3 History of Mādhyamika in Tibet

Question: In the Snowy Land [of Tibet] are these great path systems of the chariots of Mādhyamika and Cittamātra confined to just those divisions explained above or are there many divisions other than those? The first option cannot be correct because in the Land of Snow Mountains there are many names of schools of tenets that were not mentioned here. The second option is not correct because if [the Tibetan tenet systems] were explained in a manner other than these [Indian systems], it would not be suitable for them to be proponents of Mahāyāna tenets; yet, if they are not explained in some other manner, the use of other names for these tenet systems would be meaningless.

Answer: I will explain this briefly. The various names of schools of tenets in Tibet appear to have been designated by way of geographic area or the name of a master, as was the case with the eighteen Vaibhāṣika subschools. Also, some received certain instructions from an Indian scholar-adept (paṇḍiṭasiddha, pan grub) and primarily practiced those [instructions], due to which they were designated as separate schools with the names of those systems of instruction. Therefore, it does not seem certain that the names of the schools were designated only through philosophical view, as was the case with the schools of Mahāyāna tenets in the Land of Superiors [India]. For example, there are many cases of designating a name from the viewpoint of geographic area, such as Sa-gya-ba (Sa-skya-pa) and Dri-gung-ba (’Bri-gung-pa), from the viewpoint of a master, such as Karma-ba (Karma-pa), and from the viewpoint of a system of instruction, such as the Great Completion (rDzogs-chen-pa) and the Great Seal (Phyag-chen-pa, mahamūdrika).

However, this is an occasion for analyzing the differences in view only. That being the case, with regard to the time of the earlier dissemination of the doctrine in Tibet, the greatest propagation of the complete explanation and achievement of the Conqueror’s entire system occurred around the time of the mighty god [King] Tri-song-day-dzen (Khri-srong-lde-btsan, reigned 755-797). At that time many great Indian scholars and adepts, such as the great master Padmasambhava, the mantra-bearer Dharmakīrti, Vimalamitra, and Buddhaguhya, came [to Tibet]. However, the one who bore the burden of explaining the excellent doctrine, from monastic discipline (vinaya, ’dul ba) through Mādhyamika, and who spread the system of lecturing on and listening to the doctrine was the great master Śāntarakṣita. This appears clearly in the ancient records.

The great master Padmasambhava subdued the gods and demons of Tibet and gave initiation and instruction in Secret Mantra to a small group, which included the king and his children, and it appears that Dharmakīrti also bestowed initiation in the Vajradhātu mandala of Yoga [Tantra]. However, accounts do not appear of their doing such things as explaining the great philosophical texts, and since they were very strict at that time regarding the Mantra class, it appears that they did not disseminate Secret Mantra widely.

Regarding view and behavior, it is explained [in the early histories] that by order of the king a law was proclaimed that in view and practice one must act in accordance with the system of the Bodhisattva Abbot [Śāntarakṣita]. Thus, since it is indisputable that the abbot Śāntarakṣita was a great charioteer following the Superior Nāgārjuna, the view at that time was none other than that of Nāgārjuna’s system. In Purifying Forgetfulness of the View (lTa ba’i brjed byang) by the great translator Ye-shay-day (Ye-shes-sde), who was a student of both the master [Padmasambhava] and the abbot [Śāntarakṣita], the system of Nāgārjuna is mainly followed, and in that [text the view] also appears to accord with the Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Mādhyamika system.

Later, after the master [Padmasambhava] had left and the great abbot [Śāntarakṣita] had passed away, a Chinese abbot named Hva-shang Mahāyāna spread his own system, composing many treatises that primarily taught the view of not applying the mind to anything. Consequently, many of the people of Tibet, such as Queen Dro-sang-jang-chup (’Bro-bzang-byang-chub), entered his religious system. The king then saw that this system, which deprecated the factor of method (upāya, thabs), was not a pure religious system because it did not accord with the system of the former abbot [Śāntarakṣita] and that it was a cause of indolence in the Tibetan people in the practice of virtue. In accordance with the last will of the abbot, he invited the great master Kamalaśīla, who defeated the Chinese abbot well with scripture and reasoning. Kamalaśīla composed many treatises, such as the three Stages of Meditation in Mādhyamika (Bhāvanākrama) which praise analytical wisdom, and he spread the stainless system of lecturing and listening. At this time it also appears that the king proclaimed that thenceforth the view must accord with the system of the master Nāgārjuna and that views which accorded with the system of Hva-shang would be eliminated through punishment.

Therefore, although in the earlier dissemination of the teaching, a few paṇḍiṭas who bore the Cittamātra system came [to Tibet], the main system was that of Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, and thus it appears that only the Svātantrika-Mādhyamika view was widespread.

It is explained [in the histories] that in the later dissemination of the teaching, the great translator Rin-chen-sang-bo (Rin-chen-bzang-po, 958-1055) relied on many great scholars and adepts, studied the doctrines of Mantra and philosophy a great deal, and translated much of the word [of Buddha] as well as treatises (śāstra, bstan bcos). He delineated [the doctrine] through hearing and explanation, and his view was that of a Thoroughly Non-Abiding Mādhyamika. This great translator subdued [the demon] nāga Gar-gyal (sKar-rgyal), put an end to mistaken Mantra practices, and with great kindness filled the people of the snowy mountains with the pure teaching.

The divine lamas Ye-shay-ö (Ye-shes-’od) and Jang-chup-ö (Byang-chub-’od) could not tolerate the pollution of the teaching by coarse Tibetan practitioners of Mantra and invited the glorious, incomparable, great elder Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna [Atīśa] (982-1054).¹ Because they entreated him to purify the teaching, he wrote texts such as the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathapradīpa) and spread the teaching of the Conqueror with a kindness comparable to that of the Conqueror himself. This incomparable, great elder held the view of the system of the Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika:

Through whom should one realize emptiness?

Candrakīrti, Nāgārjuna’s student,

Prophesied by the Tathāgata,

And who saw the true reality.

One should realize the true reality

From instructions transmitted from him.²

Thus, he held the system of Candrakīrti to be chief.

When the Foremost Elder [Atīśa] came to Tibet, the Tibetan teachers offered him their own understanding of the view, but the Elder was not pleased and said, “No matter what your view is, cultivate the altruistic aspiration to enlightenment (bodhicitta, byang chub kyi sems).” Later, the Elder was pleased when Drom-dön (’Brom-ston, 1005-1064) presented his realization of the view of the master Candrakīrti to him. He joined his hands at his heart and said, “Amazing! Now, to the east of India, only this view is to be held.”

Thus, in the expositions of the stages of the path and in the statements of those renowned as the three brothers—the spiritual friend Bo-do-wa (Po-to-ba) and so forth [Jen-nga-ba (sPyan-lnga-pa) and Pu-chung-wa (Phu-chung-ba)]—which appear in the final, pure biographies of the Ga-dam-bas (bKa’-gdams-pa) stemming from the Great Elder, the Mādhyamika view is for the most part in accord with the system of Candrakīrti.

Regarding the great translator from Ngok [Lo-den-shay-rap] and his spiritual sons, despite the fact that many citations from the works of Bhāvaviveka and Candrakīrti are found [in their writings], it appears that their mode of sustaining the view [in meditation] accords for the most part with that of Śāntarakṣita and his [spiritual] son [Kamalaśīla].

The development of the view in several mind-training texts deriving from Dharmakīrti of Suvarnadvīpa [present-day Sumatra] appears to accord with the system of the False Aspectarian (alīkākāravāda, rnam rdzun pa) Cittamātrins.³ However, it was rare for any of the followers to know how to explain the Indian texts without mixing their meaning [with that of other systems].

The originator of the view known as Jo-mo-nang-ba (Jo-mo-nang-pa) is renowned to be the great adept Yu-mo (Yu-mo) who was born in the vicinity of Gang-day-say (Gangs-te-se), who had a little meditative stabilization (samādhi, ding nge ’dzin) and clairvoyance (abhijñā, mngon shes), and who wrote some textbooks on Kālacakra. The disseminator of the system was the omniscient Shay-rap-gyal-tshen (Shes-rab-rgyal-mtshan) of Dol-bo (Dol-po); later there arose many who held the lineage, such as Jo-nang Gun-ga-dröl-chok (Jo-nang Kun-dga’-grol-mchog, 1495-1566). With regard to the system’s view, they assert that the ultimate truth is positive, permanent, and independent, and they assert that an element (dhātu), which is the Sugata-essence [Buddha nature] that is permanent, stable, eternal, and adorned with the thirty-two marks, naturally exists in the continua of all sentient beings. This [assertion] stands outside the system of all the Mādhyamika and Cittamātra charioteers and is refuted with hundreds of scriptures and reasonings by the preeminent scholars of the Snowy Land, such as Rin-chen-dok (Rin-chen-tog) of Yar-drok (Yar-’brog), the foremost Ren-da-wa (Red-mda’-ba, 1349-1412), and the foremost great being Tsong-kha-pa and his spiritual sons.

The great, omniscient being of the age of disputation, the all-knowing Bu-dön (Bu-ston, 1290-1364) was an unrivalled scholar who studied all of the systems of tenets; the view as explained in his own system accords greatly with the Ga-dam-bas, and he takes the texts of Candrakīrti to be chief.

Also, at an earlier time, the great translator Ba-tsap-nyi-ma-drak (Pa-tshab-nyi-ma-grags, born 1055) studied in Kashmir for twenty-three years and invited the great paṇḍiṭa Kanakavarman to Tibet. He translated many Mādhyamika treatises and listened and lectured. Many students came [to study with him], such as those renowned as the four sons of Ba-tsap. It appears that they spread the explanation of the Mādhyamika system of the master Candrakīrti more widely in Tibet than he [Ba-tsap] did.

Gö-rin-bo-chay Kuk-ba-hlay-dzay (’Gos-rin-po-che Khug-pa-lhas-btsas) went to India twelve times, met with seventy-two scholar-adepts, and appears to have given many explanations of tantras. He also held the Mādhyamika view to be chief, but from his statements it is difficult to determine whether he was Prāsaṅgika or Svātantrika. Since many great translators, such as the translator Kay-gay-kor-lo-drak (Khe-gad-khor-lo-grags) appear to have been students of the great scholar Abhayākaragupta (c. 1100), one wonders whether they relied on him for their view; there does not appear to be a clear explanation. Similarly, the majority of the great translators, such as the three, Ra (Rva Do-rje-grags), Dro (’Bro Shes-rab-grags), and Nyen (gNyan Dar-ma-grags), appear only to have declared themselves to be Mādhyamikas; it seems difficult to decide such things as whether they were Prāsaṅgikas or Svātantrikas.

Drok-mi Shakya-ye-shay (’Brok-mi Shakya-ye-shes, 992-1072) went to India and heard the three Hevajra tantras together with their branches, etc., from the master Vīravajra, an actual student of the master called Durjayacandra who held the lineage of Ḍombiheruka, student of the master Virūpa. He stayed in India for twelve years. Returning to Tibet, he disseminated Mantra doctrines. Later, he met the paṇḍiṭa Gayādhara and studied the Mother Tantra cycles. Many Sa-gya doctrines derive from him. The view of their system of path and fruition (lam ’bras) is explained as being that of the great Mādhyamika [Prāsaṅgika], but their manner of identifying the view appears to be slightly different from that of other systems in that it is related to Mantra precepts; it is renowned as the view of the union of manifestation and emptiness. Nonetheless, since it presents the thought of the great adept Virūpa, it does not pass beyond Prāsaṅgika, although the followers’ mode of explanation is not unequivocal.

Regarding the great paṇḍiṭa, skilled in the five sciences, Jam-yang-gun-ga-gyel-tsen (’Jam-dbyangs-kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan, 1182-1251) [known as Sa-gya Paṇḍiṭa], his view [when explaining] the Mantra class [of texts] appears to be just that [of the union of manifestation and emptiness], and his explanations of the view for the Sutra class greatly praise the Thoroughly Non-Abiding Mādhyamika. A later Sa-gya, the great venerable Ren-da-wa (Red-mda’-ba), who completed the path, gained supreme ascertainment of the system of the honorable Candrakīrti, and his commentary to Candrakīrti’s Supplement (Madhyamakāvatāra) and instruction manuals on the view accord in essence with the foremost great being Tsong-kha-pa.

The view renowned as the Shi-jay (Zhi-byed) system stems from the protector of transmigrators, Paramapitṛbuddha. This Paramapitṛbuddha is generally renowned as having been an actual student of the protector Nāgārjuna, and in the history surrounding that teaching, it is explained that Parama listened to the doctrine relying on eighty male and female adepts [as teachers]. When they enumerate the lamas of their lineage, they begin with the master Nāgārjuna and go through the students of Nāropa and Maitripāda. Although some widely renowned scholars who wrote histories of doctrine give accounts which agree with the earlier histories, it seems difficult to be certain.

Some explain that Parama and the great Kashmiri paṇḍiṭa Śākyaśrī were the same person, but no reasons for this are evident. Be that as it may, it is probably true that he was an actual student of the protector Nāgārjuna because this appears to accord with several Chinese histories. The source for the Shi-jay system’s view is the sutras of the Perfection of Wisdom class, and in their essays of instructions, Nāgārjuna is held to be valid. In addition, the statements of Ma-ji-lap-drön (Ma-cig-lab-sgron) are in great agreement with the Prāsaṅgika position, although since then, the bearers of the instructions seem to a large extent to be confusing fish and turnips.

The great bearer of the practice lineage in the Snowy Range, Mar-ba-chö-gyi-lo-drö of Hlo-drak (Lho-brag Mar-pa-chos-kyi-blo-gros, 1012-1096) went to India three times and Nepal four times. He met with one hundred and eight gurus who were scholars and adepts, such as the great paṇḍiṭa Nāropa, the lord Maitripāda, the glorious Jñānagarbha, and the great adept Śāntibhadra. He studied in detail the explanation, instructions, and practices of the majority of the father and mother [Highest] Yoga Tantras, such as the glorious Guhyasāmaja. After his return to Tibet, there were many bearers of the lineage, such as the “four students of the transmission,” and since his activities of Secret Mantra were extremely vast, many lineages of his percepts have continued to spread, even to the present. With respect to the view of the Foremost One himself [Mar-ba], there appear to be many lineages of Mādhyamika and Cittamātra instructions, because he listened to many gurus who were scholars and adepts. However, the Foremost One himself says in a song that the teacher who destroyed superimpositions (āropa, sgro ’dogs) in the view was just Maitripāda. Also, whenever he explained view, meditation, behavior, or tantra, he took Nāropa and Maitripāda as his principal [sources]. Not only was the lord Maitripāda a Mādhyamika, he took only the system of the glorious Candrakīrti to be chief. He says in his Ten Stanzas on Suchness (Tattvadaśaka):⁴

Not Aspectarians, not Non-Aspectarians,

Even Mādhyamikas who are not adorned

With the guru’s speech are only mediocre.

Thus, both True [Aspectarian, satyākaravāda, rnam bden pa] and False Aspectarian (alīkāravāda, rnam ’dzun pa) Cittamātrins do not realize the meaning of suchness (tathatā, de kho na nyid), and even among Mādhyamikas, those who are not adorned with the quintessential instructions of the guru are said to be mediocre Mādhyamikas. The paṇḍiṭa Sahajavajra, an actual student of [Maitripāda] himself, says in a commentary that the instructions of the guru are only the instructions of the glorious Candrakīrti.⁵

The great paṇḍiṭa Nāropa also holds only the system of the glorious Candrakīrti because he says in his commentary to the continuation [that is, the eighteenth chapter] of the Guhyasāmaja Tantra:

This commentary on the continuation of the tantra

Following the Brilliant Lamp of Candrakīrti

Describes Nāgārjuna’s quintessential instructions.

And:

Relying on the stages of instruction

Of the masters Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva,

Nāgabodhi, Śākyamitra,

Candrakīrti, and so forth ...

Also, his description of the view appears to be like that [of Candrakīrti] alone. Therefore, the statement of some earlier and later logicians that Maitripāda was a Cittamātrin because he was a student of Ratnākāraśānti is simply to be discarded; it is like a stone thrown too late.

Thus, the view of the king of adepts Mar-ba is unquestionably that of the Great Mādhyamika—Prāsaṅgika. Nevertheless, in the instructions on the view deriving from Mar-ba, there are systems using terminology that accord with the Cittamātra system as well. However, as was explained before, the foremost Mar-ba had many gurus who were scholars and adepts and also had many instructions transmitted from them. Therefore, it is not necessary that all the instructions deriving from the lama Mar-ba be of the Mādhyamika system.

In the Hundred Thousand Songs (mGur ’bum) of the venerable Mi-la-re-ba (Mi-la-ras-pa, 1040-1123) as well, the type of statements on the view which appear in the teaching to Tse-ring-ma (Tshe-ring-ma) accord with the Prāsaṅgika view.⁶ The foremost great being Tsong-kha-pa also said that the meaning of that song accords with Mādhyamika. Furthermore, in some songs the four yogas are identified, and even these can be suitably explained as either [belonging to] the Mādhyamika or Cittamātra view. Since these are not treatises designed as presentations of the general teaching, but are statements of a particular view, meditation, or behavior appropriate for a particular questioner, even someone with dull faculties can understand that it would be meaningless if these [teachers] had to explain everything they knew to that person. So although the terminology of the four yogas comes from the master Ratnākāraśānti’s Ornament of the Cittamātra (Cittamātrālaṃkāra),⁷ it does not appear that the four yogas of the Ga-gyu (bKa’ rgyud) have to be those of the Cittamātra system.

The person who widely spread the name “Great Seal” (Mahāmudrā, Phyag rgya chen po) in instructions [on the view] was the incomparable Gam-bo-ba (sGam-po-pa, 1079-1153). The identification of the view in his statements appears in both the Perfection Vehicle system and Mantra system, and for both he uses the name “instructions on the Great Seal.” He wrote treatises which prove, citing many sutra passages, that emptiness is called the Great Seal in the Perfection Vehicle system. Pa-mo-drup-dor-jay-gyel-bo (Phak-mo-grub-rdo-rje-gyal-po, 1110-1170) and Dri-kung-gyu-ra-rin-bo-jay (’Bri-gung-skyu-ra-rin-po-che, 1143-1217) appear to have been his followers. They also seem to have a system that values dependent arising in the class of appearance and does not discard investigation by the wisdom of individual analysis. However, their collected works are fraught with many contradictory notes added by a variety of wise and unwise students and thus are unreliable.

The term “One Pure Power” (dKar-po-chig-thub) was not disseminated widely after Shang-tsel-ba (Zhang-tshal-pa, 1123-1194) who wrote a treatise which is concerned mainly with the One Pure Power. It appears that this was the main object refuted by Mañjunātha Sa-gya Paṇḍiṭa.⁸ Later, many of our own and other [sects] refuted this position. If Shang-tsel-ba’s own assertion rests in the position that the mind is not to be directed to anything, then these refutations are accurate; I do not wish to elaborate on it in detail.

Thus, I have written the foregoing explanations having sought our sources for the individual systems of tenets. Generally speaking, although the Tibetan translators met with impeccable Indian scholars, it does not seem to be certain that they sought to discover those scholars’ assertions on the view. Even [when they] sought to discover [their positions], these scholars and adepts taught an essential point concerning view or meditation that was appropriate for the mind of the questioner; it is doubtful that they explained everything they knew to that person. This is the procedure of the good spiritual guides of the Mahāyāna. They are not like the lecturers of today who, when offered a piece of dried meat, will bore you with all they know.

Therefore, with the exceptions of the Jo-nang system and, later, the system of the view of the translator Dak-tsang Shay-rap-rin-chen (sTag-tshang Shes-rab-rin-chen, 1405-?), the instructions on the view of the majority of the early scholars and adepts had some Indian scholar or adept as their source. However, among their followers, some had a little experience but did not know reasoning, others had studied a little but did not differentiate tenet systems, a few wanted to repeat what had been said before but did not even know how to repeat the words, and the majority mixed all the teachings they saw into those of their own system. It would be difficult to express [all the ways that they made mistakes].

The Jo-nang-ba view is one which appeared adventitiously from its own place; it has no source whatsoever in a scholar or adept. Dak-tsang divided [the path] into the three stages of the unanalyzed, the slightly analyzed, and the highly analyzed and then explained a view in which the former states are negated by the latter. [This explanation] is amazing because, instead of another opponent needing to set out contradictions to his system, he himself destroys his own presentation of the two truths. Those who, despite having such a nature, tire themselves trying to contradict the undisputed great charioteers are only objects of the supreme compassion of the excellent.

Also, from [consulting] the ocean-like scriptures of the foremost father Tsong-kha-pa and his [spiritual] sons one can see the many mistakes made regarding the essentials of the view in earlier times, even by those who claimed to be Mādhyamika scholars, such as Tang-sak-ba of Shang (Zhang Thang-sag-pa). The many who claim to be followers of the Great Seal, Amanasikāroddeśā, and Cittapakṣa [?] are only [followers of] the system of the Chinese abbot Hva-shang, which denegrates the factor of method (upāya, thabs). There appear to have been many who denegrated the class of method in all ways, or who said that the class of behavior was necessary but discarded individual analysis when seeking the view, or who said that analysis with wisdom was needed when initially seeking [the view] but discarded analysis when sustaining the actual session, and so forth. None of these pass beyond the system of Hva-shang. Since these wrong views spread widely, they appear to have mingled with the systems explained above.

My brief expression of the different views in the Snowy Land [above] is not motivated by the wish to develop something which is different from others, nor by partisanship, nor from a wish for fame. My intention is to benefit the many wise and unwise [persons] who deprecate things which are not to be deprecated and who stain the stainless texts by mixing together all the terminology of many discordant systems. Specifically, I have set this forth in order to delight greatly those who have authentic faith, induced by the path of reasoning, in this unconfused differentiation of the system of the great charioteers, free from all stains of error, by the foremost lama Tsong-kha-pa and his [spiritual] sons. And [I put this forth] in order to make known to those with good predispositions that the stainless, supreme path is this very system of the foremost second Conqueror, Tsong-kha-pa. Otherwise, what intelligent scholar would take great joy in putting the profound talk about scripture and reasoning in the ears of these transmigrators who [believe that they] have manifested the state of freedom from attachment and who think that the refined gold of good explanations and a pile of glass trinkets of wrong explanations are exactly the same!

Now, I will say this. There was one who completely filled all the regions of the earth with the faultless Conqueror’s teaching until the end of time through expanding the force of [his] wish to bear the excellent doctrine of the Conqueror—[that wish being made] in the presence of the Conquerors not one time [but many times]—by proclaiming the great lion’s roar of the proper mode of dependent arising, the profound middle path free from all extremes of existence and non-existence, the essence of the teaching. Our excellent leader whose name is difficult to express, the venerable all-knowing one, the glorious Lo-sang-drak-ba (bLo-bzang-grags-pa) [known as Tsong-kha-pa] whose banner of fame flies over the three worlds was that very person. Regarding which great charioteer the venerable one [Tsong-kha-pa] himself followed, it appears thus in the statements of the protector [Tsong-kha-pa] himself [from his Praise of Dependent Arising (rTen ’grel bstod pa)]:

The mode of your [the Buddha’s] unsurpassed vehicle

Abandoning the extremes of existence and non-existence

Was explained just as it is in the texts

Of the prophesied Nāgārjuna, a garden of jasmine.

The vast sphere of stainless wisdom is the cause of

Freedom in the sky of scriptures,

Removing the darkness of the heart of extreme conceptions,

Outshining the lustre of the constellations of wrong propositions.

[The definitive meaning⁹] is illuminated by the rosary of white light

Of the good explanations of the glorious moon [Candrakīrti].

When, by the kindness of my lama,

I saw this, my mind rested.

As it says, he saw that just the tradition of the glorious protector—the Superior Nāgārjuna—and Candrakīrti was supreme, and he himself illuminated the unmistaken path for the fortunate. Therefore, the intelligent should know that although there are inconceivable common and uncommon biographical facts concerning this venerable great being, from among them all, the chief is this alone: he filled the world with the kindness of the complete fulfillment of the Subduer’s precious teaching by ascertaining and teaching to others the meaning of the thought of all the Conqueror’s scriptures of sutra and tantra, without even the tiniest error, by way of stainless scripture and reasoning without confusing the distinctions made by the great charioteers.

Thus, from the fine points of the practice of monastic discipline up to the great tenet systems and, in Mantra, from the fine points of rites and practices of mandalas up to the great commentaries on the tantras, this venerable one [Tsong-kha-pa] analyzed and gave certainty to everything with many scriptural citations and reasonings for every subtle point. He was never tainted by the fault of oversimplification or fabrication; he went back to the thought of each of the founding scholars and adepts and, in addition, went back well to the word of the Conqueror. In this way he arranged all of the teachings as causal factors in one person’s [path to] becoming completely enlightened so that each one [of the teachings] becomes supportive to another without contradiction. He thereby upheld and spread both the explanation and practice of the teaching.

It is established by stainless reasoning that not only is there no such biography among the prior scholars and adepts of the Snowy Land, but also there is no way that even the biography of Nāgārjuna, for instance, in the Land of Superiors could surpass his. How could there be a chance of this [biography] being similar to the biography of someone which is taken to be authentic merely upon the prophecy of another, “The being who was prophesied by so and so.”

More than the fac^r that he saw the faces of many personal deities (yi dam gyi lha), attained many meditative stabilizations and clairvoyances, and so forth, the chief biographical fact is what was just explained. As the venerable lama himself said:

In the beginning, I strove for vast hearing.

In the middle, all the systems of texts appeared as instructions [for practice].

In the end, I practiced day and night.

All was dedicated for the sake of spreading the teaching.

Thus, at the very beginning he strove for detailed, vast hearing—without being rough or partial—of the word of the Conqueror and all the textual systems of the great charioteers, which explain his thought. In dependence on that, all the sutras and treatises from Guṇaprabha’s Stanzas on Discipline (Vinayakārikā) to the glorious Guhyasamāja Tantra—all the textual systems—appeared as practical instructions in the sense that they were included as either principal aspects or branches of the path to one person’s becoming completely enlightened. Through practicing the complete corpus of the path, which had appeared in this way, with constant, earnest achievement, the power of experience through stainless reasoning induced ascertainment of the essentials of the path. Thus, the proof [literally, “correct effect sign,” (*samyak-kārya-hetu, ’bras rtags yang dag)] that he thereby drove the nail of non-confusion is, generally, his knowledge of how to uphold all the teachings without contradiction and, specifically, the foremost being’s scriptures on sutra and mantra. For, no matter how much these texts are analyzed, direct perception establishes that there is not even an iota of a place to find blame for [his texts being] disjointed, redundant, contradictory, or overstepping the valid [Indian] texts.

Therefore:

Though I have heard many textual systems on the path of reasoning,

Understanding comes through much exertion.

My collection of qualities is not worse that [that of] many

But even though I make effort, I remain without realization.

Having seen this well through the kindness of lama Mañjunātha [Tsong-kha-pa],

I have explained this with merciful intentions.

This is only an expression of the truth.