status under Mongol sovereignty and ensured subsequent Karmapas favorable ties with later Chinese imperial leadership under the Ming dynasty.

Rangjung Dorjé was a prolific writer on all aspects of Buddhist culture, authoring over a hundred works on Buddhist ritual practice, esoteric philosophy, medicine, astrology, and ethics. He is often credited with combining the contemplative precepts of the Great Seal, or Mahāmudrā, with the Great Perfection system of esoteric practice developed in the Nyingma school. A verse from the Great Seal Prayer makes this identification clear: “Free from subjective activity, this is the Great Seal. Free from extremes, this is the Great Middle Way. This is also called the all-encompassing Great Perfection. May we attain certainty that the awareness of one is the realization of all.” This inclusive approach to soteriological doctrine has earned Rangjung Dorjé a place in the canon of the so-called eclectic, or nonsectarian movement of nineteenth-century Tibetan religious history (chapter 21). Indeed, Jamgön Kongtrül (1813–99), the movement’s most important proponent, wrote commentaries on several of Rangjung Dorjé’s most famous works. KRS

Teachers, meditational deities, deities of the mandala,

Victors and sons of the ten directions and three times,

Think kindly on me, grant me blessings

That accord with the fulfillment of my prayers. (1)

Born from the snowy mountain of pure thoughts and actions

Of myself and limitless sentient beings,

May rivers of virtue, unsullied in the three spheres²⁵

Flow into the ocean of the four enlightened bodies of the Sovereign [Buddha]. (2)

For as long as this remains unobtained,

Throughout all our births and rebirths,

May even a word of sin or sorrow not be sounded,

May we revel in the splendor of an ocean of bliss and virtue. (3)

Achieving the highest human state, possessing diligence and discriminating awareness,

Relying on a spiritual friend, obtaining the essence of instructions:

With no impediments to such undertakings

May we enjoy the supreme teachings in all rebirths. (4)

Hearing scripture and reasoning, we are freed from the cloud of unknowing.

Contemplating instructions, the gloom of doubt is overcome.

From the radiance arising in meditation [the true] manner of abiding shines forth.

May the presence of the threefold discriminating awareness increase. (5)

The meaning of the ground is the two truths free from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

Through the highest path, the two accumulations free from the extremes of exaggeration and denigration,

While obtaining the two benefits, free from becoming and extinction,

May we meet with teachings which are without error. (6)

Within the ground of purification, the mind as such, the coalescence of radiance and emptiness,

By that which purifies, the great adamantine yoga of the Great Seal,

The defilements of adventitious bewilderment are purified.

May the purified result, the enlightened body of reality free from defilement, become actualized. (7)

Severing exaggeration about the ground is the confidence of the view.

Preserving that undistractedly is the heart of meditation.

Developing meditative skill in all matters is the peak of activity.

May we posses the confidence of view, meditation, and activity. (8)

All phenomena are illusions of the mind.

The mind is no-mind, empty of the essence of mind.

Empty and unceasing, it presences everywhere.

Having examined this well, may the root be cut at the base. (9)

Self-presencing, which has never been existent, is mistaken for an object.

Through the power of unknowing, self-cognizance is mistaken for a self.

Through the power of dualist grasping, we wander in the realm of becoming.

May we precisely cut the root of unknowing and bewilderment. (10)

It is not existent, for even the victors do not see it.

It is not nonexistent, as it is the ground of the totality of cyclic existence and liberation.

It is not the opposites or the union, rather the middle path of coalescence.

May the reality of the mind, free from extremes, be realized. (11)

No one can affirm it by saying, “This is it.”

No one can deny it by saying, “This is not it.”

Reality, surpassing thought, is uncompounded.

May we become certain about the finality of true meaning. (12)

Not realizing this, we course in the ocean of cyclic existence.

When this is realized, it is nothing other than buddhahood.

There is nothing whatsoever that “is this” or “is not this.”

May we come to know reality, the essence of the universal ground. (13)

Presencing is mind, and emptiness is mind.

Realization is mind, and bewilderment is one’s own mind.

Coming into being is mind, and going out of being is mind.

Therefore, may all reifications about the mind be severed. (14)

Unspoiled by intellectual and overzealous meditation,

Unmoved by the winds of common frivolity,

Knowing how to settle oneself in unfabricated naturalness,

May we be skilled in and preserve the experience of the essence of mind. (15)

Subtle and coarse thoughts spontaneously abating,

The mind by nature abides unwavering.

Free from impurities—whether withdrawn, foggy, or turbid—

May we rest unmoving in the ocean of calm abiding. (16)

Looking again and again to the unseen mind,

The fact that it cannot be seen is seen.

Severing doubt as to the matter of its existence or nonexistence,

May we ourselves be aware of our own essence. (17).

Through observing objects, they are seen to be mind without object.

Through observing mind, [it is seen as] empty of essence, without mind.

Through observing both, one is spontaneously free from dualistic grasping.

May we realize the abiding manner of the luminous mind. (18)

Free from subjective activity, this is the Great Seal.

Free from extremes, this is the Great Middle Way.

This is also called the all-encompassing Great Perfection.

May we attain certainty that the awareness of one is the realization of all. (19)

Great bliss that is without desire is unceasing.

Luminosity that is without apprehension is free of obscuration.

Nonconceptuality that is liberated from intellectualization is spontaneously achieved.

May our effortless experience be uninterrupted. (20)

Clinging to good and desirable experiences is spontaneously freed.

Bewildered bad thoughts are naturally purified in the expanse.

Ordinary awareness is not accepted, rejected, freed, or obtained.

May we realize the truth of reality free from proliferation. (21)

Even though the nature of beings is eternally Buddha,

Through the force of nonrealization they wander endlessly in cyclic existence.

For sentient beings with their limitless suffering

May an unresting compassion arise in our minds. (22)

The power of unresting compassion being unimpeded,

At the moment of love the meaning of emptiness is laid bare.

On this supreme path of coalescence, free from error,

May we endeavor day and night, without interruption. (23)

The enlightened eyes and the extraordinary awareness arising from the power of meditation,

The maturation of sentient beings, the totally purified buddha fields,

The perfected aspiration that achieves the teachings of the Buddha—

May we become buddhas, reaching the limit of perfection, maturation, and purification. (24)

By virtue of the compassion of the Sovereigns and sons of the ten directions,

As well as whatever pristine virtue exists,

Just so, may the pure aspirations of myself and all sentient beings

Be accomplished just as they were made. (25)

[Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339), Nges don phyag rgya chen po’i smon lam (Chemre, 1968). Trans. KRS.]

1 “Mere Knowing,” often termed “Mind Only,” or Yogācāra (“Yoga Practice”), also refers to the philosophy of mind of the fourth–fifth century teachers Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, by whom Dharmapāla was inspired.

² The discourses of the Buddha are sometimes classified into three “wheels,” according to their subject matter and philosophical outlook. The First Wheel corresponds to the early Buddhist teachings of impermanence, suffering, and absence of self; the Second Wheel to the teaching of emptiness elaborated in the “Perfection of Wisdom” sūtras of the Mahāyāna; and the Third Wheel to the doctrines of buddha nature, luminous mind, and gnosis found in other Mahāyāna sūtras.

³ Though this expression seems an oxymoron, it refers to apparent truth as known in the world, which comes to be seen as false when the ultimate is realized.

⁴ The non-Buddhist Sāmkhya school of Indian philosophy held that the effect is in some sense already latent in the cause, to which the Buddhists objected that this would imply that what came into existence already existed, so that its coming-to-be implied a contradiction.

⁵ This is Atiśa’s major work, the Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathapradīpa), which teaches that there are three grades of aspirant: inferior (who seeks personal benefit in this or future lives); middling (who seeks personal freedom from suffering cyclic existence); and superior (who treasures others above self and works toward their liberation from suffering).

⁶ Dölpopa’s radical teaching is treated later in this chapter. He was inspired by the Tantra of the Wheel of Time (Kālacakratantra), which is said to have been promulgated in the Inner Asian land of Shambhala.

⁷ Samantabhadra is here the name of an important bodhisattva, not to be confused with the buddha Samantabhadra, considered the Primordial Buddha in the Great Perfection traditions of the Nyingmapa order and the Bönpo.

⁸ Bhavyarāja, a Kashmiri logician, was one of Ngok’s main teachers, though probably not a Buddhist. Together, they executed a number of translations into Tibetan.

⁹ The Kashmiri Parahitabhadra was Ngok’s second main teacher in the field of logic. Bhavyabhadra seems to be a variant for Bhavyarāja. Sunayaśrī[mitra] of Vikramaśila monastery in Bihar is mentioned as one of the masters who was invited to the religious council of Toling.

¹⁰ Gomi Chimé is particularly known as Ngok’s teacher of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, the main treatise of the Perfection of Wisdom studied in Tibet.

¹¹ After Ngok had studied under Sthirapāla in Magadha, he invited him to Tibet, where they are said to have established a scriptural seminary at Zhalu.

¹² 1. charity, 2. moral conduct, 3. patience, 4. effort, 5. contemplation, and 6. discriminative understanding, or wisdom.

¹³ 1. generously dispensing material goods and teachings, 2. gentle speech, 3. purposeful action, and 4. harmoniousness.

¹⁴ 1. writing, 2. worshipping, 3. charity, 4. listening, 5. reading, 6. retaining, 7. teaching, 8. reciting, 9. thinking (on the Dharma), and 10. cultivating it in meditation.

¹⁵ Among Dharmakīrti’s seven works on “valid cognition” (pramāṇa, logic and epistemology), the Set of Three are the most comprehensive: the lengthy Commentary on Valid Cognition, the middle-length Ascertainment of Valid Cognition, and the abridged Drop of Reason.

¹⁶ The last four mentioned are all works on the monastic discipline, or Vinaya.

¹⁷ Here we are to understand that a lion is so proud that he looks across to the horizon, taking everything in at once. Thus, the “lion’s glance” is present in the verse of invocation, which thus gives a broad, comprehensive view of the meaning of the treatise.

¹⁸ The question here is whether the round of rebirth has a fixed stock of sentient creatures or genuinely “new” beings are sometimes produced.

¹⁹ Karma Pakshi has in mind here a horticultural model of cause and result (lit. fruit), so that the result (i.e., buddhahood) is regarded as the seed, or cause, of a renewed cycle of production.

²⁰ The author’s intention is not perfectly clear here. Perhaps he means that some hold that one or the other of these two types of truth, which are both generally affirmed in Mahāyāna Buddhism, is the sole truth.

²¹ The five sensory modes of consciousness, with the addition of intellectual consciousness, “flawed intellectual activity,” i.e., ego construction, and the “consciousness of the ground-of-all,” which maintains the dispositions implanted by past actions.

²² I.e., direct perception and inference.

²³ The term translated here as “tenet” is in Tibetan identical to the verb “to hold” as used in the preceding passage. Elsewhere, however, this same passage is interpreted to be referring to desires, not philosophical tenets.

²⁴ “Tathāgata,” meaning one who has departed from the world and arrived at transcendence, is an epithet of the Buddha. The tathāgatagarbha is thus the innate potential for buddhahood present in each and every conscious being.

²⁵ I.e., the three spheres of grasping at the ultimate reality of the subject and object of action, as well as the action itself.