A Study of Svātantrika

Annotations: Nga-wang-bel-den’s Annotations for (Jam-yang-shay-ba’s) “Great Exposition of Tenets”

Bel-den: Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba’s Beautiful Ornament of Faith, A Good Explanation

Four: Four Interwoven Annotations to (Tsong-kha-pa’s) “Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path” by Jam-yang-shay-ba, et al.

Essence Comm: Nyen-don-bel-jor-hlun-drup’s Commentary on the Difficult Points of (Tsong-kha-pa’s) “Essence of the Good Explanations” A Lamp for the Teaching

P: Tibetan Tripiṭaka (Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Foundation, 1956)

Two Truths: Nga-wang-bel-den’s Explanation of the Meaning of “Conventional” and “Ultimate” in the Four Tenet Systems

1. Turrell Wylie, “A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription,” Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 22 (1959), pp. 261-7.

2. See Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness (London: Wisdom Publications, 1983), pp. 19-21

2. See Mkhas grub rje’s Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras, trans. Ferdinand D. Lessing and Alex Wayman (The Hague: Mouton, 1968), pp. 86-89. For a discussion of the various commentaries to the Treatise on the Middle Way, see David Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981) pp. 47-49.

3. This discussion of what constitutes the founding of a school is presented in Jang-gya, p. 288.15-20. Jang-gya also concludes that Devaśarman was a Svātantrika because Bhāvaviveka quotes his commentary to Nāgārjuna’s Treatise approvingly.

4. Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 37, note 33.

5. For studies of the Council and its antecedents, see Paul De-mièville, Le concile de Lhasa (Bibliothèque de l’Institut des Hautes Ètudes Chinoises, Vol. VII-Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1952); Giuseppe Tucci, ed., First Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with Introduction and English Summary, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II: Serie Orientale Roma IX.2 (Rome: Is. M.E.O., 1958); G.W. Houston, Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate (Sankt Augustin: VGH-Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980); Luis O. Gomez, “Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlightenment” in Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster, ed., Early Ch’an in China and Tibet (Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1983), pp. 393-434; Luis O. Gomez, “The Direct and Gradual Approaches of the Zen Master Mahāyāna: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen” in Robert M. Gimello and Peter N. Gregory, ed., Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), pp. 69-167; and Jeffrey Broughton, “Early Ch’an Schools in Tibet” in Gimello and Gregory, ed., Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), pp. 1-68. Luis Gomez is currently completing a major study of the Council of Lhasa that will include translations of all three Bhāvanākrama.

6. Frederick J. Streng, Understanding Religious Life, 2d ed. (Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1976), p. 7.

7. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. John W. Harvey (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 141.

9. Much of Bhāvaviveka’s argument is paraphrased by Jang-gya, pp. 328.3-342.12.

11. This is Tsong-kha-pa’s opinion (see Essence, p. 115.6-8) and seems to be supported by a reading of Bhāvaviveka’s diatribes against the Yogācārins in both the Blaze of Reasoning and the Lamp for (Nāgārjuna’s) “Wisdom”.

13. This gloss of Śāntarakṣita’s stanza is provided by Jang-gya, pp. 368.18-369.1.

15. Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought in India (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973) pp. 238-9.

16. D. Seyfort Ruegg, The Study of Indian and Tibetan Thought: Some Problems and Perspectives (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), p. 15.

17. On the question of whether Jñānagarbha was a Sautrāntika-Svātantrika or a Yogācāra-Svātantrika, see chapter 2, note 16.

18. Ganganatha Jha, trans., The Tattvasaṃgraha of Śāntarakṣita with the Commentary of Kamalaśīla (Baroda, India: Oriental Institute, 1937).

20. A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, 2d rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980), p. 480.

21. Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, 2d. rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977), pp. 91-127.

22. Yuichi Kajiyama, “Bhāvaviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa (1 Kapitel),” Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud-und Ostasiens 7 (1963), pp. 37-62; 8 (1964), pp. 100-130. See also his “Introduction to the Logic of Svātantrika-Mādhyamika Philosophy,” Nava-Nalanda Mahavi-hara Research Publication, 1 (1957), pp. 291-331.

23. Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness (London: Wisdom Publications, 1983), pp. 441-530

24. See the Prāsaṅgika section of Robert A.F. Thurman, trans., Tsong Khapa’s Speech of Gold in the “Essence of True Eloquence” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). See also Robert A.F. Thurman, “Philosophical Nonegocentrism in Wittgenstein and Candrakīrti in their Treatment of the Private Language Problem, Philosophy East and West, 30, 1980.

25. Louis de la Vallée Poussin, “Le Joyau dans la main,” Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 2 (1932), pp. 68-138.

26. N. Aiyaswami Sastri, “Karatalaratna,” Viśva-Bhārati Annals, 2, (Shantineketan, 1949), pp. 33-99. For a summary of the contents of the Jewel in Hand, see, by the same author, “Bhāvaviveka and his Method of Exposition,” Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference 10 (1941), pp. 285-295.

27. N. Aiyaswami Sastri, “Madhyamakārthasaṃgraha of Bhavya Journal of Oriental Research, Madras 5 (1931), pp. 41-49. It is noteworthy that neither the Jewel in Hand nor the Condensed Meaning of the Middle Way is mentioned by Tsong-kha-pa, Jam-yang-shay-ba, or Jang-gya. The former is not preserved in Tibetan, so they may not have been aware of its existence. The latter contains little that it not dealt with in more detail in Bhāvaviveka’s longer works.

28. A relatively recent survey of modern scholarship on the Essence of the Middle Way and the Blaze of Reasoning can be found in Shotoro Iida, Reason and Emptiness: A Study of Logic and Mysticism (Tokyo: Hukuseido Press, 1980), pp. 12-16. Included in that study is Iida’s translation of most of the third chapter of the two texts, the chapter on the “Search for Knowledge of Reality” (tattvajñānaiṣāna), which presents Bhāvaviveka’s own view. Iida has also written two articles that discuss, in part, the third and fifth chapters of the Blaze of Reasoning. See Shotaro Iida, “The Nature of Samvṛṭi and the Relationship of Paramartha to It in Svātantrika-Mādhyamika,” in The Problem of the Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta, ed. Mervyn Sprung (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing, 1973), pp. 64-77. Chapter Five of the Blaze of Reasoning, the chapter on Yogācāra, is discussed in Jay Hirabayashi and Shotaro Iida, “Another Look at the Mādhyamika vs. Yogācāra Controversy Concerning Existence and Non-existence,” in Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, ed. Lewis Lancaster (Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1977), pp. 341-60. The important fourth chapter of the Essence of the Middle Way and the Blaze of Reasoning, the “Introduction to the Ascertainment of the Reality of Hearers” (śrāvakatattvaniścayāvatāra), has been edited and translated by V.V. Gokhale and Robert A.F. Thurman, but, unfortunately, has not been published. It is scheduled to appear in The Madhyamakahṛdaya of Bhāvaviveka, edited by J. Takasaki, to be published by Tokyo University Press.

29. Iida includes a translation of the Svātantrika chapter of the Precious Garland of Tenets in his Reason and Emptiness, pp. 27-48. In 1971 the same text was translated as part of Herbert Guenther’s Buddhist Philosophy in Theory and Practice (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972), pp. 130-6. In 1976 it appeared for the third time in a more readable translation as part of Sopa and Hopkins’ Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism (New York: Grove Press, 1976), pp. 122-32.

30. Mention should also be made of several doctoral dissertations and works in progress that contribute to our understanding of Svātantrika. In 1978, Peter della Santina completed a study of the difference between Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika as understood by the Sa-gya order of Tibet. This doctoral dissertation for Delhi University is slated for publication by Motilal Banarsidass as Mādhyamika School in India. Kennard Lipman’s “A Study of ‘Śāntarakṣita’s Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 1979) is the first full-length study of the Ornament for the Middle Way. It considers several of the important issues raised by the text and includes a translation of Śāntarakṣita’s root text as well as excerpts from the nineteenth century Nying-ma scholar Mi-pam’s (Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912) important commentary entitled, Explanation of (Śāntarakṣita’s) “Ornament for the Middle Way” Sacred Word of the Smiling Lama Mañjuśrī (dbU ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad ’jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa’i zhal lung) (Collected Works of Jam-mgon ’Ju Mi-pham rgya-mtsho, Vol. 12, Gangtok, 1971). Masa-michi Ichigo’s edition and translation of the kārikās of the Ornament for the Middle Way are forthcoming from Kyoto University. Malcolm Eckel’s 1980 dissertation from Harvard, “A Question of Nihilism: Bhāvaviveka’s Response to the Fundamental Problems of Mādhyamika Philosophy,” includes an annotated translation of the eighteenth, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth chapters of Bhāvaviveka’s Lamp for (Nāgārjuna’s) “Wisdom”. Eckel has completed a translation and analysis of the root text and autocommentary of Jñānagarbha’s Differentiation of the Two Truths (Satyadvayavibhaṅga), forthcoming from the State University of New York Press.

31. For a discussion of several Indian and Tibetan versions of this reasoning, see T. Tillemans’ article, “The ‘Neither One Nor Many Argument’ for Śūnyatā and its Tibetan Interpretations,” in Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher, ed., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, Proceedings of the Csoma de Kȍos Symposium held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, Vol. 2 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1983), pp. 305-320).

33. D. Seyfort Ruegg, “On the Reception and Early History of the dBu-ma (Madhyamaka) in Tibet” in Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi, ed., Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson (Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1980) p. 279.

34. Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, 2d rev. ed. (The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1967).

37. Ruegg, “On the Reception and Early History of the dBu-ma (Madhyamaka) in Tibet,” p. 279.

38. This is most evident in late Indian Buddhist works such as Ratnākaraśānti’s Presentation of the Three Vehicles (Triyānavyavasthāna) and Advayavajra’s Jewel Garland of Principles (Tattvaratnāvalī).

39. For a discussion, edition, and translation of this work see Christian Lindtner, “Atīśa’s Introduction to the Two Truths, and Its Sources,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 9 (1981), pp. 161-214.

40. In one case he was praised and criticized by the same person. The eighth Karmapa, Mi-gyö-dor-jay (Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, 1507-1554) composed a song of praise entitled Praise of the Peerless Tsong-kha-pa (mNyam med tsong-kha-pa’i bstod pa), translated by Glenn H. Mullin and Lozang N. Tsonawa in Four Songs to Je Rinpoche (Dharmsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1978), pp. 37-40. The eighth Karmapa also stridently criticizes Tsong-kha-pa’s for being innovative in his interpretation of Candrakīrti. For an excellent discussion of his argument see Paul Williams, “A Note on Some Aspects of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Critique of dGe lugs pa Madhyamaka,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983), pp. 125-145.

41. David Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), p. VIII.

5. Ibid. This statement requires qualification in the context of Svātantrika-Mādhyamika because Bhāvaviveka asserts that one can be liberated from cyclic existence merely by realizing the selflessness of persons (pudgalanairātmya) without abandoning the conception of true existence. The conflicting positions of the Svātantrikas and Prāsaṅgikas on this point are discussed at length in Chapter Three.

7. Tsong-kha-pa, Great Commentary on (Nāgārjuna’s) “Fundamental (Treatise on the Middle Way Called) Wisdom,” An Ocean of Reasoning (rTsa she ḍig chen rigs pa’i ryga mtsho) (Sarnath, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1973), p. 15. In future citations, this text will be referred to as Ocean of Reasoning.

33. Ibid., p. 93. This interpretation of Sautrāntika appears to be unique to Ge-luk. For an analysis of their interpretation, see Anne Klein, Mind and Liberation.

49. T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1980), p. 131.

51. Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975), p. 140.

52. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. “Nihilism (Buddhist),” by Louis de la Vallée Poussin. In fairness to Poussin, it must be noted that later in the same article he qualifies this statement, concluding that the Buddhists are not nihilists.

53. A. Berriedale Keith, Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, 2d ed. (New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1979), p. 239.

61. I translate bhagavan as “Supramundane Victor” following an etymology provided by Jñānamitra in his Explanation of the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom (Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po’i mam par bshadpa, P 5218, Vol 94 285.2.6-8), “With respect to that, regarding bhāga, [it means] the destruction (bhaṅga) of demons. Demons, such as the demon of the aggregates, are not found when sought with this meaning of the perfection of wisdom and no demons abide [there], so it destroys. Bhāga [also means] endowed with the six fortunes, that is, since all the qualities of knowledge arise from the blessings of the perfection of wisdom, it is endowed. Vat [means] the non-abiding nirvana. Since all minds, intellects, and consciousnesses are overturned by this meaning of the perfection of wisdom, that is, since it is free from all predispositions, it is supramundane. (de la bcom ldan zhes bya ba ni bdud bcom pa ste phung po’i bdud la sogs pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i don ’dis bdud btsal du mi rnyed cing bdud thams cad mi gnas pa’i phyir bcom pa’o/ldan zhes bya ba ni legs pa drug dang ldan pa ste mkhyen pa’i yon tan thams cad kyang shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i byin gyis brlabs las byung ba na ldan pa’o/’das zhes bya ba ni mi gnas pa’i mya ngan las ’das ba’o/shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i don gyis sems dang yid dang rnam par shes pa tham cad bzlog ste bag chags thams cad dang bral bas na ’das zhes bya’o).

Compare this to the etymologies provided in the Ta chih tu lun. See Lamotte, Le Traite de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse, Tome 1 (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1949), pp. 115-126, especially, 115-117, which says, in part, “En outre bhāga signifie briser (bhaṅga) et vat marque le pouvoir. L’homme qui peut briser le desir (rāga), la haine (dveṣa) et la sotisse (moha) est nomme Bhagavat.”

Jñānamitra’s etymology should also be appraised in light of those provided by Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga (VII.53-67). See Nyanamoli’s translation, The Path of Purification (Colombo, Ceylon: A. Semage, 1964), pp. 224-230. Note especially the statement on page 226:

69. I follow Hopkins’ translation of avatāra as “supplement”. See Meditation on Emptiness, note 545, pp 867-871.

71. For a penetrating analysis of the question of whether Mādhyamikas have theses, see D. Seyfort Ruegg, “On the Thesis and Assertion in the Madhyamaka/dBu ma” in Steinkellner and Tauscher, ed., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Philosophy and Religion, Vol. 2 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhis-tische Studien Universität Wien, 1983), pp. 205-240.

1. The Five Collections of Reasoning are the Refutation of Objections (Vigrahavyāvartanī), the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness (Śūnyatā-saptati), the Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning (Yuktisastika), the Treatise Called the “Finely Woven” (Vaidalyasutranama), and the Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way, Called “Wisdom” (Prajñānāma-mūlamadhyamakakārikā). I will not provide here a complete bibliography on materials on the life and works of Nāgārjuna. For two Tibetan traditional biographies, see Bu-ston’s History of Buddhism, trans., E. Obermiller, 2 pts. (Heidelberg: Heft, 1932), Part 2, pp. 122-130 and Tāranātha, History of Buddhism in India, trans., Lama Chimpa and Alaka Chattopadhyaya (Simla, India: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970), pp. 106-119. Excellent treatments of the works of Nāgārjuna are to be found in David Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), pp. 4-47 and in Christian Lindtner, Nāgārjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982).

4. In Four, p. 171, Jam-yang-shay-ba disputes Ye-shay-day’s contention that it is unclear whether Nāgārjuna asserted that external objects exist, citing the passage from the Precious Garland that says:

To some [he teaches doctrines] based on non-duality.

To some, the profound, frightening to the fearful,

Having an essence of emptiness and compassion

The means of achieving highest enlightenment.

According to Tsong-kha-pa, the first line identifies the doctrines taught to those of the Mahāyāna lineage who are temporarily incapable of understanding the Mādhyamika view and therefore are taught the emptiness of duality of subject and object (see Essence, p. 99). Since the stanza goes on to describe a more profound view, Jam-yang-shay-ba concludes that the non-existence of external objects is not the final mode of being and, hence, Nāgārjuna clearly does not reject the existence of external objects.

It is necessary, however, to consider other statements by Nāgārjuna before concluding unequivocally that he holds the position that external objects exist and rejects the mind-only view. He says in his Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning (34):

Those [things] explained as the great elements and so forth

Are completely included within consciousness.

(mahābhūtādi vijñāne proktaṃ samavarudhyate)

We find in the Essay on the Mind of Enlightenment (Bodhicittavivaraṇa, 26-56) the most complete refutation of the Yogācāra view, with specific references to the ālayavijñāna, and the three natures. At stanza 27, the text says:

The Subduer’s teaching that

“All of this is mind only”

Is for the sake of removing the fear of the childish;

It is not [a statement] of reality.

cittamātram idaṃ sarvam iti yā deśanā muneḥ

uttrāsaparihārārthaṃ bālānāṃ sa nā tattvataḥ

For an edition and translation of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa, see Lindtner, Nagarjuniana pp. 180-217. Whether the Nāgārjuna of the Five Collections of Reasoning is the author of the Essay on the Mind of Enlightenment is subject to debate. Lindtner feels that the work is that of the founder of Mādhyamika (see p. 180-181). Ruegg disagrees, ascribing the work to Nāgārjuna II (see Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 104.

5. Insight, p. 16.

6. In Four, p. 172, Nga-wang-rap-den (sDe-drug mKhan-chen Ngag-dbang-rab-brtan) argues that Ye-shay-day’s chronology is inaccurate, noting that prior to Bhāvaviveka there was Śūra, who was a Mādhyamika who asserted the existence of external objects and prior to Śāntarakṣita there was Āryavimuktisena, who was a Mādhyamika who asserted that external objects do not exist. For a modern study of the chronology of the Mādhyamika school in India, see D. Seyfort Ruegg, “Toward a Chronology of the Madhyamaka School” in L.A. Hercus, et al., ed., Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, 1982), pp. 505-530.

7. Four, p. 172.

8. Insight, p. 17.

9. George N. Roerich, trans., The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976), p. 342.

10. Mūlamadhyamakākarikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire de Candrakīrti ed. Louis de la Vallee Poussin, Bibliotheca Buddhica IV (Osnabriick: Biblio Verlag, 1970), p. 655.

11. Essence, p. 139.

12. I use the term “entityness” to translate the Tibetan term ngo bo nyid, which is used to translate the Sanskrit rūpatva and svabhāva. “Entityness” is chosen here to suggest something that it is capable of independent existence, something similar to substance, as described by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 2.024, “Substance is what subsists independently of what is the case.” (Pear and McGuiness translation). It would be the Mādhyamika position that phenomena have entities, that is, that they exist, but that entityness, some kind of substantial property or absolute object, is a falsity hypostasized by ignorance. Entityness seems akin to what Heidegger calls “the thingness of the thing” in his essay, “The Origin of the Work of Art”. He writes:

This block of granite, for example, is a mere thing. It is hard, heavy, extended, bulky, shapeless, rough, colored, partly dull, partly shiny. We can take note of all these features in the stone. Thus we acknowledge its characteristics. But still, the traits signify something proper to the stone itself. They are the properties. The thing has them. The thing? What are we thinking of when we now have the thing in mind? Obviously a thing is not merely an aggregate of traits, nor an accumulation of properties by which that aggregate arises. A thing, as everyone thinks he knows, is that around which the properties have assembled. We speak in this connection of the core of things. The Greeks are supposed to have called it to hupokeimenon. For them, this core of the thing is something lying at the ground of the thing, something always already there. The characteristics, however, are called ta sumbebekota, that which has always turned up already along with the given core and occurs along with it.

See Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1971) pp. 22-23.

13. Jang-gya, 313.1-5.

14. Essence, p. 139.

15. Ibid, p. 140.

16. Warder places Avalokitavrata, Śāntarakṣita, and Kamalaśīla in the eighth century (see his Indian Buddhism, p. 479). Ruegg places Jñānagarbha in the eighth century as well (see his The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 69). There is some controversy in the Tibetan tradition regarding the doctrinal affiliation of Jñānagarbha. He is generally considered to be have been a student of Śrīgupta, a Yogācāra-Mādhyamika. The historian Sum-ba-ken-bo (Sum-pa-mkhan-po) states that Jñānagarbha was a teacher of Śāntarakṣita, the founder of Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Mādhyamika (see Ruegg, p. 69, n. 225). Based presumably on the fact that Jñānagarbha was both the student and the teacher of masters with strong affinities for Yogācāra, Bu-ston identifies him as a Yogācāra-Svātantrika (see Obermiller, p. 135). The historian Tara-natha says that Jñānagarbha, “became famous as a great Mādhyami-ka follower of the view of Bhavya” [Bhāvaviveka] (see Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, trans., p. 253). The Ge-luk position is that Jñānagarbha is a Sautrāntika-Svātantrika and a follower of Bhāvaviveka. In the famous Ge-luk synoposis of tenets, the Precious Garland of Tenets (Grub mtha’ rin chen phreng ba) by Gön-chok-jik-may-wang-bo (dKon-mchog-’jigs-me-dbang-po) a Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Mādhyamika is defined as a Mādhyamika who does not assert the existence of external objects and who asserts the existence of self-knowers (svasaṃvedana, rang rig). A Sautrāntika-Svātantrika-Mādhyamika is defined as a Mādhyamika who does not assert the existence of self-knowers and who asserts that external objects exist by way of their own character (see the Drepung Loseling Printing Press edition of 1980, p. 55. This edition is free of the many typographical errors and omissions that marred the 1969 Shes rig par khang edition.). According to these two definitions, Jñānagarbha seems to be a Sautrāntika-Svātantrika because in his most important work, the Differentiation of the Two Truths (Satyadvayavibhaṅga), he refutes an opponent who claims that there is such a thing as a self-knower (see Satyadvayavibhaṅgavṛtti, Toh. 3882, folio 4b2ff.) and he also does not deny the existence of external objects.

On the other hand, he displays a more accommodating view of the doctrine of mind-only than Bhāvaviveka does. Jñānagarbha writes, “The Supramundane Victor himself, the knower of actions and their effects, whose body is the nature of compassion, sees transmigrators bound by the chains of misconception in the prison of cyclic existence and completely destroys the conception of true existence by gradually setting forth the aggregates, constituents, sources, mind-only, and the selflessness of phenomena.” (Toh. 3883, folio 13a3-4.) This is consonant with Śāntarakṣita’s statement in the Ornament for the Middle Way that one comes to understand the non-existence of external objects through the teaching of mind-only and then comes to know that all phenomena, including the mind, are selfless through the Mādhyamika teaching. (P 5284, Vol. 101 2.3.4) Furthermore, Śāntarakṣita wrote a commentary (tikā) to the Differentiation of the Two Truths, in which he disputes neither the refutation of self-knowers nor the existence of external objects. The Ge-luk position is that this commentary is not the work of the same Śāntarakṣita who wrote the Ornament for the Middle Way. They point to the fact that Kamalaśīla, in his commentary on the Compendium of Principles (Tattvasaṃgraha), makes a disparaging remark about the author of the commentary to Jñānagarbha’s Differentiation of the Two Truths and that Kamalaśīla would not make such a remark about his own teacher, especially in a commentary on his teacher’s work. They also point to Jñānagarbha’s statement that direct perception and what is renowned in the world refute the assertion that objects and subjects do not exist as they appear. The commentator notes that it is correct to let this position stand. The Ge-luk-bas argue that Śāntarakṣita would never make such a statement because he asserted that objects falsely appear to be separate from a perceiving consciousness. (Nga-wang-bel-den summarizes Tsong-kha-pa’s argument on this question in Annotations, dbu 42a. 1-3.)

There is much more to be pursued beyond what I have indicated here. At any rate, if Śāntarakṣita was indeed the student of Jñānagarbha, it may have been the case that he composed his commentary to the Differentiation of the Two Truths early in his life (according to the Tibetan histories, he lived for 999 years!), with the positions set forth in the Ornament for the Middle Way representing a later and more mature view. Whether or not Śāntarakṣita composed the commentary, it seems safe to say that in spite of how he might be classified by the Tibetan historians and doxographers, Jñānagarbha thought of himself as neither a Yogācāra-Svātantrika nor as a Sautrāntika-Svātantrika, but as simply a Mādhyamika. The difficulties encountered in attempting to assign him a place in one of the two branches of Svātantrika suggest again that the philosophical climate of late Indian Buddhism was substantially more fluid (especially during the monsoon) than the Tibetan studies imply.

17. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire de Candrakīrti, p. 627.

18. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. “Madhyamaka, Mādhyamikas,” by Louis de la Vallée Poussin.

19. Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, pp. 238-239.

20. K. Venkata Ramanan, Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy as Presented in the Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-Śāstra (Delhi: Motilala Banarsidass, 1978), p. 341.

21. Jang-gya, p. 325.15-20.

22. Claus Vogel, Indian Lexicography (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), p. 311.

23. Jang-gya, p. 325.10.

24. Mahāvyutpattu 2 Vol. ed. by Ryozaburo Sakaki, 2d ed. (Tokyo, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 482 and Vol. 2, p. 163.

25. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 61a.5-6.

26. P 5709, Vol. 130 88.3.4.

27. Lati Rinbochay, oral commentary.

28. See Anne C. Klein, “Mind and Liberation: the Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1981), pp. 304-323.

29. Lati Rinbochay, oral commentary.

30. Geshe Jam-bel-sam-pel (dGe-gshes ’Jam-dpal-bsam-phel), Presentation of Awareness and Knowledge, Composite of All the Important Points, Opener of the Eye of New Awareness (Blo rig gi rnam bzhag nyer mkho kun ’dus blo gsar mig ’byed) (Modern blockprint, no place given, no date given), 2a.2-3.

31. Ibid.

32. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, trans., ed., with an Introduction by Elizabeth Napper (Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1980), p. 76.

33. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings from the “Great Path of Reasoning” in The Magic Key to the Path of Reasoning, Presentation of the Collected Topics Revealing the Meaning of the Texts on Valid Cognition (Tshad ma’i gzhung don ’byed ba’i bsdus grva’i rnam par bshad pa rigs lam ’phrul gyi lde mig las rigs lam che ba rtags rigs kyi skor) (Buxa, India: n.p., 1965), 5a.7-5b.l.

34. Katherine Rogers, “Tibetan Logic: A Translation, with Commentary, of Pur-bu-jok Jam-ba-gya-tso’s The Topic of Signs and Reasonings from the “Great Path of Reasoning” (M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1980), pp. 53-54, 193, note 2.

35. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 5b2.2-3.

36. Pur-bu-jok, Explanation of the Lesser Path of Reasoning in Magical Key to the Path of Reasoning, Presentation of the Collected Topics Revealing the Meaning of the Treatises on Valid Cognition (Tshad ma’i gzhung don ’byed pa’i bsdus grva’i rnam bzhag rigs lam ’phrul gyi Ide mig ces by a ba las rigs lam chung ngu’i mam bshad) (Buxa, India: n.p., 1965), 5b.6.

37. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 5b. 3-4.

38. For a discussion of the three modes, see Rogers, pp. 4-7, 62-75.

39. Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, p. 449.

40. Jam-yang-chok-hla-ö-ser (’Jam-dbyangs-phyogs-lha-od-zer), Collected Topics of Ra-dö (Rva stod bsdus grva) (Delhi: Jayyed Press, 1980), 154b.5-6.

41. Ibid.

42. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 131.

43. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” pp. 206-209.

44. Jam-yang-chok-hla-ö-ser, The Collected Topics of Ra-dö, 155a.1-3.

45. For an extensive treatment of the controversy between Bhāvaviveka and Candrakīrti on this point, see Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 441-530.

46. Jang-gya, p. 407.

47. Insight, p. 60.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., pp. 60-61.

50. Ibid., p. 62.

51. Lati Rinpochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 52.

52. Insight, p. 62.

53. Den-dar, 428.3-4.

54. Essence, p. 110.

55. Annotations, dbu 55a.8.

56. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 63b.4.

57. Insight, p. 64.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 63b.6.

61. Ibid., ca 64b.l-65a.3.

62. Four, 323.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., 323-326.

66. Jang-gya, p. 326.11-13.

67. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 61b.7-62a.l.

68. Insight, p. 68.

69. Jang-gya, p. 364.5-8.

70. Ibid., p. 364.9-10.

71. Ibid., p. 325.12-15.

72. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 61a.7-8.

73. Ibid., ca 62a.4 and Toh. 3882 4a.3, 5b.6.

74. Annotations, dbu 27b. 3-4.

75. Ibid., dbu 27b.5.

76. Four, 535.

77. For a detailed discussion of the question of commonly appearing subjects, especially in the context of Candrakīrti’s critique of Bhāvaviveka, see Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 505-526.

78. Annotations, dbu 27b.5-28a.l.

79. Den-dar, 448.4.

80. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 80a.5-6 and Toh. 3881, folio 2a.5.

81. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 80a.5-6 and Toh. 3881, folio 2b.4.

82. Annotations, dbu 49b.2-4.

83. Ibid., dbu 41b.4.

84. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

85. Four, 537-538.

86. P 5228, Vol. 95, stanza 30.

87. Four, 478.

88. Insight, p. 136.

89. Annotations, dbu 28a. 1-2.

90. Jang-gya, 480.2-8.

91. The preceding three paragraphs are based on Jang-gya, pp. 478.5-481.1

92. Insight, p. 125.

93. Ibid., p. 148.

94. Sha-mar Gen-dun-den-dzin-gya-tso (Zhwa-dmar-dGe-’dun-bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho), Lamp Illuminating the Profound Thought Set Forth to Purify Forgetfulness of the Difficult Points of (Tsong-kha-pa’s) “Great Exposition of Special Insight” (lHag mthong chen mo’i dka’ gnad rnams brjed byang du bkod pa dgongs zab snang ba’i sgron me), (New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1972), 17a.3-4. His argument that they fall to both extremes is based on a statement by Tsong-kha-pa that the conception that the absence which is the refutation of the object of negation really exists is a conception of an extreme of non-existence and that the conception that phenomena exist by way of their own character is a conception of an extreme of permanence. See Tsong-kha-pa, Ocean of Reasoning, p. 15.

95. Den-dar, 428.4-6.

96. Jang-gya, p. 312.8-17.

97. Ibid., 312.18-20.

98. Annotations, dbu 53a.7-53b.2.

CHAPTER THREE: THE ROOT OF CYCLIC EXISTENCE

1. For a discussion of the etymology of śrāvaka and its translation as “Hearer”, see Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, p. 840-845.

2. See Hopkins, Meditation or Emptiness, p. 845.

3. Arhan is translated as “Foe Destroyer” following the Tibetan dgra bcom pa which is based on the Sanskrit etymology of arhan as ari han. A Foe Destroyer is a person who has destroyed the foe of ignorance and achieved liberation. See also Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, pp 871-873.

4. Saṃyutta Nikāya III, ed. by M. Leon Feer (London: Pali Text Society, Luzac and Company, 1960), pp. 141-2. Available in English as The Book of Kindred Sayings III, trans. F. L. Woodward, Pali Text Society 13 (London: Luzac and Company, 1954), pp. 120-1.

5. The Buddha is called the Sun-Friend (ādityabandhu) (literally, he who has the sun as his friend) because the sun nurtured a drop of semen which had fallen from a dying ancestor of the Śākya lineage and caused it to grow into a man, thus allowing the Śākya clan to continue. See Roerich, The Blue Annals, pp. 7-8.

6. The following exegesis of the five similes is based on Annotations, dbu 3la.2-6 and Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

7. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 72.

8. Ibid.

9. See Jang-gya, p. 388.3-14.

10. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 144.

11. Ye-shay-gyal-tsen (Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan), Clear Exposition of the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors, Necklace for Those of Clear Mind (Sems dang sems byung gi tshul gsal bar ston pa blo gsal mgul rgyan) in Collected Works of Tshe-mchog-gliṅ yoṅs-’dzin ye-ses-rgyal-mtshan 16 (New Delhi: Tibet House, 1974), 14.5.

12. Ibid., 16.1-2.

13. Ibid., 15.3-6.

14. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 60.

15. Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, Tibetan Tradition of Mental Development, 3d ed. (Dharamasala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1978), p. 71.

16. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 77.

17. Annotations, dngos 28b.4.

18. Pa-bong-ka (Pha-bong-kha), Lectures on the Stages of the Path (Lam rim zin bris/rNam grol lag bcangs su gtod pa’i man ngag zab mo tshang la ma nor ba mtshungs med cho kyi rgyal po’i thugs bcud byang chub lam gyi rim pa’i nyams khrid kyi zin bris gsung rab kun gyi bcud bsdus gdams ngag bdud rtsi’i snying po) compiled by Trijang Rinbochay (Mundgod, South India: Gan-den Shar-dzay, n.d.), 265b.5-266a.5. See also Harvey B. Aronson, “The Buddhist Path: A Translation of the Sixth Chapter of the First Dalai Lama’s Path of Liberation,” Tibet Journal 5 (August 1980): 29-51.

19. Tsong-kha-pa, Great Exposition of the Stages to Enlightenment Composed by the Peerless Great Tsong-kha-pa (mNyam med Tsong kha pa chen pos mdzad pa’i byang chub lam rim che ba) (Dharmsala, India: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, n.d.), 148b. 1-4.

20. Ibid., 148a.4-6.

21. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

22. Cited in Vasubandhu, Treasury of Knowledge (Abhidharmakosha), chapter 6. See Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, ed., Abhidharmakośa and Bhāṣya of Acharya Vasubandhu with Sphutārthā Commentary of Ācārya Yaśomitra Part III (Varanasi, India: Bauddha Bharati Series - 7, 1972), p. 877.

23. Tsong-kha-pa, Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path, 147b.5-148a.3.

24. Vasubandhu, Treasury of Knowledge, p. 881.

25. P 39 89.5.7.

26. Pa-bong-ka, 285a.5-285b.4.

27. Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 241-243.

28. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

29. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 144-5.

30. L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, trans. Louis de la Vallée Poussin, 6 vol., (Brussels: Institut Belge Des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1971), 1: 40-1. Also, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

31. Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, p. 268.

32. Ibid., p. 270.

33. Saṃyutta Nikāya, pp. 141-2. For English translation, see Book of Kindred Sayings III, pp. 120-1.

34. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 66-71.

35. Bel-den Drak-ba, p. 31.

36. Ibid., p. 33.

37. Ibid., p. 48.

38. Tsong-ka-pa, Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra, trans. and ed. Jeffrey Hopkins (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1977), p. 180.

39. P 5242, Vol. 95 91.3.6-91.4.1.

40. P 5253, Vol. 95 187.4.4-187.5.6.

41. The following discussion of the nine examples from this stanza from the Diamond Cutter is drawn from Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 67b.1-8 and Annotations, dbu 31a.6-33a.2.

42. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

43. Geshe Jam-bel Shen-pen, oral commentary.

44. P 5253, Vol. 95 187.4.4-187.5.6.

45. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

46. Ibid.

47. P 5254, Vol. 95 91.3.7-91.4.1.

48. Essence, p. 151.

49. Ibid.

50. Concerning Tenets and the Buddhist Sciences (Grub mtha’ dang nang rig skor), no author given (Dharamsala, India: Council for Tibetan Education, 1970), p. 79.

51. Bel-den Drak-ba, pp. 33-4.

52. Essence Comm., ga 19a.2-4.

53. Bel-den Drak-ba, p. 48.

54. Annotations, dbu 25b.2. See Saṃyutta Nikāya 1.135.

55. P 5626, Vol. 96 34.4.5-6.

56. Ibid. The statement is from the Sanskrit Udānavarga (XXIII. 14).

57. P 5626 Vol. 96 34.4.5-6. The statement is from the Sanskrit Udānavarga (XXI. 1). See also Dhammapada (35).

58. Essence, p. 156.

59. Annotations, dbu 26a. 1-4.

60. Ibid., dbu 25b.8-26a.2.

61. Ibid., dbu 26a.4-26b.l.

62. Ibid., dbu 24b.6.

63. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 61b.6.

64. Ibid., ca 61b.8.

65. Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti, ed. Louis de la Vallée Poussin (Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970), pp. 271-280.

66. Annotations, dbu 25a.8.

67. Insight, pp. 173-5.

68. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 62a.3-4.

69. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

70. Essence Comm., ga 25b.5-26a.2.

71. Preceding paragraphs from Essence Comm, ga 26b.3-27b.6.

72. Tsong-ka-pa, Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra, pp. 179-86 and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

73. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 141.

74. Tsong-kha-pa, Explanation of the Eight Great Difficult Points of (Nāgārjuna’s) “Fundamental (Treatise on the Middle Way Called) Wisdom” (rTsa ba shes rab kyi dka’ gnas chen po brgyad kyi bshad pa) (Sarnath, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings, 1970), p. 33.

75. Cited in Tsong-ka-pa, Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, trans. and ed. Jeffrey Hopkins (Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1980), p. 79.

76. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 130 and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

77. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

78. Essence, p. 157.

79. Essence Comm., ga 20a.7-20b.7.

80. Essence, p. 157.

81. Essence Comm., 20b.7-21.a.2.

82. Essence, p. 151.

83. Jang-gya, p. 483.

84. Nāgārjuna and Kaysang Gyatso, The Precious Garland and the Song of the Four Mindfulnesses, trans. and ed. Jeffrey Hopkins and Lati Rimpoche (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 22.

85. Ibid., p. 484.

86. Insight, p. 20.

87. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

88. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

89. Nāgārjuna and Kaysang Gyatso, The Precious Garland and the Song of the Four Mindfulnesses, p. 75.

90. Tsong-kha-pa, The Eight Great Difficult Points, p. 28.

91. Ibid., pp. 28-9.

92. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

93. Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti, p. 264.

94. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 68a.4.

95. Annotations, dbu 33a.2-7.

96. Ibid., dbu 33b. 1-2.

97. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 68a.5-6.

98. Essence Comm., ga 17a.3-4.

99. Essence, p. 153.

100. Essence Comm., ga 18b. 1-2.

101. Tsong-ka-pa, Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 171.

102. Tsong-kha-pa, Illumination of the Thought of (Candrakīrti’s “Supplement to the) Middle Way” (dbU ma dgongs pa rab gsal) (Sarnath, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1973), pp. 65-73. For English translation, see Tsong-ka-pa, Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 172-81.

103. Jay-dzun-ba (rJe-btsun-pa), Good Explanation of the General Meaning, Clarifying the Difficult Points of (Tsong-kha-pa’s) “Illumination of the Thought, Explanation of the ‘Supplement to the Treatise on the Middle Way,’ ” A Necklace for the Fortunate (bsTan bcos dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi dka’ gnad gsal bar byed pa’i spyi don legs bshad skal bzang mgul rgyan (Modern blockprint: n.p., n.d.), 70a. 1-2.

104. Nāgārjuna and Kaysang Gyatso, The Precious Garland and the Song of the Four Mindfulnesses, pp. 75-6.

105. Madhyamakāvatara par Candrakīrti, p. 23.

106. Essence Comm., ga 17b.3-18a.4.

107. See Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 138.

108. Tsong-ka-pa, Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 174.

109. Jay-dzun-ba, 70b. 1-3.

110. Ibid., 70b.7-71a.l

111. Ibid., 71a.3.

112. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

CHAPTER FOUR: ULTIMATE EXISTENCE

1. P 5272, Vol. 99, chapter IX. 140.

2. P 5255, Vol. 96 4.2.5-6.

3. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.3.1-4.

4. Four, 458.

5. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 71b.3-4.

6. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.5.6-7.

7. Four, 460.

8. J. W. de Jong, “The Problem of the Absolute in Madhyamaka,” in Buddhist Studies by J. W. de Jong, de. Gregory Schopen (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1979), p. 57.

9. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.5.7-28.1.1.

10. Four, 460-1.

11. Ibid., 461 and Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 71b.8.

12. Sha-mar-gen-dun-den-dzin-gya-tso, 81a. 1-4.

13. Ibid., 80a. 1-3 and Annotations, dbu 68b.7-69a.l.

14. Annotations, dbu 69a. 1-3.

15. Ibid., dbu 68a.3-4.

16. Sha-mar-gen-dun-den-dzin-gya-tso, 80b. 1-3.

17. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 271.

18. Ibid., p. 238.

19. Tsong-ka-pa, Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra, p. 70.

20. Jang-gya, 354.11-16.

21. Ken-sur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

22. Jang-gya, pp. 343.19-344.13.

23. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

24. Jang-gya, p. 344.6-9 and Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

25. Sha-mar-gen-dun-den-dzin-gya-tso, 82a.4-5.

26. Jam-yang-shay-ba, ca 72a.7-8.

27. Annotations, dbu 69a.6.

28. Jang-gya, p. 344.14-17 and Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

29. Den-dar, 430.4-5.

30. Jang-gya, pp. 371.20-372.10.

31. Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths (Satyadvayavibhaṅgavṛtti) (bDen pa gnis rnam par ’byed pa’i ’grel pa) Toh. 3882 (Tokyo: sDe gde Tibetan Tripiṭaka preserved at the Faculty of Letters, Univesity of Tokyo, 1978), Vol. 12, p. 2.3.3.

32. Ibid., 3.2.7.

33. Ibid., 3.2.6.

34. The exegesis of this passage is based on Jang-gya, 372.10-373.10 and Annotations, dbu 37a.4-38a.l.

35. The discussion of the magician’s illusion is based on Den-dar, 433.5-435.6.

36. Jang-gya, p. 374.11-15.

37. Ibid., p. 375.1-5.

38. Den-dar, 433.6-444.1.

39. Annotations, dbu 68a.5-6.

40. Essence Comm., kha 37a. 1-3.

41. Insight, p. 119.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Four, 457.

45. Ibid.

46. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

47. Tsong-kha-pa, Eight Great Difficult Points, pp. 6-7.

48. Tsong-kha-pa, Illumination of the Thought, p. 211 ff. and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, oral teaching.

49. Annotations, dbu 70a.5-70b.2.

50. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 67.

51. Ibid., p. 75.

52. Annotations, stod 25a.3-25b.8.

53. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

54. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” pp. 121-5.

55. Ibid., pp. 129-30.

56. Ibid., pp. 123, 127-8.

57. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Realism,” by R.J. Hirst.

58. Ibid.

59. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 72-3.

60. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” p. 131.

61. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Realism,” by R.J. Hirst.

62. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Phenomenalism,” by R.J. Hirst.

63. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” p. 105.

64. Jang-gya, p. 370.2-4.

65. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Realism,” by R.J. Hirst. See also Durant Drake, et al., Essays in Critical Realism (New York: Peter Smith, 1941), pp. 3-32.

66. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Skepticism,” by Richard H. Popkin.

67. Den-dar, 425.3-4.

68. Hopkins, “ Meditation on Emptiness,” pp. 108-109.

69. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

CHAPTER FIVE: THE REASONING CONSCIOUSNESS

1. P 5255, Vol 96 4.2.5-6.

2. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.4.3-5.

3. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.5.1-3.

4. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 7a. 4-6.

5. Ibid., 7a.7-7b.3.

6. Ibid., 8b.5-7.

7. Ibid., 9a.6-9b.l.

8. Ibid., 9b. 1-2.

9. Ibid., 10b.7-lla.7.

10. Ibid., lib. 1-5.

11. Ibid., 12a.7-12b.l.

12. Ibid., 9a.6-9b.l.

13. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.3.5.

14. P 5256, Vol. 96 27.3.5-27.4.2.

15. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 9b.5-7.

16. Annotations, dbu 28.1.6-8.

17. P 5256, Vol. 96 28.1.6-8.

18. Pur-bu-jok, The Lesser Path of Reasoning, 5a.2-3.

19. P 5256, Vol. 96 28.2.5.

20. Essence Comm., kha 22a.4-23b.6.

21. Ibid., kha 23a.7-23b.4.

22. P 5256, Vol. 96 28.1.8-28.2.4.

23. P 5284, Vol. 101 1.1.8.

24. Jang-gya, p. 381.7-10.

25. Den-dar, 451.5-6.

26. Jang-gya, pp. 381.19-382.2

27. Den-dar, 452.4-453.2

28. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 18a.4-18b.l.

29. Ibid., 19b.2-21a.6.

30. Ibid., 21a.6-21b.4.

31. Jang-gya, p. 379.4-11.

32. Pur-bu-jok, The Great Path of Reasoning, 31b. 1-2.

33. Nga-wang-dra-shi (Ngag-dbang-bkra-shis), Collected Topics by a Spiritual Son of Jam-yang-shay-ba (Sras bsdus grva), (no place, no date), p. 463.

34. Pur-bu-jok, The Great Path of Reasoning, 32b. 1-3.

35. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 80.

36. Den-dar, 453.6-454.1.

37. Ibid., 454.4.

38. Ibid., 454.1-6.

39. Ibid., 454.6-455.4.

40. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” pp. 164-5.

41. Tsong-kha-pa, Notes on (Śāntarakṣita’s) “Ornament for the Middle Way” (dbU ma rgyan gyi zin bris) (Sarnath, India: Gelukpa Students’ Welfare Committee, 1976), p. 45.

42. Ibid., p. 46.

43. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 75.

44. Den-dar, 460.5-6.

45. Ibid., 459.3-6.

46. Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” p. 85.

47. Ibid., p. 86.

48. Tsong-kha-pa, Notes on (Śāntarakṣita’s) “Ornament for the Middle Way,” pp. 46-7.

49. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

50. Annotations, dbu 49b.7-50a.3.

51. Essence Comm., kha 39b.5-40a.2.

52. Ibid., kha 40a.2-4.

53. Jam-yang-shay-ba (’Jam-dbyangs-bshad-pa), Analysis of the First Chapter of (Maitreya’s “Ornament for Clear Realization”) (sKabs dangpo’i mtha’ dpyod) (Sarnath, India: Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1965), p. 83.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., pp. 84-5.

56. Den-dar, 462.1.

57. Ibid., 462.1-463.1.

58. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 136.

59. Den-dar, 463.5-6.

60. P 5284, Vol. 101 1.1.8-1.2.1.

61. Den-dar, 464.2-5.

62. Ibid., 464.5-465.3.

63. Jang-gya, p. 388.3-14.

64. See Masamichi Ichigo, “A Synopsis of the Madhyamakā-laṃkāra of Śāntarakṣita,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 20 (March 1972): 38-42. See also Yuichi Kajiyama, “Later Mādhyamikas on Epistemology and Meditation,” in Mahāyāna Buddhist Meditation: Theory and Practice, ed. Minoru Kiyota (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1978), pp. 114-43.

65. P 5284, Vol. 101 2.1.2-3.

66. Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the First Chapter of (Maitreya’s “Ornament for Clear Realization”), p. 86.

67. P 5285, Vol 101 7.4.7.

68. According to Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the First Chapter, p. 84, the valid cognizer ascertains the entity (ngo bo) of the sign. According to Jang-gya, p. 392.14, it ascertains the instance (mtshan gzhi) of the sign.

69. Jang-gya, p. 392.12-16.

70. Jam-yang-chok-hla-ö-ser, Collected Topics of Ra-dö, 46b.6-47a.1.

71. P 5284, Vol. 101 2.1.3.

72. Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the First Chapter, p. 82.

73. Ibid.

74. Jang-gya, p. 393.1-6.

75. Ibid.,394.3-8.

76. Ibid.,394.8-395.15.

77. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 11b. 2-4.

78. Ibid., 11a.5-7.

79. Den-dar, 468.5-469.3.

80. Ibid., 469.5-470.4.

81. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 15a.7-16a.3.

82. Tsong-kha-pa, Notes on (Śāntarakṣita’s) “Ornament for the Middle Way,” p. 35.

83. Pur-bu-jok, The Topic of Signs and Reasonings, 15b.5-6.

84. P 5285, Vol. 101 8.3.1-2.

85. Jang-gya, 397.15.

CHAPTER SIX: THE TWO TRUTHS

1. P 5224, Vol. 95, XXIV 8-9.

2. Two Truths, 48a.7

3. P 5272, Vol. 99, Chapter IX l-2ab.

4. Jang-gya, p. 352.15.

5. Den-ma Lo-chö Rin-bo-chay, oral commentary.

6. Two Truths, 48b.2-7.

7. Pan-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba (Pan-chen bSod-nams-grags-pa), General Meaning of (Maitreya’s) “Ornament for Clear Realization” (Phar phyin spyi don) (Buxadour: Nang bstan shes rig ’dzin skyong slob gnyer khang, 1963), 66b.2-5.

8. Two Truths, 49a.4-6.

9. Ibid., 49a.2-4.

10. Ibid., 48b.7-49a.l.

11. Ibid., 60b.3-6.

12. Jang-gya, p. 353.11-12.

13. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 124.

14. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, p. 60.

15. Ibid.

16. Jang-gya, p. 356.9-10.

17. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

18. Two Truths, 58a.2-3.

19. Annotations, dbu 38a.4-38b.3.

20. Ibid.

21. Jang-gya, p. 348.15-17.

22. Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 204-205.

23. Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti, pp. 301-304.

24. Jang-gya, p. 353.14-15.

25. Ibid., p. 353.16-18.

26. Two Truths, 63a. 1-5 and Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

27. Two Truths, 63a.5-63b.7.

28. Ibid., 64b.6-65a.l.

29. See Chapter 2, note 16.

30. Two Truths, 65a. 1.

31. Ibid., 65a.1-2.

32. Den-dar, 448.4.

33. Two Truths, 65a.2-66b.2.

34. Jang-gya, p. 356.16-19.

35. Sopa and Hopkins, Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, p. 82.

36. Gön-chok-jik-may-wang-bo (dKon-mchogs-’jigs-med-dbang-po), Presentation of the Grounds and Paths, Beautiful Ornament of the Three Vehicles (Sa lam gyi rnam bzhag theg gsum mdzes rgyan) in Collected Works of dkon-mchog-jigs-med-dbang-po 7 (New Delhi: Nga-wang Gelek Demo, 1972), 434.3-4.

37. Ibid., 433.6.

38. Ibid., 435.5.

39. Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the First Chapter, p. 268.

40. Ibid., pp. 268-9.

41. Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the Third Chapter of (Maitreya’s “Ornament for Clear Realization”) (sKabs gsum pa’i mtha’ dpyod) (Sarnath, India: Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1965), p. 21.

42. Ibid., p. 22.

43. Jang-gya, p. 355.8-12.

44. Jam-yang-shay-ba, Analysis of the Third Chapter, p. 41.

45. Jang-gya, p. 355.14-18.

46. Lo-sang-gön-chok (bLo-bzang-dkon-mchog), Word Commentary on the Root Text of (Jam-yang-shay-ba’s) “Tenets,” A Crystal Mirror (Grub mtha’ rtsa ba’i tshig ṭik shel dkar me long) (Delhi: Chopel Lekden, 1978), 100a.5-101a.3.

47. Gön-chok-jik-may-wang-bo, Presentation of the Grounds and Path, 446.3-7.

48. Ibid., 446.7-447.1.

49. Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

50. Jang-gya, 358.17-359.3.

51. Ibid., 372.3-5.

52. Ibid.

53. Two Truths, 62a.5.

54. The three etymologies are provided by Candrakīrti in his Clear Words, commenting on MMK XXIV.8. See P 5260, Vol. 98 76.2.5.

55. T. R. V. Murti, “Saṃvṛti and Paramārtha in Mādhyamika and Advaita Vedānta,” in The Problem of the Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta, ed. Mervyn Sprung (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing, 1973), p. 17.

56. Jang-gya, p. 353.11.

57. Ibid., 359.17-18.

58. Annotations, dbu 41a. 1-3.

59. Jang-gya, p. 359.13-15.

60. Two Truths, 69b.2-4.

61. See Anne Klein, “Mind and Liberation: The Sautrāntika Tenet System in Tibet,” pp. 169-75.

62. Two Truths, 69a.5-7.

63. Annotations, dbu 41a.7-41b.2.

64. Two Truths, 70a.2-3.

65. Annotations, dbu 41a.3-4.

66. Jang-gya, p. 361.9-14.

67. Annotations, dbu 95b.2-3.

68. Ibid., dbu 95a.7-96b.3.

69. Two Truths, 50a.3-6.

70. Ibid., 50b. 1-2.

71. Ibid., 50b.3-4.

72. Ibid., 50b.5-6.

73. Ibid., 51a.1-2.

74. Ibid., 51a.3-4.

75. Ibid., 51a.5-6.

76. Ibid., 5la.7-5lb. 1.

77. Ibid., 50b.6-7, 51b.1-2.

78. The entire discussion of same entity and different reverses is based on Kensur Yeshe Thupten, oral commentary.

CHAPTER SEVEN: AN OVERVIEW OF THE SVĀTANTRIKA SYSTEM

1. The commentary to the Svātantrika chapter is found in Annotations, dbu 55a.6-58a.3.

2. The commentary to the Svātantrika chapter is found in Lo-sang-gön-chok, 94b.l-108b.l.

3. Lo-sang-gön-chok, 94b.3-95a.l.

4. Ibid., 95a.2-4.

5. Annotations, dbu 55b. 1-4, Lo-sang-gön-chok, 95b.l-96b.2.

6. Annotations, dbu 55b.6-8.

7. Ibid., 55b.8-56a.3.

8. Ibid., 56a.3.

9. Ibid., 56a.3-5.

10. Lo-sang-gön-chok, 98b.2-3.

11. Ibid., 98b.5-6.

12. Annotations, dbu 56a.6-8, Lo-sang-gön-chok, 99a.2-99b.l.

13. Lo-sang-gön-chok, 99b.3-5.

14. Ibid., 99b.5-100a.5, 101b.2-5.

15. Annotations, dbu 56b.6-7.

16. Lo-sang-gön-chok, 102a.3-102b.5, Annotations, dbu 56b.7-57a.3.

17. Lo-sang-gön-chok, 103a.2-103b.3, Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

18. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

19. Essence, p. 3.

20. Geshe Bel-den Drak-ba, oral commentary.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Annotations, dbu 57b.3-8; see Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness,” pp. 127-173.

27. Annotations, dbu 57b.8.