Dolpopa Shes Rab Rgyal Mtshan On Mahayana

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 32

JIABS

Journal of the International


Association of Buddhist Studies

Volume 34 Number 1–2 2011 (2012)

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb a 11.04.2013 09:11:42


The Journal of the International EDITORIAL BOARD
Association of Buddhist Studies (ISSN
0193-600XX) is the organ of the
International Association of Buddhist KELLNER Birgit
Studies, Inc. As a peer-reviewed journal, KRASSER Helmut
it welcomes scholarly contributions Joint Editors
pertaining to all facets of Buddhist
Studies. JIABS is published twice yearly.
BUSWELL Robert
The JIABS is now available online in open
access at http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ CHEN Jinhua
ojs/index.php/jiabs/index. Articles become COLLINS Steven
available online for free 60 months after
their appearance in print. Current articles COX Collet
are not accessible online. Subscribers can GÓMEZ Luis O.
choose between receiving new issues in HARRISON Paul
print or as PDF.
VON HINÜBER Oskar
Manuscripts should preferably be sub-
mitted as e-mail attachments to:
JACKSON Roger
editors@iabsinfo.net as one single file, JAINI Padmanabh S.
complete with footnotes and references, KATSURA Shōryū
in two different formats: in PDF-format,
and in Rich-Text-Format (RTF) or Open- KUO Li-ying
Document-Format (created e.g. by Open LOPEZ, Jr. Donald S.
Office). MACDONALD Alexander
Address books for review to: SCHERRER-SCHAUB Cristina
JIABS Editors, Institut für Kultur- und SEYFORT RUEGG David
Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Apostelgasse 23,
A-1030 Wien, AUSTRIA SHARF Robert
STEINKELLNER Ernst
Address subscription orders and dues,
changes of address, and business corre- TILLEMANS Tom
spondence (including advertising orders)
to:
Dr Jérôme Ducor, IABS Treasurer
Dept of Oriental Languages and Cultures
Anthropole Cover: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub
University of Lausanne
Font: “Gandhari Unicode”
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
designed by Andrew Glass (http://
email: iabs.treasurer@unil.ch
andrewglass.org/fonts.php)
Web: http://www.iabsinfo.net
Fax: +41 21 692 29 35 © Copyright 2012 by the
International Association of
Subscriptions to JIABS are USD 55 per
Buddhist Studies, Inc.
year for individuals and USD 90 per year
for libraries and other institutions. For Print: Ferdinand Berger & Söhne
informations on membership in IABS, see GesmbH, A-3580 Horn
back cover.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb b 11.04.2013 09:12:31


JIABS
Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies

Volume 34 Number 1–2 2011 (2012)

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 1 11.04.2013 09:12:31


2 Contents

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

‘Terms of art’ in Indian Esoteric Buddhism


Contributions to a panel at the XVth Congress of the Internatio-
nal Association of Buddhist Studies, Atlanta, 23–28 June 2008

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 2 11.04.2013 09:12:32


Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan
on Mahāyāna doxography
Rethinking the distinction between Cittamātra
and Madhyamaka in fourteenth-century Tibet

Tsering Wangchuk

Introduction

Almost two millennia after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, four-


teenth-century Buddhist thinkers in Tibet were still busily debating
about which sūtra goes into which category of Mahāyāna doxog-
raphy. At the center of the contention in one particular dispute is a
monk from the Jo nang School named Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mt-
shan (1292–1361),1 a controversial Tibetan interpreter of Mahāyāna
texts, who vehemently challenged the prevailing interpretation
of the Mahāyāna doctrinal classification into Madhyamaka and

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.

Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies


Volume 34 • Number 1–2 • 2011 (2012) pp. 321–348

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 321 11.04.2013 09:13:10


322 Tsering Wangchuk

Cittamātra. Not only did he contest the standard configuration, he


also introduced a new set of principles that blur the hierarchical
distinction between the two normative doxographical categories of
Mahāyāna in Tibet. Moreover, much to the dismay of many of his
learned contemporaries, Dol po pa strongly argued that an inad-
equate ultimate view of the Buddha emerged from both the division
of Madhyamaka into Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka and Svātantrika-
Madhyamaka2 and the hermeneutical devices for interpreting
Cittamātra texts that were prevalent during his time. This article
examines Dol po pa’s reconfiguration of Mahāyāna doxography3
and it situates his argument within its own synchronic intellectual
context with some reference to its historical past.
Dol po pa cited numerous, strategically selected, authoritative
Indic sources, as he worked to justify his interpretation of other-

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 322 11.04.2013 09:13:10


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 323

emptiness (gzhan stong)4 and to respond to the critiques that his


opponents level against his controversial reading of Mahāyāna
texts. He boldly argues that: 1) Cittamātra is to be divided into
Conventional Cittamātra (kun rdzob pa’i sems tsam) and Ultimate
Cittamātra (don dam pa’i sems tsam); 2) Cittamātra must be dis-
tinguished from Vijñānavāda; and 3) Madhyamaka is divided
into Madyamaka without Appearance (snang med dbu ma) and
Madhyamaka with Appearance (snang bcas dbu ma). Other four-
teenth-century Tibetan scholars rejected Dol po pa’s ingenious po-
sition on Mahāyāna doxography, which differs significantly from
the standard Mahāyāna doctrinal classifications schema that pre-
vailed at the time.
In order to examine Dol po pa’s Mahāyāna taxonomy, several
interlocking questions must be explored: What textual sources
does Dol po pa have for his classification of Mahāyāna schools?
Why and how does he differentiate his Madhyamaka system from
Cittamātra? Why and how does he argue for the distinction be-
tween Cittamātra and Vijñānavāda?5 Who are his potential direct
influences, if any? In explicating these issues, I will primarily rely
upon Dol po pa’s Abhisamayālaṃkāra commentary,6 Bden gnyis
gsal ba’i nyi ma (The Sun that Illuminates the Two Truths), Dpon
byang ba’i phyag tu phul ba’i chos kyi shan ’byed (A Letter of
Discerning Dharma Dispatched to Dpon byang ba), and Bka’ bsdu
bzhi pa’i don bstan rtsis chen po (The Great Calculation of the
“Fourth Council”)7 and its commentary.
The fourteenth century witnessed the emergence of several
figures of great importance to later interpretive traditions, but the
dynamism of that period was predicated on the hermeneutical in-

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 323 11.04.2013 09:13:10


324 Tsering Wangchuk

sights that had been established in earlier centuries. The Buddha


is believed to have given different discourses to different disciples
based on their level of intelligence, needs, and mental disposition.
According to the tradition, because of the Buddha’s skillful means
(upāya) and because of the diverse backgrounds of his followers,
learned Buddhists in Asia generally claim that there exist many
teachings of the Buddha that appear to be contradictory, at least, on
the literal level. For instance, it is asserted that the Buddha taught
the concept of no-Self (anātman) to some and the concept of Self
(ātman) to others. Similarly, to some of his disciples, he taught that
all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, while to others, he
taught that phenomena inherently exist. It is claimed that he taught
diverse and contradictory doctrines to diverse disciples in an effort
to help people of differing dispositions achieve their ultimate reli-
gious goal, nirvāṇa, liberation from the cycle of suffering.
This interpretive model is further complicated by the traditional
claim that the Buddha is enlightened and omniscient, which, ac-
cording to the tradition, means that he could not possibly hold
conflicting views with respect to reality or truth. This inspires the
problem of determining precisely how to distinguish the Buddha’s
teachings that are definitively true from those that are not literally
true. In other words, what hermeneutical devices, if any, do the
Buddhist savants apply to make sense of their enlightened master’s
seemingly contradictory teachings?8 The Buddhist scholars of Tibet
believe that the Buddha himself taught his disciples how to deci-
pher the teachings that contain his ultimate view from those that
are meant merely to lead his disciples to the ultimate view, the latter
do not explicitly elucidate his ultimate view. Therefore, as early as
the fourth century in India, long after the Buddha had died, sūtras
such as the Catuḥpratisaraṇasūtra,9 Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra10 and

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-

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 324 11.04.2013 09:13:10


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 325

Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra11 began to classify the huge corpus of the


Buddha’s teachings. Following the hermeneutical strategies devel-
oped in these sūtras,12 some sūtras are duly considered as interpret-
able (neyārtha) for their explication of conventionalities and some
definitive (nītārtha) for their delineation of emptiness or ultimate
truth. Furthermore, some are identified as interpretable because
they teach either all phenomena as inherently existent or all phe-
nomena as empty of inherent existence, while others are classified
as definitive for their exposition of some phenomena as inherently
existent and some as empty of inherent existence.13
However, the sūtras are not the only authoritative scriptures in
Mahāyāna Buddhism. Drawing from sūtras, many later Buddhist
luminaries wrote innumerable treatises (śāstras) to systematize the
vast corpus of teachings attributed to the Buddha. Hence, Buddhist
interpreters such as Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–200 C.E.), Asaṅga (ca.
4th century), Buddhapālita (fl. ca. 500), Bhāviveka (ca. 500–570),
Candrakīrti (ca. 7th century), and others used different herme-
neutical strategies to unravel the ultimate meaning of their de-
ceased teacher’s discourses or, to quote Dreyfus and McClintock
(2002: 2), “to bring order to a wide variety of individual texts and
ideas.” One such hermeneutical tool found within commentarial
Mahāyāna sources is the doctrinal formulation of Madhyamaka

ent existence. However, according to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, some


phenomena exist inherently and some do not exist inherently. Hence, the
Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra proclaims that the Last Wheel of Dharma is defini-
tive. For a short piece on the gist of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, see Lopez
1992: 56–60. Also, see Powers 1993.
11
It basically demonstrates that the Buddha’s teachings that deal with
conventionalities are interpretable and those that explicate ultimate truth or
emptiness are definitive. For a short piece on the gist of the sūtra, see Lopez
1992: 60–64.
12
Since my article concerns Māhayāna doxography, I mainly discuss dif-
ferent hermeneutical devices found in Mahāyāna literature. For an excellent
piece on the Theravādin hermeneutics, see Bond 1992.
13
These categories, as Lopez demonstrates, are not universal, frozen cat-
egories; rather depending on which sūtra or which Indian master one is fol-
lowing, a sūtra that is duly classified as “interpretable” might be categorized
as “definitive” by another master and vice versa.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 325 11.04.2013 09:13:10


326 Tsering Wangchuk

and Cittamātra14 that are retrospectively credited to two Indian


mahāpaṇḍitas, Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga, respectively.
Madhyamaka bases its doctrinal presentation on the Prajñāpā-
ramitāsūtras,15 the Middle Wheel of Dharma, where all phenome-
na are explained as empty of inherent existence. On the other hand,
Cittamātra, also known as Yogācāra,16 draws its influence from the
Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, the Last Wheel of Dharma, where imput-
ed phenomena (parikalpita-svabhāva) are explained as empty of
inherent existence and perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva)
as inherently existent. It is within such broader context of decipher-
ing the ultimate meaning of the authoritative texts that Dol po pa’s
interpretation of Mahāyāna doxography can be placed.
Although much scholarship has been conducted on different
ways of categorizing Mahāyāna texts, Dol po pa’s nuanced inter-
pretation is situated in a distinct historical, cultural, and intellectu-
al milieu. Contemporary international scholarship, thus far, mainly
focuses on the doctrinal classifications of Yogācāra-Madhyamaka
and Sautrāntika-Madhyamaka,17 Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka and

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 326 11.04.2013 09:13:10


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 327

Svātantrika-Madhyamaka,18 and Sākāra-Cittamātra and Nirākāra-


Cittamātra19 within the textual history of the Buddhist doctrinal
systems.20 Consequently, there is a tendency on the part of scholars
to believe that Tibetan thinkers have followed the Madhyamaka, as
opposed to Cittamātra,21 ever since the beginning of the introduc-
tion of scholastic Buddhism in Tibet in the 8th century, and that the
traditional Tibetan scholars have preferred Prāsaṅgika-Madhya-
maka over Svātantrika-Madhyamaka since the 13th century in
Tibet.22 As will be shown later, Dol po pa’s Mahāyāna classification
does not fit into any of these Mahāyāna taxonomies that are accept-
ed as normative. Dol po pa reconfigures Mahāyāna doxography in
the Tibetan scholastic tradition of the fourteenth century. Perhaps
for this reason, Dol po pa’s doctrinal classification remained large-
ly marginalized for various sectarian, political, and dogmatic rea-
sons.

in his subcommentary on Śāntarakṣita’s MA referring to the “two paths of


the Madhyamaka” (MAP, D 128a: dbu ma’i lam gnyis) in a context in which
it seems clear that one path upholds external objects conventionally, while
the other follows the Yogācāra or Cittamātra tradition of rejecting external
objects.” Also, see Seyfort Ruegg 2010: 162, n. 7.
18
See n. 2.
19
For an excellent discussion of the term “cittamātra” in the Mahāyāna
system from the beginning until Kamalaśīla, see Lindtner 1997.
20
José Cabezón (1990: 12–13) argues, “the fully evolved siddhānta sche-
ma outlined above [in Cabezón’s article] was something that did not devel-
op until Buddhism was already well established in Tibet, this schematiza-
tion, of course, has its roots in such Indian Buddhist works as the Mahā-
prajnāpāramit[opadeśa]śāstra attributed to Nāgārjuna (second century
CE), the Tarkajvālā of Bhāviveka (sixth century CE), the Tattvasaṅgraha
of Śāntarakṣita (eighth century CE), the Tattvaratnāvalī of Maitrīpa (elev-
enth century CE), and the Vimalaprabhā, a commentary on the Kālacakra
Tantra.”
21
Cabezón 1990: 11. However, as Cabezón succinctly points out in his
article, as to what exactly it means to follow Madhyamaka, there is generally
no consensus.
22
Vose (2009: 138) argues, “Virtually every important Tibetan exegete
from the thirteenth century to the present ranks Candrakīrti’s Prāsaṅgika
as the highest interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and delineates the ways in
which it is superior to Svātantrika.”

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 327 11.04.2013 09:13:11


328 Tsering Wangchuk

Classification of Cittamātra

The term cittamātra is used to mean various things in many early


Mahāyāna sūtras, as Christian Lindtner (1997: 160) argues, “…
there are different ways of understanding the canonical term citta-
mātra in Mahāyāna: that of Madhyamaka and that of Yogācāra, and
perhaps, that of ‘Madhyamaka-Yogācāra’.”23 Therefore, although
cittamātra is not exclusively employed by the school of thought
with the same name, as a proper noun, it is used synonymously
with Yogācāra or Vijñānavāda in the history of Mahāyāna doctri-
nal classification. It is this proper name that Dol po pa and other
Tibetan scholars of his time are mainly concerned about for their
interpretations of what constitutes Cittamātra.
According to D’Amato (2005: 188), early Cittamātra can be
broadly structured into three major phases. In the “first phase” of
Cittamātra are included sūtras such as Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and
Yogācārabhūmi; in the “second phase” there exist commentarial
works such as Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and its commentary; and
the “third phase,” which D’amato refers to as “classical phase”
is comprised of Cittamātra works of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu.
Irrespective of whether there existed a school of thought called
Cittamātra during these phases,24 later Buddhist scholars take these
works and figures25 to be the foundational sources for a distinct

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 328 11.04.2013 09:13:11


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 329

school of thought called Cittamātra. Furthermore, the Cittamātra


that is a point of contention within the Tibetan scholastic milieu dur-
ing the time of Dol po pa is the Cittamātra that had been criticized
by Indian Madhyamaka scholars such as Bhāviveka, Candrakīrti,
and Śāntideva in their works. The refutation of Cittamātra by these
Indian masters is later faithfully followed by their Tibetan adher-
ents.
Dol po pa obviously has a big challenge here. How could
a school that is deemed secondary to Madhyamaka in Indian
Mahāyāna literature, at least since the 6th century C.E., be defend-
ed in fourteenth-century Tibet, where Madhyamaka, as opposed
to Cittamātra, had been declared the supreme doctrinal view? In
order to answer this, we need to understand what Dol po pa’s op-
ponents’ positions are with respect to Cittamātra. According to Dol
po pa, many of his Tibetan contemporaries are mistaken when they
assert that: 1) Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra,
and so forth are Vijñānavāda texts; 2) the terms such as the three
natures (mtshan nyid gsum; trisvabhāva)26 and all-basis-conscious-
ness (kun gzhi rnam shes; ālayavijñāna) are unique to Vijñānavāda;
3) Asaṅga and Vasubandhu are proponents of Vijñānavāda only.
As one could easily deduce from this, Dol po pa’s interpretation
of Cittamātra clearly differs from the Cittamātra of the “classical
phase” and from the mainstream fourteenth century view of most
Tibetan scholars.
Dol po pa, who is aware of the history of the tension between
Madhyamaka and Cittamātra in Indian sources, cannot just refute
the views presented by his Tibetan contemporaries without of-
fering any exegetical sources, as he is fully cognizant of the fact
that Asaṅga and Vasubandhu explicate Vijñānavāda view in their
works. So he strategically proposes that these early Indian scholars
elucidate in their texts more than the Cittamātra as understood by
his Tibetan contemporaries. He argues that Cittamātra is catego-

26
The three are dependent nature (gzhan dbang; paratantra-svabhāva),
imputed nature (kun btags; parikalpita-svabhāva), and perfected nature
(yongs grub; pariniṣpanna-svabhāva).

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 329 11.04.2013 09:13:11


330 Tsering Wangchuk

rized into Conventional Cittamātra and Ultimate Cittamātra,27 set-


ting aside the more widely-known classification of Cittamātra.28 The
Conventional Cittamātra, he argues, is the same as Vijñānavāda,
which his Tibetan contemporaries mistakenly view as the only
Cittamātra. He goes on to argue that the Ultimate Cittamātra is
the final intention of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, which his fellow
Tibetan scholars and some early Indian masters such as Haribhadra
and Vimuktisena did not fully comprehend. It is this Ultimate
Cittamātra, he further argues, that is the Great Madhyamaka of
other-emptiness, which is at the center of his Mahāyāna view.
Furthermore, he employs terms such as non-ultimate and ultimate29

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 330 11.04.2013 09:13:11


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 331

and mundane and supramundane30 to speak of the two Cittamātra


categories. Hence, for Dol po pa, there is no difference between
the Ultimate Cittamātra and the Madhyamka that he faithfully fol-
lows, which is none other than the Madhyamaka with Appearance;
the latter will be explained more fully below. Nor does he see any
disparity between the Conventional Cittamātra and the Cittamātra
that others mistakenly, according to Dol po pa, attribute to be the
final view of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu.
So, what is Conventional Cittamātra and what exegetical sourc-
es, if any, does Dol po pa have to support his claim? As Dol po
pa argues, “Because mere consciousness is asserted as ultimately
existent, it is Cittamātra [that is, Vijñānavāda].”31 Furthermore,
Dol po pa says, “Those who assert that the ultimate phenomena
are truly [existent as well as] consciousness are proponents of
Cittamātra. Those who assert that [the ultimate truth] is gnosis
that is beyond truly [existent] and consciousness are proponents of
Madhyamaka.”32 Therefore, Dol po pa mainly defines Conventional
Cittamātra as a school that professes mere consciousness (rnam
shes tsam) as ultimately existent, which, for him, means that con-
sciousness (rnam shes; vijñāna) that is not the domain of gnosis (ye
shes; jñāna) is accepted as ultimate reality. Interestingly, because
of this, he argues that “Conventional Cittamātra is the same as the
well-known Cittamātra of today, and it is called Vijñānavāda.”33

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 331 11.04.2013 09:13:11


332 Tsering Wangchuk

While he asserts that consciousness as ultimately existent is a de-


fining characteristic of Vijñānavāda, he does not accept that the
three natures34 and eight consciousnesses35 are distinguishing fea-
tures of Conventional Cittamātra.36
As for exegetical sources for the distinction between Vijñānavāda
and the Cittamātra that he asserts as the ultimate school of
Buddhism, he argues, “In brief, asserting the ultimate phenom-
ena as entity and consciousness is [Conventional] Cittamātra, and
asserting [the ultimate phenomena] as gnosis, which is beyond
entity and consciousness, is Madhyamaka, as explained in the
Śrīkālacakra … and its commentary, Vimalaprabhā…”37 In Dol po
pa’s defense, neither Kālacakra nor Vimalaprabhā provides any cor-
relation between Vijñānavāda and the concepts of the three natures
and all-basis-consciousness; rather both texts explain Vijñānavāda
within the purview of asserting everything as consciousness only.38
While the term Cittamātra is not employed in both Kālacakra and
Vimalaprabhā, the terms Vijñānavāda and Yogācāra are used inter-
changeably in Vimalaprabhā to refer to the school that Dol po pa
labels as Conventional Cittamātra in his works. The fact that these

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 332 11.04.2013 09:13:11


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 333

authoritative texts use the term Vijñānavāda, not Cittamātra, to


speak of the distinction between the two Mahāyāna schools prob-
ably gave Dol po pa the platform to distinguish Vijñānavāda from
the Cittamātra that he deems as the final view of Mahāyāna.
However, Dol po pa labors to cite authoritative sources to sup-
port his reconfiguration of Conventional Cittamātra or Vijñānavāda.
Unlike his Tibetan contemporaries, he struggles to identify any
sūtras or Indian commentarial works as authoritative sources for
Vijñānavāda.39 He also, for obvious reasons, does not claim Asaṅga
as a founding father of Vijñānavāda. However, Dol po pa skillfully
argues that the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and treatises attributed to
Maitreya and Asaṅga temporarily teach Cittamātra.40 For him, these

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 333 11.04.2013 09:13:11


334 Tsering Wangchuk

scriptures temporarily teach Vijñānavāda, in that they employ cer-


tain Vijñānavāda nomenclature on the literal level which serve as
stepping stones for ultimately understanding Ultimate Cittamātra,
which is what the sūtras ultimately and thoroughly teach. However,
Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes (1247–1320), the second patriarch of the
Jonang tradition, explicitly identifies both Asaṅga and Vasubandhu
as proponents of Cittamātra or Vijñānavāda and their treatises as
textual sources for Cittamātra,41 without making any distinctions
between Conventional Cittamātra and Ultimate Cittamātra.
In brief, as a controversial fourteenth-century Tibetan interpret-
er of Mahāyāna treatises, Dol po pa goes against the mainstream
Tibetan configuration of Cittamātra, which is generally seen as in-
ferior to Madhyamaka in terms of its explication of ultimate truth.
Using reliable Indic sources, Dol po pa formulates two categories
of Cittamātra: Conventional Cittamātra and Ultimate Cittamātra.
He, thereby, makes the latter school, which is none other than the
Madhyamaka that his lineage follows, at the center of his Jonang

…) 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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 334 11.04.2013 09:13:11


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 335

tradition. It is to the section on the classification of Madhyamaka


that we now turn.

Classification of Madhyamaka

As a Tibetan scholar trained at a prominent scholastic monastery


like Sa skya, during the fertile fourteenth-century Tibet, Dol po pa is
certainly aware of all the Madhyamaka doxographical categories,42
such as the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka and Sautrāntika-Madhyamaka
that were in use between the 8th and 11th centuries in Tibet and
Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka and Svātantrika-Madhyamaka that dom-
inated the literature dealing with Tibetan doctrinal system since
the 13th century. Additionally, he is fully cognizant of the grow-
ing influence of the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka within the Buddhist
scholastic discourse in fourteenth-century Tibet. However, since
his main agenda is to delineate the concept of other-emptiness and
to criticize the self-emptiness view as a whole, Dol po pa does not
express any interest in expounding on the distinction between the
Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka and Svātantrika-Madhyamaka in his
works.43
While fourteenth-century Tibetan scholars generally view Prā-
saṅgika-Madhyamaka as the highest school of the Mahāyāna sys-
tem, Dol po pa instead openly argues that the highest Buddhist
school must promulgate what he calls “other-emptiness” (gzhan
stong), not self-emptiness (rang stong). Therefore, real Madhya-
maka, for Dol po pa, refers to the school that is free not only from

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 335 11.04.2013 09:13:11


336 Tsering Wangchuk

the extreme of mere consciousness as ultimately existent, but


also from the extreme of ultimate truth as empty of inherent ex-
istence. Hence, Dol po pa proposes that it is Madhyamaka with
Appearance44 that is the highest school of Buddhism, even surpass-
ing what he calls “Madhyamaka without Appearance”45 into which
Dol po pa includes Madhyamaka schools such as Prāsaṅgika-
Madhyamaka, Svātantrika-Madhyamaka, and others. Therefore,
Dol po pa argues that it is this Madhyamaka classification46 that
is a viable Madhyamaka taxonomy, not the others that are present
during his time.

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 336 11.04.2013 09:13:12


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 337

In order for his schema to be given credence, it is necessary


according to Tibetan exegetical conventions that Dol po pa cite ac-
cepted exegetical sources that uphold his Madhyamaka classifica-
tion. He argues that the two types of Madhyamaka he identifies are
mentioned in a sūtra called Laṅkāvatārasūtra.47 The verses from
the sūtra read:
Relying on mind-only,
One does not imagine external objects.
Relying on non-appearance,
One passes beyond mind-only.
Relying on observing reality,
One passes beyond non-appearance.
If yogis dwell in non-appearance,
They do not perceive the great vehicle.48
Immediately following the verses from the sūtra, Dol po pa con-
cludes, “The intent of the Middle [Wheel] sūtras abides in the
temporary Madhyamaka without Appearance, which is beyond
Cittamātra, and the intent of the Last [Wheel] sūtras must abide
in the ultimate Madhyamaka with Appearance, which is beyond
the temporary Madhyamaka without Appearance.”49 Although the

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 337 11.04.2013 09:13:12


338 Tsering Wangchuk

exact terms, “Madhyamaka with Appearance” and “Madhyamaka


without Appearance,” are not evident in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, Dol
po pa argues that the verses cited above explain the three Mahāyāna
schools, Vijñānavāda, Madhyamaka without Appearance, and
Madhyamaka with Appearance, in an ascending hierarchical order
on the rung of Mahāyāna doxography.50
Furthermore, Dol po pa points to other sources to substanti-
ate his view. As Vesna Wallace (2001: 11) claims, “Although the
Kālacakra tradition acknowledges the Mādhyamika view of emp-
tiness as its primary theoretical foundation, it has its own unique
interpretation of emptiness, not only as a mere negation of inher-
ent existence (svabhāva), but also as the absence of material con-
stituents of the individual’s body and mind. … It is a form that is
endowed with all the signs and symbols of the Buddha.” While
the two Madhyamaka categories identified by Dol po pa are not
explicitly mentioned in the Kālacakra, arguably the most funda-
mental treatise for Dol po pa and his Jonang School, the text nev-
ertheless explains emptiness that is not merely empty of inherent
existence as delineated in the Middle Wheel sūtras; rather it expli-
cates emptiness endowed with fully enlightened qualities that are
found in tathāgata-essence sūtras such as Tathāgatagarbhasūtra
and Śrīmāladevīsūtra. Therefore, it is based on authoritative works
such as Kālacakra, Vimalaprabhā, and Laṅkāvatārasūtra that Dol
po pa’s distinction between the two Madhyamaka schools can be
understood.
While, according to Dol po pa, Laṅkāvatārasūtra is one of the
very few sūtras where the two Madhyamaka categories are men-
tioned, there are many sūtras such as Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra,
Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, and so forth that are included either in the
group of ten definitive sūtras (nges don gyi mdo bcu)51 or in the

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-

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 338 11.04.2013 09:13:12


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 339

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 339 11.04.2013 09:13:12


340 Tsering Wangchuk

While the influence of Indic sources on Dol po pa’s rather unique


way of categorizing Mahāyāna doxography is quite obvious, one
may wonder whether his contemporaries in Tibet had any impact
on Dol po pa for his articulation of Mahāyāna doxography.54 Dol
po pa mentions “great eminent scholar Dkon bzang” (mkhas dbang
chen po dkon bzang) as one possible influence: “Regarding the dif-
ferences between the eminent scholar Dkon bzang ba and Dpon
byang ba [in terms of their doctrinal beliefs], there are, according
to the perspective of some Tibetan masters, more [disciples fol-
lowing the doctrinal presentation of] Dpon byang ba, [but] based
on the [doctrinal] beliefs of buddhas and bodhisattvas, there seem
to be more [disciples following] Master Dkon bzang ba.”55 Dkon
bzang ba’s doctrinal presentation is seen in conformity with Dol po
pa’s presentation,56 whereas Dpon byang ba’s formulation is not in
compliance with Dol po pa’s configuration.
Although it is not entirely certain, there is some reason to be-
lieve that Dol po pa had the famous Rgyal sras thogs med bzang

Bhāvanakrāma would also be a Great Madhyamaka treatise. However, more


research is needed to determine how these terms are used in the literature of
early Jonang scholars and in non-Jonang literature from the same period. It is
interesting that Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes lists Prajñāparadīpa, a text that
explicitly criticizes Buddhapālita, as a Prāsaṅgika text. This goes against the
way scholars sometimes trace the lineages of Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and
Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka by associating the former with Bhāviveka and the
latter with Buddhapālita.
54
Here one could provide the names of a number of Tibetan scholars,
whose written works or oral transmissions and so forth may have influenced
Dol po pa’s doctrinal presentation, but I will restrict myself to two scholars,
Mkhas dbang chen po dkon bzang and Rin chen ye shes, whose doctrinal
presentations seem to have directly impacted Dol po pa’s presentation.
55
mkhas pa chen po dkon bzang ba dang dpon byang ba’i bzhed lugs mi
mthun pa ’di la bod kyi slob dpon ’ga’ zhig gi dbang du byas na, dpon byang
ba mang bar ’gyur zhing sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’i bzhed pa’i
dbang du byas na slob dpon dkon bzang ba mang bar mngon te … (Gshag
’byed bsdus pa p. 368).
56
Dol po pa repeatedly mentions in his texts that his doctrinal system
was propounded by the Buddha and the tenth-level bodhisattvas, whereas
the doctrinal presentation propagated by Haribhadra, and so forth is not pro-
pounded by the Buddha and the tenth-level bodhisattvas.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 340 11.04.2013 09:13:12


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 341

po (1295–1369) in his mind, the author of Rgyal sras lag len so


bdun ma (The Thirty-Seven Practices of Bodhisattvas), who is also
known as Dkon mchog bzang po. In the biographies of Rgyal sras
thogs med bzang po written by his two disciples,57 it is mentioned
that he was a staunch proponent of the works attributed to Maitreya
and Asaṅga. He is even known to have self-identified himself as the
“second Asaṅga” (thogs med gnyis pa)58 or the “new Asaṅga” (thogs
med gsar ma)59 for his expertise in, and propagation of, Asaṅga’s
works. However, since much of Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po’s
works remained unavailable until recently, a thorough study of the
extent to which his works influenced Dol po pa cannot be under-
taken at the present moment. Nonetheless, Rgyal sras thogs med
bzang po’s Uttaratantra commentary certainly explains many doc-
trinal concepts that are thematically in accordance with Dol po pa’s
presentation of buddha-nature.60

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

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 341 11.04.2013 09:13:12


342 Tsering Wangchuk

Another Tibetan master who may have influenced Dol po pa is


Rin chen ye shes, one of the primary teachers of Rgyal sras thogs
med bzang po. It is difficult to give exact dates for Rin chen ye
shes’ life, but he seems to have lived up until the mid-fourteenth
century, most likely as an older contemporary of Rgyal sras thogs
med bzang po, Bu ston, and Dol po pa.61 In the biographies of these
three formidable fourteenth-century scholars, Rin chen ye shes,
who was an expert on the Five Treatises of Maitreya, is mentioned
as having a lama-disciple relationship or a collegial relationship
with all three of them. For instance, in the biographies of Rgyal
sras thogs med bzang po, Bla ma rin chen ye shes is mentioned by
its abbreviation “bla ma rin ye ba” several times.62 The latter taught
the Five Treatises of Maitreya along with their commentaries to
Rgyal sras thogs med bzang po. 63 In the biography of Bu ston, the
full name, Bla ma rin chen ye shes, is employed.64
In Bu ston’s ’phrin yig gi lan rin po che’i phreng ba (Precious
Garland of Rebuttals),65 he demonstrates that Rin chen ye shes as-

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 342 11.04.2013 09:13:12


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 343

serted treatises such as the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, Uttaratantra,


and Sūtrālaṃkāra to be definitive and beyond the four tenet schools.
Bu ston argues:
In another letter [from Rin chen ye shes, Rin chen ye shes argues
that] since the Last Wheel sūtra [Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra] teaches that
it is superior to the Middle [Wheel of Doctrine], the content of the
Last [Wheel of Dharma] is better…. Because the Sūtrālaṃkāra, the
Uttaratantra, and so forth comment on the Last Wheel sūtra, their
content is better. [Some] assert them as Cittamātra texts, but their con-
tent is beyond the four tenet schools [Sautrāntika, Vaibhāṣika, Citta-
mātra, and Madhyamaka] … 66
Like Dol po pa, who does not see his unique Mahāyāna view fit
into any of the mainstream Mahāyāna classification schemas of the
fourteenth-century Tibetan doxography, Rin chen ye shes also ar-
gues that the ultimate view taught in authoritative treatises such
as the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and Sūtrālaṃkāra cannot be found
in the four mainstream Buddhist philosophical schools. While Bu
ston does not explicitly mention that Rin chen ye shes influenced
Dol po pa, Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507-1566) later writes that Bu
ston claimed that Dol po pa was articulating a view held by Rin
chen ye shes.67
Moreover, Rin chen ye shes’ Uttaratantra commentary,68 which
has recently become available, reinforces Dol po pa’s doctrinal
presentation on several important points. Although both Rgyal sras
thogs med bzang po and Rin chen ye shes do not employ the dox-

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.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 343 11.04.2013 09:13:12


344 Tsering Wangchuk

ographical terms advanced by Dol po pa in their main works, the


ways in which they interpret Mahāyāna texts using the buddha-na-
ture literature attributed to the Buddha, Maitreya, and Asaṅga, the
fact that Dol po pa studied with both scholars, and how other schol-
ars noticed strong connection between Dol po pa’s and Rin chen ye
shes’ doctrinal positions strongly suggest that their writings influ-
enced Dol po pa’s articulation of the Mahāyāna doxography.
In conclusion, reacting against his contemporaries, who re-
lied on texts such as Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, Madhyamakāvatāra,
and so forth for their interpretation of Mahāyāna doxography,
Dol po pa instead employed the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, works
of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu to make sense of the vast
corpus of Mahāyāna doctrinal texts. Whereas later commentarial
works played a major role in interpreting Mahāyāna texts for his
contemporaries, for Dol po pa, sūtras and tantras played as much
of an important role as later commentarial works in interpreting
Mahāyāna texts. Hence, in contrast to the distinction between
Cittamātra and Madhyamaka of Mahāyāna doxography and be-
tween Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka and Svātantrika-Madhyamaka of
Madhyamaka that were widespread in the Tibetan Buddhist scho-
lastic culture of his time, Dol po pa argued for a distinction between
Vijñānavāda and Cittamātra, between Conventional Cittamātra and
Ultimate Cittamātra, and between Madhyamaka with Appearance
and Madhyamaka without Appearance. Such a reconfiguration
of the Mahāyāna doxography allowed Dol po pa to interpret the
Mahāyāna texts in a rather unconventional way for his time, but the
interpretation that has its roots in early Indic sources. As Jonathan
Z. Smith (1993: 308) clearly articulates, “we value those who (even
though failing) stubbornly make the attempt at achieving intelligi-
bility, who have chosesn the long, hard road of understanding.” Dol
po pa, then, should be applauded for trying to make the incompre-
hensible coherent by following the difficult path of demarcating,
yet blurring, the distinction between Cittamātra and Madhyamaka.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 344 11.04.2013 09:13:12


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 345

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–.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 345 11.04.2013 09:13:12


346 Tsering Wangchuk

——— 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.

English language sources


Bond, George. “The Gradual Path as a Hermeneutical Approach to the
Dhamma.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald Lopez, 29-45.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press 1992.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 346 11.04.2013 09:13:13


Dol po pa on Mahāyāna doxography 347

Brunnhölzl, Karl. In Praise of Dharmadhātu: Nagarjuna and the Third Kar-


mapa, Rangjung Dorje. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications 2007.
Cabezón, José. “The Canonization of Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Sid-
dhānta in Tibetan Buddhism.” In Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor
of Minoru Kiyota, ed., Paul Griffiths and John Keenan. Tokyo: Buddhist
Books Int’l 1990: 7–26
D’amato, M. “Three Natures, Three Stages: An Interpretation of the Yogācāra
Trisvabhāva-Theory.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 33, 2005, 185–207.
Dreyfus, Georges and Sara McClintock. The Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika
Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make? Boston: Wisdom
Publications 2002.
Hookham, S. K. The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According
to the Shentong Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga. Delhi: Sri Sat-
guru Publications 1992.
Hopkins, Jeffrey. Mountain Doctrine: Tibet’s Fundamental Treatise on Other-
Emptiness and the Buddha-Matrix. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications 2006.
––– Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom. Ithaca: Snow Lion Pub-
lications 2008.
Kapstein, Matthew. ’Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kun-
mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue.
Delhi: Shedrup Books 1992.
––– Reason’s Traces: Identity and Interpretation in Indian and Tibetan
Buddhist Thought. Boston: Wisdom Publications 2001.
––– Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and
Memory. New York: Oxford University Press 2000.
Kritzer, Robert. Vasubandhu and the Yogācārabhūmi: Yogācāra Elements
in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Tokyo: The International Institute for
Buddhist Studies 2005.
Lamotte, Étienne. “The Assessment of Textual Interpretation in Buddhism.”
In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald Lopez, 11-27. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press 1992.
Lindtner, Christian. “Cittamātra in Indian Mahāyāna until Kamalaśīla.”
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 41, 1997, 159–206.
Lopez, Donald. “Introduction.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald
Lopez, 1-10. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press 1992.
––– “On the Interpretation of the Mahāyāna Sūtras.” In Buddhist Herme-
neutics, edited by Donald Lopez, 47-70. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press 1992.
Powers, John. Hermeneutics and Tradition in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra.
Leiden: Brill 1993.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 347 11.04.2013 09:13:13


348 Tsering Wangchuk

Seyort Ruegg, David. The Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle: Essays on


Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka. Boston: Wisdom Publications 2010.
––– The Life of Bu Ston Rin Po Che. Roma: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed
Estremo Oriente 1966.
––– The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India.
Wiesbaden: Harrassovitz 1981.
Shakabpa, W. D. and Derek Maher. One Hundred Thousand Moons: An
Advanced Political History of Tibet. Leiden: BRILL 2010.
Smith, Jonathan Z. Map is not Territoty: Studies in the History of Religions.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press 1993.
Stearns, Cyrus. The Buddha from Dölpo: A Study of the Life and Thought
of the Tibetan Master Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Ithaca: Snow Lion
Publications 2010.
van der Kuijp, Leonard. “On the Life and Political Career of Ta’i-Si-Tu
Byang-Chub Rgyal-Mtshan (1302–1364).” In The History of Tibet, vol.
II, ed. Alex McKay. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon 2003:
425–466.
Vose, Kevin. Resurrecting Candrakīrti: Disputes in the Tibetan Creation of
Prāsaṅgika. Boston: Wisdom Publications 2009.
Wallace, Vesna A. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of
the Individual. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001.
––– The Kālacakratantra: The Chapter on the Individual together with the
Vimalaprabhā. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies at
Columbia University 2004.
Williams, Paul (with Anthony Tribe). Buddhist Thought: A Complete Intro-
duction to the Indian Tradition. London and New York: Routledge 2000.

2011_34_JIABS_GESAMT.indb 348 11.04.2013 09:13:13

You might also like