Dolpopa Shes Rab Rgyal Mtshan On Mahayana
Dolpopa Shes Rab Rgyal Mtshan On Mahayana
Dolpopa Shes Rab Rgyal Mtshan On Mahayana
Articles
Yangdon DHONDUP
Rig ’dzin Dpal ldan bkra shis (1688–1743) and the emer-
gence of a Tantric community in Reb kong, A mdo (Qinghai) . . . 3
David HIGGINS
A reply to questions concerning mind and primordial know-
ing – An annotated translation and critical edition of Klong
chen pa’s Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Pascale HUGON
Argumentation theory in the early Tibetan epistemological
tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Qian LIN
The antarābhava dispute among Abhidharma traditions and
the list of anāgāmins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Klaus-Dieter MATHES
The gzhan stong model of reality – Some more material on its
origin, transmission, and interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Michael RADICH
Immortal Buddhas and their indestructible embodiments –
The advent of the concept of vajrakāya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Markus VIEHBECK
Fighting for the truth – satyadvaya and the debates provoked
by Mi pham’s Nor bu ke ta ka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Tsering WANGCHUK
Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan on Mahāyāna doxography –
Rethinking the distinction between Cittamātra and Madhya-
maka in fourteenth-century Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Christian K. WEDEMEYER
Locating Tantric antinomianism – An essay toward an intel-
lectual history of the ‘practices/practice observance’ (caryā/
caryāvrata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
David B. GRAY
Imprints of the “Great Seal” – On the expanding semantic
range of the term of mudrā in eighth through eleventh century
Indian Buddhist literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
•
Notes on the contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
Tsering Wangchuk
Introduction
1
His life in a nutshell is as follows: At the age of 17 in 1309, the young
Dol po pa, who would later be known as the “All-knowing One from Dol
po” (Kun mkhyen dol po pa), ran away from his hometown to study under
a Tibetan master in Mustang in modern-day Nepal. Three years later, fol-
lowing his master’s advice, he went to Sa skya monastery where he received
Buddhist scholastic training. Within a few years of study at Sa skya, he
emerged as an influential Tibetan Buddhist thinker of fourteenth-century
Tibet. Eventually, he wrote texts and gave teachings on the controversial
view of other-emptiness (gzhan stong gi lta ba). His other-emptiness view
was criticized by his contemporaries, including Bu ston rin chen grub (1290–
1364) and Sgra tshad pa rin chen rnam rgyal (1318–1388), and also by later
thinkers such as Red mda’ ba gzhon nu blo gros (1349–1412), Tsong kha pa
blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419), and so forth. For an excellent book on Dol po
pa’s life and doctrinal views, see Stearns 2010. For a socio-political history
of fourteenth-century Tibet, see Shakabpa and Maher 2010 (Chapters 5 and
6) and van der Kuijp 2003.
2
Dreyfus and McClintock (2002: 19) argue, “… the emergence of the
Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction in Tibet is most frequently traced to the
twelfth-century translator Pa tshab nyi ma grags and his disciples.” For an
excellent book on the history of the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka in Tibet, see
Vose 2009.
3
Although his presentation of other-emptiness view is discussed in the
works of several scholars, such as Stearns, S. K. Hookham, and Jeffrey
Hopkins, his articulation of Mahāyāna doxography has not been subjected to
the same level of attention. For Hookham’s discussion of Dol po pa’s view of
other-emptiness, see Hookham 1992. For Hopkins’ analysis of Dol po pa’s
view, see Hopkins 2008. Also, see Kapstein 2001: 301–316 and Kapstein
1992. Although Kapstein discusses some of Dol po pa’s points regarding
the distinction between Vijñānavāda and Madhyamaka, he does not make
any reference to the sub-sets of Cittamātra and Madhyamaka that I examine
in this article. For his discussion of Dol po pa’s presentation of Mahāyāna
doxography, see Kapstein 2000. The question as to whether the different cat-
egories of Cittamātra and Madhyamaka that Dol po pa offers in his works
refer only to different schools of thought or only to different doctrinal/philo-
sophical views is not entertained, since Dol po pa employs the categories that
I discuss here interchangeably. For instance, in his Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i don
bstan rtsis chen po phyogs med ris med ces bya ba’i ’grel pa (pp. 219–272,
pp. 251–253), Dol po pa uses the term sems tsam (cittamātra) to refer to the
school of thought and to the doctrinal view as well. For an English trans-
lation of Bstan rtsis chen po phyogs med ris med ces bya ba’i ’grel pa, see
Stearns 2010: 205–311.
4
See Stearns 2010: 41–83.
5
On the usual interchangeability of these two terms, see Paul Williams
2000: 154.
6
Since the text is also referred to as Sher phyin mdo lugs ma or Phar
phyin mdo lugs ma, I will refer to it as Sher phyin mdo lugs ma in this article.
Dol po pa mentions in his own Bden gnyis gsal ba’i nyi ma that a detailed
explanation of the distinction between the two schools is given in his Sher
phyin mdo lugs ma.
7
For an English translation of the text, see Stearns 2010: 135–204.
8
For an excellent piece on the difficulty of classifying sūtras, see Lopez
1992: 1–10.
9
For an excellent article on the “four reliances,” see Lamotte 1992.
10
The hermeneutical device that is presented in this sūtra is that the first
two sets of the Buddha’s teachings are interpretable because the First Wheel
of Dharma demonstrates that all phenomena exist inherently, whereas the
Middle Wheel of Dharma teaches that all phenomena are empty of inher-
14
As Dreyfus and McClintock (2002: 1–2) argue, “Labels such as Madhya-
maka and Yogācāra need to be understood as hermeneutical devices intended
to bring order to a wide variety of individual texts and ideas. As such they
cannot be taken as providing anything more than useful but limited guide-
lines in the interpretation of discrete works.”
15
Seyort Ruegg (1981: 7) lists a number of other Mahāyāna sūtras such as
Ratnakūṭa, Avataṃsaka, and so forth that are canonical sources for Madhya-
maka School.
16
The term yogācāra is used by Āryadeva, a Madhyamaka scholar, in
the title for one of his works. He preceded Asaṅga, the purported founder of
what would later be known as Yogācāra and the compiler of Yogācārabhūmi,
an authoritative text for the school. See Seyort Ruegg 1981: 52. Hence, who/
what constitutes a Madhyamaka representative and who/what constitutes a
Yogācāra representative is hardly found in the early Indian writings. The ear-
liest textual record of two distinct Mahāyāna schools, that of Madhyamaka
and that of Yogācāra, is found quite late in the history of Indian Mahāyāna
tradition, in the work of Bhāviveka.
17
Dreyfus and McClintock (2002: 33–34, n. 6) state: “Although the early
Tibetan author Ye shes sde (8th c.) is usually credited with the first use of
the terms mDo sde spyod pa’i dbu ma (*Sautrāntika-Madhyamaka) and rNal
’byor spyod pa’i dbu ma (*Yogācāra-Madhyamaka), we also find Kamalaśīla
Classification of Cittamātra
23
Lindtner suggests that the term might even have its origin in the Pāli
Canon. See ibid. 161.
24
Cittamātra or Yogācāra was probably not seen as a distinct Mahāyāna
school until the time of Bhāviveka, who clearly criticizes Yogācāra by draw-
ing a clear distinction between Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, putting the latter
on the lower rung of the hierarchy. Dreyfus and McClintock (2002: 2) argue:
“In the case of Madhyamaka, for example, the main Mādhyamikas, at least
after Bhāvaviveka, knew themselves as such, and the term has since been
used by a lengthy succession of thinkers, who understood it, for the most
part, in relatively similar way.” Furthermore, both Candrakīrti and Śāntideva
criticize Yogācāra in Madhyamakāvatāra and Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra re-
spectively by embracing Madhyamaka as their ultimate view of the Buddha’s
teachings.
25
For more on some of the earliest proponents of Cittamātra, see Williams
2000: 154–156 and Kritzer 2005: xii.
26
The three are dependent nature (gzhan dbang; paratantra-svabhāva),
imputed nature (kun btags; parikalpita-svabhāva), and perfected nature
(yongs grub; pariniṣpanna-svabhāva).
27
Dol po pa argues, “It is mentioned that the Ultimate Cittamātra is
the whole appearance of noumenon as the appearance of gnosis, and the
Conventional Cittamātra is the whole appearance of mistaken phenomena as
the appearance of consciousness …” (chos nyid kyi snang ba thams cad ye
shes kyi snang ba don dam pa’i sems tsam dang chos can ’khrul pa’i snang
ba thams cad rnam shes kyi snang ba kun rdzob kyi sems tsam du bshad …)
See Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, Dpal yongs grub dgu’i bshad pa khyad
’phags gyu rnying p. 229. Dol po pa also says: ’dir sems tsam la yang bden
gnyis rnam dbye shes dgos shing, dom dam gyi sems ni dbu ma dang gcig ste,
don dam gyi sems las gzhan pa’i chos ’ga’ yang gshis la med pa’i phyir dang,
don dam gyi sems ni gang gis kyang gzhom du med par rtag tu de bzhin nyid
du mkha’ khyab tu bzhugs pa’i phyir ro. kun rdzob yin pa’i sems tsam ni deng
sang yongs grags pa’i sems tsam ’di dang gcig ste, ’di la ni rnam par shes par
smra ba zhes gsungs so. See Dol po pa, Bstan rtsis chen po phyogs med ris
med ces bya ba’i ’grel pa p. 252. For an English translation of the Tibetan
passage cited here, see Stearns 2010: 254.
28
There are two [types] of Cittamātra: Satyākāra-Cittamātra and
Alīkakāra-Cittamātra” (sems tsam la rnam bden rnam brzun gnyis). See Dol
po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, Chos dbyings bde ba chen po’i ’ja’ sa p. 359.
Since Dol po pa believes these two as a part of what he calls Conventional
Cittamātra, he does not elaborate on the distinction between the two schools
in his collected works. On the other hand, he has much to say about the other
divisions of Cittamātra, since he wishes to show that there is a drastic differ-
ence between the Cittamātra that he follows as the ultimate system and the
Cittamātra that others attribute to figures such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu.
For a brief discussion of the origin of the two categories of Cittamātra, see
Brunnhölzl 2007: 380–382, endnote 542. On discussions of Nirākāravāda
and Sākāravāda of Yogācāra system, see Lindtner 1997: 175–187.
29
“There are two [types] of Cittamātra also: the Ultimate and the Non-
Ultimate.” (sems tsam la yang don dam yin min gnyis dang) See Dol po pa
shes rab rgyal mtshan, Rang rig rang gsal gyi rab tu dbye ba p. 332.
30
See Hopkins 2006: 239.
31
rnam par shes pa tsam don dam du ’dod pas sems tsam pa dang See Dol
po pa, Sher phyin mdo lugs ma p. 289.
32
mthar thug gi chos rnams dngos po dang rnam shes su ’dod pa sems
tsam pa dang / dngos po dang rnam shes las ’das pa ye shes su ’dod pa ni
dbu ma pa ste. See Dol po pa, Bden gnyis p. 721. On the following page of
Bden gnyis, Dol po pa suggests that Vijñānavāda does not assert mind and
perfected nature as ultimately existent, rather it is consciousness that is ac-
cepted as ultimately existent. However, contrary to what Dol po pa suggests,
early Vijñānavāda certainly asserts both consciousness and perfected nature
as ultimately existent.
33
“kun rdzob yin pa’i sems tsam ni deng sang yongs grags pa’i sems tsam
’di dang gcig ste / ’di la ni rnam par shes par smra ba zhes gsungs so.” See
Dol po pa, Bstan rtsis chen po phyogs med ris med ces bya ba’i ’grel pa p. 252.
Stearns (2010: 254) translates the sentence as follows, “The Cittamātra that is
relative is identical to this Cittamātra that is nowadays famous. Adherence to
this is taught to be ‘Vijñānavāda (Advocates of Consciousness)’.”
34
For more on the three natures, see D’amato 2005.
35
The eight are eye consciousness, nose consciousness, ear consciousness,
tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mental consciousness, afflicted
mind, and all-basis-consciousness.
36
… ngo bo nyid gsum ’dod mi ’dod dang / rnam shes tshogs brgyad ’dod
mi ’dod dang / kun gzhi’i rnam shes ’dod me ’dod dang, rigs chad ’dod me ’dod
dang / don dam du grub pa’i chos ’dod mi ’dod las dbu ma dang sems tsam
gyi khyad par ’byed pa ni rgyal ba’i bka’ yang dag dang sa bcu pa rnams kyis
ma gsungs so / See Dol po pa, Sher phyin mdo lugs ma p. 292.
37
mdor bsdus par bstan na, mthar thug gi chos rnams dngos po dang rnam
shes su ’dod pa sems tsam pa dang / dngos po dang rnam shes las ’das pa ye
shes su ’dod pa ni dbu ma pa ste / dpal dus kyi ’khor lor … shes dang / ’di’i
’grel pa dri med ’od du … zhes dang. See Dol po pa, Bden gnyis p. 721. For
an English translation of the quotes that Dol po pa cites from the Kālacakra
and Vimalaprabhā, see Wallace 2004: 241–246.
38
Wallace 2004: 244 and 2001: 34.
39
Tāranātha (1575–1634) interestingly argues that some Vijñānavāda
commentarial works existed before the time of Nāgārjuna. Tāranātha argues,
“Even though it is clear that there existed some miscellaneous Cittamātra
śāstras, they did not follow the treatises of Maitreya, Asaṅga and his brother
Vasubandhu because they were in circulation before Ārya Nāgārjuna as they
were rejected in śāstras such as Bodhicittavivarana, and so forth that came
before Asaṅga. Therefore, it seems to be the case that [the proponents of
the Cittamātra] were the five hundred Yogācāra masters such as Mahābande
Avitarka, Jñānatala, and so forth, who are known to have existed. [But], their
treatises were not translated into Tibetan.” (sems tsam pa’i bstan bcos thor bu
’ga’ zhig ni yod par gsal na yang byams chos dang thogs med sku mched kyi
gzhung gi rjes su ’brang ba ni ma yin te byang chub sems ’grel sogs thogs med
kyi sngon du byung ba’i bstan bcos nas bkag pa sogs kyis ’phags pa na gar ju
na’i snga rol du byung ba’i phyir ro / des na btsun pa chen po a vi tar ka dang
jna na la sogs pa rnal ’byor spyod pa slob dpon lnga brgya byung bar grags
pa ltar yin par mngon no de dag gi bstan bcos ni bod du ma ’gyur ba yin). See
Rje tsun Tāranātha, “Gzhan stong dbu ma’i rgyan” p. 212.
40
The translation by Hopkins (2006: 249) says, “Therefore, although the
profound sūtras of the third wheel such as the Sūtra Unraveling the Thought
and so forth, Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle Sūtras, Differentiation
of the Middle and the Extremes, and so forth, and Asaṅga’s Grounds of Yogic
Practice, Summary of the Great Vehicle, Summary of Manifest Knowledge,
and so forth temporarily teach mind-only …” Tāranātha, second only to Dol
po pa in the Jonang tradition, also offers a similar response in two of his
texts. “[We] assert that there is no distinct set of sūtras for Madhyamaka
and Cittamātra because [the two schools] are only different in terms of in-
terpreting one set of sūtras.” (dbu sems gnyis la mdo sde tha dad du med par
ni ’dod de mdo sde gcig la dgongs pa ’grel lugs kyi khyad par tsam yin pas
…) See Rje btsun Tāranātha, “Tshul gnyis rnam ’byed nges don ’jug ngogs”
p. 245. Furthermore, in his Gzhan stong dbu ma’i rgyan (p. 212), Tāranātha
responds to the question of whether there are separate sūtras and śāstras for
the Cittamātra by stating, “There is no separate sūtra [for the Cittamātra] just
as there is no separate sutra for the two [Hīnayāna] schools of Vaibhāṣika and
Sautrāntika.” (mdo sde ni logs su yod pa ma yin te / dper na bye mdo gnyis la
yang mdo sde tha dad med pa bzhin no).
41
He says, “This Dharmarāja [referring to Kun spangs thugs rje brtson
’grus] studied and excelled in Cittamātra sūtras and śāstras such as Ārya
Asaṅga’s treatises, and particularly, Vasubandhu’s eight prakaraṇas, such as
Viṃśatikā, Triṃśikā, and so forth …” (chos rje ’dis sems tsam ston pa’i mdo
rnams / ’phags pa thogs med kyi bstsan bcos rnams dang / khyad par du slob
dpon dbyig gnyen gyi sems tsam nyi shu pa dang / sum cu pa la sogs te pra ka
ra na sde brgyad rnams dang sems tsam ston pa’i bka’ bstan bcos ma lus pa
rnams gsan nas mkhas par bslabs shing …) See Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes,
Dpal ldan dus kyi ’khor lo’i jo nang pa’i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam
thar p. 95. Furthermore, Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes lists Nāgārjuna’s Six
Collections of Reasoning, Āryadeva’s Catuḥśatakaśāstrakārikā, Candrakīrti’s
Prasannapadā, Madhyamakāvatāra, and Bhāviveka’s Prajñāparadῑpa as
Prāsaṅgika’s treatises and Śāntarakṣīta’s Madhyamakālaṃkāra, and Kama-
laśīla’s Madhyamakāloka as Svātantrika’s texts. See ibid. p. 102.
Classification of Madhyamaka
42
However, the Madhyamaka categories such as Yogācāra-Madhyamaka
(rnal ’byor spyod pa’i dbu ma), Sautrāntika-Madhyamaka (mdo sde spyod
pa’i dbu ma), Māyopamādvayavādin (sgyu ma rigs sgrub pa) and Sarvadhar-
māpratiṣṭhānavādin (rab tu mi gnas pa) are not mentioned in Dol po pa’s
extant primary works.
43
“Division of the Madhyamaka into Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika schools
is not feasible to be a division of Madhyamaka …” (dbu ma pa ni rang rgyud
thal ’gyur zhes ’byed pa dbu ma’i dbye bar mi rung ste …) See Dol po pa, Bka’
bsdu bzhi pa’i don bstan rtsis chen po p. 181. Also in his Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i
bsdus don ’grel pa (p. 209), Dol po pa argues that Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika
schools can not be the divisions of Madhyamaka. Also, see Stearns 2010:
259.
44
Stearns (2010: 410–11, n. 764) says, “Here the terms snang bcas (having
appearance) and snang med (no appearance) probably refer to the Madhya-
maka of perfect appearance (yang dag snang ba’i dbu ma), in which it is
taught that perfect reality directly appears and is seen in meditative equi-
poise and is the authentic Madhyamaka of apprehensible emptiness (dmigs
bcas stong nyid), and to the Madhyamaka of no appearance (snang med dbu
ma), in which it is taught that seeing nothing is seeing reality.”
45
See n. 44.
46
“There are two [types] of Madhyamaka: [Madhyamaka] with Appearance
and [Madhyamaka] without Appearance.” (dbu ma la snang bcas snang med
gnyis) See Dol po pa, Chos dbyings bde ba chen po’i ’ja’ sa p. 359. As will be
shown later, in some of his texts, Dol po pa adds adjectives “ultimate” and
“temporary” to “Madhyamaka with Appearance” and “Madhyamaka with-
out Appearance” respectively. Hence, we come across nomenclatures “ulti-
mate Madhyamaka with Appearance” (snang bcas mthar thug gi dbu ma) and
“temporary Madhyamaka without Appearance” (snang med gnas skabs kyi
dbu ma). For instance, Dol po pa states, “the meaning of the Madhyamaka,
which goes beyond Cittamātra, abides within the temporary Madhyamaka
without Appearance; [however] the meaning of the Last Wheel, which goes
beyond [the temporary Madhyamaka without Appearance], must remain
within the ultimate Madhyamaka with Appearance.” (sems tsam las ’das nas
bka’ bar pa’i dgongs pa snang med gnas skabs kyi dbu ma la gnas pa dang /
de las ’das nas bka’ tha ma’i dgongs pa snang bcas mthar thug gi dbu ma la
gnas dgos kyi). See Dol po pa, Bden gnyis p. 724. Sgra tshad pa rin chen rnam
rgyal, a formidable fourteenth-century thinker, is arguably the first Tibetan
thinker to criticize Dol po pa’s classification of Madhyamaka in the former’s
De bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po mdzes rgyan gyi rgyan mkhas pa’i yid phrog, a
commentary on Bu ston’s Bde gshegs snyin po gsal ba’i rgyan. See Sgra tshad
pa rin chen rnam rgyal 2000: 191.
47
Dol po pa proclaims, “Two levels of Madhyamaka that are beyond
Cittamātra are explained in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra.” (lang gshegs su sems
tsam las ’das pa’i dbu ma pa rim pa gnyis gsungs te) See Dol po pa, Bden
gnyis p. 724.
48
Dol po pa quotes the verses from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. The English
translation of the verses is taken from Dol po pa’s Mountain Doctrine, where
it appears in a similar context. See Hopkins 2006: 237. It is interesting that
Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes, the second patriach of the Jonang School iden-
tifies Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanakrāma and the Kālacakra as the treatise for med-
itation oriented practice (sgom pa nyams len gyi gzhung) (Bla ma brgyud pa’i
rnam thar p. 102). Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanakrāma uses Laṅkāvatārasūtra as
one of its major sources and it is in this text where the same exact quote that
Dol po pa cites for his justification of the two Madhyamaka categories is also
found. See Lindtner 1997: 160.
49
sems tsam las ’das nas bka’ bar pa’i dgongs pa snang med gnas skabs
kyi dbu ma la gnas pa dang, de las ’das nas bka’ tha ma’i dgongs pa snang
bcas mthar thug gi dbu ma la gnas dgos kyi / See Dol po pa, Bden gnyis p.
724.
50
While Kamalaśīla obviously does not employ the terms that Dol po pa
uses here, but the former’s Bhāvanakrāma quotes the exact verses from the
Laṅkāvatārasūtra and explains three different modes of realization in an
hierarchical order, the last one being the ultimate realization. See Lindtner
1997: 159–160.
51
For the list, see Stearns 2010: 316–317, n. 29. However, it is not clear
from his writings what criteria he follows for the inclusion into, or ex-
set of ten tathāgata-essence sūtras (snying po’i mdo bcu) that are
authoritative sūtric sources for Madhyamaka with Appearance.
As mentioned above, Dol po pa generally does not accept the
Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, the foundational sūtric sources for the
Madhyamaka School that late fourteenth-century Tibetan scholars
declare are definitive, including Red mda’ ba gzhon nu blo gros,
Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, and so forth.52 In terms of au-
thoritative śāstras for Dol po pa’s Madhyamaka with Appearance,
works of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu become influential.53
clusion from, the category of the ten definitive sūtras or the group of the
ten tathāgata-essence sūtras. For instance, Dol po pa asserts both the
Tathāgatagarbhasūtra and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra as authoritative sources
for his school, but the former is included in the group of the ten tathāgata-
essence sūtras and the latter in the category of the ten definitive sūtras, ir-
respective of his claim that both explain tathāgata-essence explicitly.
52
For information on how Dol po pa asserts that the Middle Wheel
teachings are interpretable, see Hopkins 2006: 24. Dol po pa states: “The
Bhagavān in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra states that the First Wheel and the
Second Wheel teachings are interpretable.” (bka’ ’khor lo dang po dang gny-
is pa drang don du bcom ldan ’das kyis mdo dgongs pa nges ’grel du gsungs
la) See Dol po pa, Bden gnyis p. 724.
53
As pointed out earlier in the previous section, Byang sems rgyal ba ye
shes, the 2nd patriach of the Jonang tradition, does not assert the works of
Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu as authoritative sources for his Great
Madhyamaka. Instead Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes lists Nāgārjuna’s Six
Collections of Reasoning, Āryadeva’s Catuḥśatakaśāstrakārikā, Candrakīrti’s
Prasannapadā and Madhyamakāvatāra, and Bhāviveka’s Prajñāparadīpa
as Prāsaṅgika treatises; Jñānagarbha’s Satyadvayavibhaṅgakārikā, Śānta-
rakṣita’s Madhyamakālaṃkāra, and Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka as the
Svātantrika texts; and Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanakrāma and the Kālacakra as the
treatises for meditation oriented practice (sgom pa nyams len gyi gzhung).
Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes does not use the term “Great Madhyamaka” to
refer to any of these texts, except for the Kālacakra. He argues, “Kamalaśīla’s
Bhāvanakrāma and the transmission of the Great Madhyamaka stemming
from the bodhisattva and king, Sucandra, etc. are the treatises of meditation
oriented practice …” (Ka ma la shi la’i sgom rim gsum dang byang chub
sems dpa’ zla ba rgyal po nas brgyud pa’i dbu ma chen po’i khrid la sogs pa
sgom pa nyam len gyi gzhung rnams dang …) See Byang sems rgyal ba ye
shes, Bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar p. 102. Here one could certainly read the
passage so that the phrase “transmission of the Great Madhyamaka” could
include Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanakrāma as well. In that case, Kamalaśīla’s
57
Btsun pa dpal gyi rin chen and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan wrote a biogra-
phy each of their teacher, Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po, Rgyal sras dngul
chu thogs med kyi rnam thar.
58
Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu
thogs med kyi rnam thar p. 30.
59
Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu
thogs med kyi rnam thar p. 179.
60
See Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i
nges don gsal ba pp. 365, 376, 379, and 383. However, Rgyal sras thogs med
bzang po is reported to have said: “The doctrinal presentation of the All-
Knowing One [that is, Dol po pa] is taught in many sūtras and tantras, and it
was even an old system in India. Therefore, we do not see any fault with it.
The Abbot Bu ston’s doctrinal presentation is also not merely his own [new
school’s position], rather it is the intent of most of the sūtras and tantra and
of most of the Indian and Tibetan scholars and adepts. Therefore, in no way
do I see any fault with [Bu ston’s doctrinal presentation]. He [that is, Bu ston]
is right.” (kun mkhyen gyi grub mtha’ ’di ni mdo rgyud mang po na bshad /
rgya gar nas kyis grub mtha’ rnying pa yin pas rang res nor bar ma shes /
mkhan bu ston pa’i grub mtha’ ’di yang ni khong cig pu’i ma yin / mdo rgyud
phal mo che thams cad dang rgya bod kyi mkhas grub phal che ba thams
cad kyi dgongs pa yin pas de bas kyang ’o skol gyis nor bar ma shes / khong
bden gsung.) See Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras
dngul chu thogs med kyi rnam thar pp. 85–86. This seems to suggest, at least
in Btsun pa dpal rin’s opinion, that Rgyal sras thogs med may have preferred
Bu ston’s doctrinal presentation over Dol po pa’s formulation of Buddhist
doctrine.
61
Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po went to Chos lung to see his teacher,
Bsod nams grags pa (1273–1345), and a few months later, the latter passed
away. Thereafter, Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, one of the two biographers, in-
forms that Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po visited Rin chen ye shes, who
would also die soon after their meeting. From this, one can deduce that Rin
chen ye shes most likely passed away in, or sometime after, 1345. See Btsun
pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu thogs med kyi
rnam thar pp. 197–198.
62
Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu
thogs med kyi rnam thar pp. 43, 51, 56, 68, 82, 97, 180, 198, and 201.
63
Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu
thogs med kyi rnam thar pp. 43 and 180.
64
Seyfort Ruegg 1966: 114.
65
While the biography of Bu ston does not explain the exact nature of re-
lationship between Bu ston and Rin chen ye shes, the letter that Bu ston sent
to Rin chen ye shes suggests that Bu ston had great respect for the former as
an unbiased accomplished scholar. For reference, see Bu ston rin chen grub,
’phrin yig gi lan rin po che’i phreng ba pp. 190–191. Although the letter does
not begin with the title mentioned here, it ends with the title given above. It
was completed in 1326-1327 (me pho stag gi lo). The letter is included in the
section called Thams cad mkhyen pa bu ston rin po che’i gsung rab thor bu.
66
Bu ston argues, “yi ge logs shig pa de na, ...bka’ tha ma nas ’di bar pa
las khyad par du ’phags par bshad pas tha ma brjod bya bzang ngo... des na
mdo sde rgyan dang rgyud bla sogs bka’ tha ma’i dgongs ’grel yin pas brjod
bya bzang ngo. de dag sems tsam du bzhed pa yang mang mod kyi, grub mtha’
bzhi ga las brgal ba’i don yin no zhes bya ba gda’…” See Bu ston , ’phrin yig
gi lan rin po che’i phreng ba, 201.
67
Furthermore, Stearns (2010: 43) states, “He [Kun dga’ grol mchog]
further remarks that even the great Butön commented that Dölpopa had en-
hanced an earlier Tibetan philosophical tenet held by one Tanakpa Rinchen
Yeshé …”
68
Rin chen ye shes, Rgyud bla ma’i ’grel pa mdo dang sbyar ba nges don
gyi snang ba pp. 126, 170, and 275.
References
Tibetan Texts
Btsun pa dpal rin and Gzhon nu rgyal mtshan, Rgyal sras dngul chu thogs
med kyi rnam thar (The Biographies of Rgyal sras dngul chu thogs med),
Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (s.d.).
Bu ston rin chen grub. ’phrin yig gi lan rin po che’i phreng ba (Precious
Garland of Rebuttals) In The Collected Works of Bu ston rin chen grub,
pt. 26: 189-220. Lhasa: Zhol par khang 2000.
——— Bde gshegs snying po gsal ba’i rgyan (The Ornament that Illuminates
the Sugata-Essence). In The Collected Works of Bu ston rin chen grub, pt
20: 5–81. Lhasa: Zhol par khang 2000.
Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes. Dpal ldan dus kyi ’khor lo’i jo nang pa’i lugs
kyi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar (Biographies of the Jonang Masters of
the Śrīkālacakra). Beijing: Mi rigs dpe bskrun khang 2004.
Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan. Bden gnyis gsal ba’i nyi ma (The Sun that
Illuminates the Two Truths). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol
po pa, vol. 6: 695–726. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang
dgon pa, 199–.
——— Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i bsdus don ’grel pa (Concise Commentary to the
the “Fourth Council”). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa,
vol. 6: 203–218. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa,
199–.
——— Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i don bstan rtsis chen po (The Great Calculation
of the Fourth Council). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa,
vol. 6: 165–202. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa,
199–.
——— Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i don bstan rtsis chen po phyogs med ris med ces
bya ba’i ’grel pa (Commentary to the “Great Calculation of the Fourth
Council”). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa, vol. 6: 219–
272. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa, 199–.
——— Chos dbyings bde ba chen po’i ’ja’ sa (Proclamation of the Great
Bliss of the Dharmadhātu). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po
pa, vol. 6: 355–366. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon
pa, 199–.
——— Dpal yongs grub dgu’i bshad pa khyad ’phags gyu rnying (The Old
Turquoise of the Excellent Exposition on the Nine Glorious Thoroughly
Established Natures). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa,
vol 5: 216–241. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa,
199–.
——— Dpon byang ba’i phyag tu phul ba’i chos kyi shan ’byed (A Letter
of Discerning Dharma Dispatched to Dpon byang ba). In The Collected
Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa, vol. 6: 401–602. ’dzam thang, ’bar
khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa, 199–.
——— Gshag ’byed bsdus pa (A Summary of the Distinctions) In The
Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol po pa, vol. 6: 367–400. ’dzam thang,
’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang dgon pa, 199–.
——— Rang rig rang gsal gyi rab tu dbye ba (Distinguishing Self-
Illuminating Self-Awareness). In The Collected Works of Kun mkhyen dol
po pa, vol. 6: 317–335. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong: ’dzam thang
dgon pa, 199–.
——— Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon
par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi rnam bshad mdo’i don bde blag tu rtogs pa
(Abhisamayālaṃkāra Commentary). In The Collected Works of Kun
mkhyen dol po pa, vol. 5: 243–618. ’dzam thang, ’bar khams rdzong:
’dzam thang dgon pa, 199–.
Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i nges don
gsal ba (Illuminating the Definitive Meaning of the “Uttaratantra”). In
The Collected Works of Kadampa Masters, vol. 59.Chengdu: Si khron mi
rigs dpe skrun khang 2007.
Rin chen ye shes. Rgyud bla ma’i ’grel ba mdo dang sbyar ba nges don gyi
snang ba (Lights of the Definitive Meaning: An Uttaratantra Commentary
Incorporated with Sūtras). In The Collected Works of Kadampa Masters,
vol. 20. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang 2006.
Rje btsun Tāranātha, “Gzhan stong dbu ma’i rgyan” (Ornament to the Middle
Way of Other-Emptiness) In Rdzogs ldan chos mchog dbu ma gzhan stong
gi chos skor, Series 7. Shang kang: Then ma dpe skrun khang 2005.
——— “Tshul gnyis rnam ’byed nges don ’jug ngogs” (Entrance to the
Definitive Meaning of Distinguishing the Two Modes). In Rdzogs ldan
chos mchog dbu ma gzhan stong gi chos skor, Series 7. Shang kang: Then
ma dpe skrun khang 2005.
Sgra tshad pa rin chen rnam rgyal, De bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po mdzes
rgyan gyi rgyan mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog (Ornament to the Ornament that
Embellishes Tathāgata-Essence). In The Collected Works of Bu ston rin
chen grub, pt. 28: 167–290. Lhasa: Zhol par khang 2000.