buddhist thought in tibet

Buddhist Thought in Tibet: an Historical Introduction

of 14

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 November 2015

PrintPublicationDate: May2011

Subject: Philosophy,Non-WesternPhilosophy

OnlinePublicationDate: Sep2011

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328998.003.0023

BuddhistThoughtinTibet:anHistoricalIntroduction MatthewT.KapsteinTheOxfordHandbookofWorldPhilosophyEditedbyWilliamEdelglassandJayL.Garfield

OxfordHandbooksOnline

AbstractandKeywords

TheintellectualhistoryofTibetanBuddhismisonlyimperfectlyunderstood.Althoughabundantnewtextualsourceshavebeendiscoveredinrecentdecades,itwilltakesometimebeforescholarshaveassimilatedthisgrowingdocumentation,which,consideringonlywhatispertinenttothehistoryofphilosophicalthought,amountstomanythousandsofindividualworkscomposedoveramillennium.ThisarticletouchesuponselectedtopicsthatarenowgenerallyagreedtobeofimportanceforthehistoryofTibetanBuddhistthoughtoverall.ItdiscussesthebeginningsofTibetanBuddhism,theformationofthemajorBuddhisttraditions,Tibetanscholasticism,Buddha-natureandtheluminosityofmind,andTsongkhapaandhiscritics.

Keywords:TibetanBuddhistphilosophy,TibetanBuddhism,Tibetanscholasticism,Buddha-nature,Tsongkhapa

THEintellectualhistoryofTibetanBuddhismisonlyimperfectlyunderstood.Althoughabundantnewtextualsourceshavebeendiscoveredinrecentdecades,itwilltakesometimebeforescholarshaveassimilatedthisgrowingdocumentation,which,consideringonlywhatispertinenttothehistoryofphilosophicalthought,amountstomanythousandsofindividualworkscomposedoveramillennium.Accordingly,wecandonomoreherethantofurnishaconciseintroduction,touchinguponselectedtopicsthatarenowgenerallyagreedtobeofimportanceforthehistoryofTibetanBuddhistthoughtoverall.

TheBeginningsofTibetanBuddhism:ItsIndian,Chinese,andIndigenousSources

TraditionconsidersBuddhismtohavebeenfirstadoptedinTibetbythemonarchSongtsenGampo(Srong-btsansgam-po,reignedca.617–650),whounifiedhisnationandsetitonthepathofimperialexpansioninCentralAsia.HisChineseandNepalesebridesaresaidtohaveencouragedthekingandhiscourttoadheretotheBuddha'steaching.Nevertheless,thereislittleevidencethatthenewreligionhadmuchsuccessinTibetuntiltheearlyeighthcentury,whenanotherChineseprincess,(p.246) Jincheng(d.739),marriedSongtsen'sdescendantTriDetsuktsen(KhriLde-gtsug-btsan,reigned712–755)andsponsoredamonasticcommunityfromKhotan,aBuddhiststatethenunderTibetanrule.Despitethisroyalsupport,ananti-BuddhistreactiononthepartofnobleswhofavorednativeTibetanreligioustraditions(laterreferredtoingeneralas“Bön”)ledtotheexpulsionoftheKhotanesemonksfollowingtheprincess'sdeath.

ItwasTriDetsuktsen'ssonandheir,TriSongdetsen(KhriSrong-lde-btsan,reigned755–ca.797),whofirmlyadoptedBuddhismasthereligionofhisdynastyandcommittedconsiderablestateresourcestoitspromotion.Severaloftheedictspromulgatedbythisremarkablerulersurvive,andinthemwefindindicationsofhisunderstandingofandinterestinBuddhistdoctrine.Hewrites,forinstance,that

Allthosewhoarebornandrevolveamongthefoursortsofbirth, frombeginninglessoriginstotheinfiniteend,becomeastheyareowingtotheirowndeeds(karman).…Thatwhichisneithergoodnorevilisunspecified.

1


of 14


Theresultofwhatonedoestoanotherripensupononeself.Onemaybebornasagodamongtheheavenlystages,orasahumanonearth,orasananti-god,ahungryghost,ananimalorasubterraneancreatureofthehells—allborninthesesixhavedonesoowingtotheirowndeeds.

TranscendingtheworldarethosewhobecomeBuddhas,andthosewhomakeprogressasbodhisattvas,self-awakenedones(pratyekabuddha),andpiousattendants(śrāvaka)—allofthemhavedonesoowingtotheprovisionsofmeritandgnosisthattheythemselveshaveamassed.

BesidestheadherencetoBuddhistnormativedoctrinethatisevidenthere,itisstrikingthatTriSongdetsenwasparticularlyinterestedinthemeanswherebywemayknowthetruthofreligiousclaims.Forhegoesontosay:

IfoneinvestigateswhatisfoundintheDharma[theBuddha'steaching],somepointsareimmediatelyevidentintheirgoodorevilconsequences,whileothersthatarenotimmediatelyevidentmayneverthelessbeinferredonthebasisofthosewhichare,andsoarealsofittobeheldwithcertainty.

Inotherwords,hewasfamiliarwith,andsoughttointroducehissubjectsto,theviewoftheIndianBuddhistepistemologiststhatknowledgemayhavetwovalidsources(pramāṇa):directperception(pratyakṣa)ofwhatisevidenttothesensesandintellectualintuition,andinference(anumāna)ofwhatis“hidden,”thatis,notdirectlyevident.

TriSongdetsenestablishedTibet'sfirstfull-fledgedmonastery,calledSamyé(Bsam-yas),inabout779,whichhousedanimportanttranslationacademy.Itsscholars,includingTibetansandforeignBuddhistmonks,renderedlargenumbers(p.247) ofIndianBuddhistscripturesandtreatisesfromSanskritintoTibetanandachievedanoutstandinglevelofaccuracy,animportantresultofwhichwastheformationofawell-standardizedphilosophicalvocabularyinTibetan.TheprojectofcreatinginthiswayacanonicalliteraturewascontinuedunderTriSongdetsen'ssuccessors,untilthecollapseofthedynastyduringthemid-ninthcentury,bywhichtimemanyhundredsofIndianreligiousandphilosophicaltextswereavailableinTibetanversions.Atthesametime,TibetantranslatorsalsobegintoauthormanualsintroducingthenewvocabularytogetherwithelementsofBuddhistthought.Someoftheseworksarenotablyphilosophical,suchasthetreatiseentitledDistinctionsofViews(Ltaba'ikhyadpar)bytherenownedninth-centurytranslatorYeshé-dé(Ye-shes-sde),inwhich,forexample,hesummarizesakeyargumentoftheMadh-yamakaschool:

InaccordancewiththesystemformulatedbyĀcāryaNāgārjuna,allouterandinnerentitiesareexplainedtobeinterdependentlyoriginated.Relatively,becausetheyhavearisenfromcauseandcondition,theyexistjustapparitionally,whereasultimately,entitiesarewithoutproduction,[asisdemonstrated]bythefourfoldproofthatstatesthattheyarenotbornfromself,other,both,orcauselessly.

“Notbornfromself”meanspreciselynotbornfromitself.Forifentitieswerebornfromthemselves,theywouldhavetobesaidtobebornfromaselfwhoseowncoming-into-beingwascompleted,orelsefromonethathasnotcomeintobeing.Ontheonehand,wereitbornfromwhathadalreadycomeintobeing,itcouldneverbethecasethatitdoesnotcomeintobeing,andthisleadstoanendlessregression.Butontheotherhand,wereitbornfromwhathadnotcomeintobeing,thentherabbit'shornandthebarrenwoman'ssonmightalsocomeintobeing! Therefore,itisnotbornfromself.

Itisalsonotbornfromother,forthatimpliesthefaultofeverything'scomingintobeingfromeverything.Norisitbornfrombothselfandother,forinthatcasebothoftheaforementionedfaultsarecombined.Neitherisitborncauselessly,forinthatcasetherearethesefaults:itwouldalwaysarisewithdependenceonanythingatall,everythingwouldemergefromeverything,andallpurposefulundertakingswouldbefruitless.

Thus,becausethebirthoftheentityisnotestablished,thereforetherecanbenobirth.Birth-talkisnomorethanconventionalutterance.

TibetanthinkersthusbegantobecomefamiliarwiththemajortraditionsofIndianBuddhistphilosophy:Vaibhāṣika,Sautrāntika,Yogācāra,andMadhyamaka.Yeshé-dérecognizedtwomaindivisionsofthelatter:one,followingBhāvaviveka,adheredtoSauntrāntikaconventionsintheirtreatmentofrelativereality,whiletheother,followingŚāntarakṣita,adoptedtheidealistapproachoftheYogācāra.BothwouldbelaterclassifiedasdivisionsoftheSvātantrika-Mādhyamika,theschool(p.248) thatsoughttodemonstratethethesisofuniversalemptinessbymeansofdirect,or“autonomous,”proof.ThePrāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika,whichfavoredindirectproofandwouldlaterbecomethedominanttrendinTibetanMadhyamakathought,wasasyetunknown.

2

3

4


of 14


Duringthesameperiod,ChineseBuddhismmadeinroadsinpartsoftheTibetanworld.TeachersaffiliatedwiththeteachingofChan(“meditation,”orZeninJapanese)introducedTibetanstotheideathatenlightenment,orawakening,wasimmediately,intuitivelypresent,withoutstrivingfornumberlesslifetimesasthemainstreamofIndianBuddhismaffirmed.ThisledtoaprotracteddisputeinTibetbetweenpartisansof“sudden”versus“gradual”enlightenment,theformersometimesassociatedwithateachingofmysticalintuition,andthelatterwiththemethodicalapplicationofreasonedanalysis.Thecontroversyresurfacedrepeatedlyinlatertimesowingtoitsimplicationsforconceptsofourprospectsforspiritualprogressand,indeed,ourverynature:areweessentiallyflawedcreatures,forwhomself-perfectionisafardistantgoal,orarewe,andallcreatures,alreadyinfactBuddhas?Doesthelatterpositionentailakindofgnosticism,accordingtowhichignoranceandknowledgeareallthatreallymatter,andmoraleffortmerelyanillusion?

TraditionalsourcesrecountthatthefirstactualdebateovertheseissuestookplaceatSamyéduringthelateeighthcentury,andthatthedisputantsweretheChineseChanmasterMoheyanandtheIndianphilosopherKamalaśīla.Theaccountsthathavecomedowntousaremostlylate,andtendtocaricaturetheChanperspective:

WhenmasterKamalaśīlaaskedforhisopponent'sposition,saying,“WhatistheChinesereligioustraditionlike?”theChineseresponded,“Yourreligioustradition,beginningwithgoingforrefugeandthecultivationofanenlightenedattitude,isanascentfrombelow,likeamonkeyclimbingatree.BecauseonewillnotbeawakenedasaBuddhabysuchcontriveddoctrines,itisinthistraditionofours,havingmeditativelycultivatedthenonconceptual,thatonebecomesawakenedbyrealizingthenatureofminditself.Sothisisliketheeagle'salightingfromtheskyuponthetopofatree;itisa‘purepanacea’becauseitisadoctrinethatthusdescendsfromonhigh.”

Tothisthemastersaid,“Yourexampleanditssignificancearebothinvalid.Fortheeaglealightsuponthetree,eitherspontaneouslygeneratedintheskywithitswingsfullygrown,orborninitseyrie,whereitswingshavegraduallymatured.Onlythendoesitalight.Thefirstisanimpossibilityandthesecondshouldbeagradualistexample,butisinappropriateasanexampleofsuddenenlightenment.”

Thoughthisexchangemaybeapiousfiction,itdoesreflecttheimportantrole,inheritedfromIndiansystemsofargument,ofexemplificationandcounterexampleintheacceptedproceduresofreasoning.Atthesametime,itunderscoresthegreatgulfthatseparatedrationalistfromintuitionistapproachestoBuddhistinsight.

(p.249) ThecurrentsenteringTibetfromIndiaandChinaprovokeddynamicresponses,bothharmoniousandhostile,onthepartofindigenousTibetantraditionsaswell.ItwasthisprocessthatgavebirthtothenativereligionofBön(Bon),which,fromaboutthetenthcenturyon,establisheditsownmonasticcommunitiesandscripturalcanons,inmanyrespectsresemblingthoseofBuddhism.Nevertheless,theelaborationofBönliterarytraditionsalsoencouragedeffortstogivewrittenformtoautochthonoustechniquesandbeliefs.ThoughBonthinkersoftenusedtheBuddhistphilosophicalapparatus,theyalsodevelopedanalmostanthropologicalinterestindocumentingthepracticalmeanswherebyTibetanshavetraditionallyinteractedwiththenaturalworld,seenasanabodeofbenignandmalignantspirits.Here,atwelfth-centuryauthorsummarizesthe“priestlywayoftherealmofappearance”(snang-gshen):

Thefourgatesofincantationarethegateofworshipofthedivinespirits,thegateofexpulsionandcleansing,thegateofliberationandransom,andthegateofcreation,fortuneandpower.[…]Oneenters[thispriestlyway]unerringly,inaccordwiththechantsofthanksgivingandthemethodsofplayingthedrum.

Asforpracticalaction:becauseallthatappearsandcomesintobeingispresentasgodsanddemons,inordertodealwithobstaclesandspirits[…]oneamassesthestipulatedrequisitesandritualitems.Havingdistinguishedbetweenbeneficialdeitiesandharmfulspirits,onebeseechesthedeitiestofulfillone'sfinalpurposes,andoffersarefugeasbefitsthelordsandpatronsofthepriesthood.

Intime,theancienttraditionsreflectedhere,whichsoughtnottranscendence,butinsteadamasteryoftheforcesinheringinthephenomenalworld,wouldbecomepartandparcelofTibetanBuddhistthoughtandpracticeaswell.Inclinationstowardholismandaviewoftheworldastheplayofdivineandquasi-divineenergieswouldberegularlyreassertedthroughoutthehistoryofTibetanreligiousthought.Thus,esoteric(or“tantric”)Buddhism,withitsemphasisonritualagencyanditsphilosophicalgroundingintheMahāyānaconceptionoftheultimateidentityofworldlyexistence(saṃsāra)andtranscendentpeace(nirvāṇa),introducednotjustanIndianpantheon,butembracedalsothenativegodsanddemonsofTibet.

5

6


of 14


TheFormationoftheMajorBuddhistTraditions

ThecenturyorsofollowingthecollapseoftheTibetanempireistraditionallyrememberedasadarkage,whenBuddhismwassuppressedandlearningandletterswerenomore.Althoughrecentscholarshipshowsthistobemuchexaggerated,translationactivityandthescholarshipassociatedwithitwereseverely(p.250) reduceduntiltheendofthetenthcentury,whentheWestTibetankingdomofGugébegantopatronizeBuddhistartandlearningonalargescaleonceagain.Henceforth,conditionsfavoringdoctrinalandphilosophicalinvestigationsgraduallyreemerged.

Centraltothisrevivalwasthelong,influentialsojournoftheBengalischolarandsaintDīpaṃkaraśrījñāna,betterknownasAtiśa,firstinGugé(1042–1045)andthenincentralTibetuntilhisdeathin1054.AtiśasoughttoemphasizeabovealltheethicalgroundingofMahāyānaBuddhism,andhisteachingsbecamethebasisforsubsequentTibetaneducationwithrespecttotheMahāyānapath,includingthesubstantialliteratureon“trainingthemind,”or“spiritualexercise”(blo-sbyong).Theessentialframeworkforinstructioninthisareawasamoralanthropologythatrecognizedthreegradesofaspirant,asdefinedbyAtiśainhiswidelyreadLamponthePathofEnlightenment(Bodhipathapradīpa):

WhoeverbywhatevermeansstrivesforhisownsakeOnlyforsaṃsāra'spleasures—thatoneisthelesserperson.Turninghisbacktoworldlypleasure,andshunningsinfuldeeds,Thesoulwhostrivesforhisownpeaceiscalledthemiddlingperson.Onewho,owingtothepainofhisownexistence,wholeheartedlyseekstoendAllthepainofothers—thatisthesuperiorperson.

Atiśa'soverridingconcerntoencouragethepracticeofsuch“superiorpersons”isevident,too,inhisreservewithrespecttoaspectsofphilosophicalactivity.WhilehepromotedthestudyofMadhyamaka,andinparticulartheworkofCandrakīrti,hewishedtoemphasizemeditationonemptinessasanecessarycomponentofthepathofpractice,andnotdialecticalreasoningperse.Thus,hefamouslywrote:

[Investigationsof]perceptionandinferenceareunnecessary.Theyhavebeenformulatedbythelearnedtorefutethedisputationsofextremists.

Nevertheless,ananalysisofthephenomenaofeverydayexperienceisessential,soastoarriveattheinsightthat:

Thereisneitherseeingnorseer,butpeacewithoutbeginningorend,Abandoningsubstantialityandinsubstantiality,freefromconceptions,freefromobjectives,Neitheranabode,northatwhichabides,nocomingorgoing,unexemplified,Ineffable,nottobeviewed,unchanging,uncompounded—(p.251) Iftheadeptrealizesthat,theaffectiveandcognitiveobscurationsareabandoned.

Inbrief,Atiśa,followingCandrakīrtiinwhatbecameknownasthePrāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika(theMadhyamakaschoolthatadmitsonlyindirectproof,prasaṅgainSanskrit),heldthatrelative,orostensiblereality(saṃvṛtisatya),isbestdescribedinaccordwiththeconventionsofeverydaylanguage.Thespecialroleofphilosophicaldiscourseisnotsystembuilding,butthecriticismofourassumptionsaboutreality,dismantlingthemuntilwearriveattheprofoundrealizationofemptiness.

Atiśa'sdisciplesestablishedadistinctivemonasticorder,calledKadampa(Bka'-gdams-pa),meaningthe“adherentsofthecanonandpracticalinstructions”oftheMahāyāna.Duringthesameperiod,anumberofotherneworderswerefoundedthatwouldsimilarlyshapethelaterhistoryofTibetanBuddhism.ForemostamongthemweretheKagyüpa(Bka'-brgyud-pa)“adherentsoftheorallineage,”stemmingfromthefollowersofthetranslatorandtantricadeptMarpaChökiLodrö(Mar-paChos-kyiblo-gros,1012–1096),andtheSakyapa(Sa-skya-pa)“adherentsofSakya,”referringtothemonasticcenterfoundedbythearistocraticKhönfamilyin1071.Thedifferencesamongtheseandothercontemporaneousordersreflectedprimarilydifferinglineagesandtraditionsofesotericritualandyogaratherthanphilosophyanddoctrine,thoughastheydevelopedthroughthegenerationstheyalsobegantoelaboratedistinctivedoctrinalpositions,aswillbeseenbelow.Atthesametime,linesofteachingthattracedtheirantecedentsbacktotheearlierimperialperiodsoughttoretaintheirdistinctidentityoverandagainstthenewerorders,andsocametobeknownasNyingmapa(Rnying-ma-pa),the“Ancients.”Thelatter,togetherwiththeBön,consideredthehighestrealizationstobeembodiedbytheGreatPerfection(rdzogschen),asystemofabstractcontemplationthatwassometimesattackedasaresurgenceoftheChanteachingofsuddenenlightenment.TheKagyüpa,fortheirpart,promulgatedtheMahāmudrā—the“greatseal”delimiting

7

8


of 14


theparametersofallpossibleexperience—anesotericapproachtomeditationthat,insomeofitsformsatleast,becametheobjectofsimilarcriticism.Bothofthesesystems,however,servedasimportantstimuliforlaterdoctrinalinvestigations.

TibetanScholasticism

Fromthelateeleventhcenturyonward,TibetanmonasticcollegesemphasizedahighlyrationalizedapproachtoBuddhistdoctrine,overandagainstonedominatedprimarilybyfaith.AttheforefrontofthisdevelopmentwasthecollegeofSangpu(p.252) (Gsang-phu),establishedin1073byoneofAtiśa'sforemostdisciples,NgokLekpéSherab(RngogLegs-pa'ishes-rab),whosenephewNgokLodenSherab(RngogBlo-ldanshes-rab,1059–1109)wasresponsibleforitspreeminenceinphilosophicaleducation.TheyoungerNgokwasanexcellentscholarofSanskrit,whostudiedBuddhistphilosophyinKashmirandwho,despiteAtiśa'sreservations,wasmuchinspiredbytherigorofIndianepistemologicaltheories.Thecurriculumheformulatedrequiredthecarefulstudyofphilosophicalwritings,withtheepistemologicalandlogicalworksofDharmakīrti(c.600)supplyingthemajormethodologicalorgan.OtherrequiredtopicsincludedthemonasticcodeorVinaya(‘dul-ba),the“meta-doctrine”orAbhidharma(chos-mngon-pa),thePerfectionofWisdomorPrajñāpāramitā(phar-phyin),andtheteachingoftheMiddleWay(dbu-ma),thatis,theMadhyamakadialecticoftheIndianphilosopherNāgārjuna.Henceforth,thiswouldbecomethecorecurriculumofTibetanmonasticcolleges,regardlessoftheordertowhichonebelonged.

InstructionatSangpuemphasizedthepracticeofdebate.PrecisedefinitionofkeytermsandtheunderstandingoftheirrelationswithregardtoanumberofbasiclogicaloperationsformedthefoundationsoftheTibetandebatelogic.Relationsamongtermsweredefinedintermsof“invariableconcomitance,”or“pervasion”(Skt.vyāpti),atechnicalconceptderivedfromIndianlogicthatreferstotheextensionofterms(i.e.,whattheterm“covers”).Whentwotermsaremutuallypervasive—theycoverthesameground,aswewouldsaycolloquially—theyaretreatedhereassynonyms.Understandingsuchrelations—whethertermsaresynonyms,contradictories,orcontraries—allowsonetodrawouttheirimplications.Whatthissystemofreasoninginfactseekstodoistoexploretheimplicationsofthetermsproposeduntilonearrivesattherecognitionthatone'sinitialpremiseswereinconsistentorotherwisedefective,orelseonereachesthosefundamentalassumptionsthatmustbeacceptedasintuitivelyvalid,withoutfurtherpossibilityofdispute.Thedebateisthusatonceaninquirythatseekstoarriveatsoundandvalidconclusionsandatthesametimeagame,inwhichonedeploysallthedialecticalskillonecanmusterwiththesoleobjectiveofdefeatingone'sopponent.Inthisrespect,thedebatebecomesalsoadramaticperformance,inwhichexaggeratedmovements,verbaltricks,andsometimeshumorousasidesaredeployedtodrivehomethepoint.

Eachargumentispartofalargerdiscussionandintroducesfurtherpossiblelinesofinquiry,inaccordwiththeoverallarchitectureoftheBuddhistphilosophicaledifice.Ontheanalogyofagame,theindividualargumentmaybeseenasasingleroundorinnings.Thedialecticalmethodthatisemployedhereisoftendescribedasathreefoldprocedure,consistingof,first,arefutationoferroneouspositions(dgag),followedbythedefinitionofthepositiononewishestodefend(bzhag),and,finally,therefutationofchallengestothatposition(spong).Asthedebatersdeveloptheirskillthroughpractice,likechessplayerswhothriveonconstantcompetition,theypursuetheanalysisoftheentirerangeoftopicstreatedinthemonasticcurriculum,examininginfulldetailtheconceptsoffundamentalreality,thepathtospiritualawakening,andthenatureoftheBuddha'senlightenmentitselfasthesewere(p.253) elaboratedinthefourprincipalschoolsofIndianBuddhistphilosophymentionedabove.Thepracticeaimstosharpenanddeepenone'ssenseoftheconceptualrelationsamongBuddhistideas,andsoreinforcesareadyfamiliaritywiththeconceptualschemeasawhole,fixingitasone'swayofspontaneouslyengagingwiththeworld.

TheSangpucurriculumwasrefinedbyasuccessionofbrilliantteachers,includingChapaChökiSenggé(Phya-paChos-kyiseng-ge,1109–1169),whoisoftencreditedwithgivingdefinitiveformtothesystemofdebatelogicoverall.OneofthescionsofSakya,famedasSakyaPaṇḍita(1182–1251),alsoreceivedhisearlyphilosophicaleducationatSangpu,andthen,after1204,continuedhisstudieswiththeKashmirimasterŚākyaśrībhadra,whoarrivedinTibetaccompaniedbyanentourageofIndianscholars.SakyaPaṇḍitawasoneofanumberofTibetanclericswhowereinspiredbythisopportunitytolearndirectlyfromknowledgeableIndianteachersandheappliedhimselftomasteringSanskritgrammarandotheraspectsofIndiclearning,atrainingthatwouldlendanotably“Indological”perspectivetohisscholarshipinlateryears.Inhistreatise,theScholar'sGate(Mkhas-pa‘jug-pa'isgo),hesetsforthageneralprogramrepresentinghisscholarlyideals,detailingatriviumbasedonthemasteryofcomposition,rhetoric,anddebate.


of 14


IndiantraditionsoflogicandepistemologyfiguredprominentlyamongSakyaPaṇḍita'smajorconcerns.HiskeycontributionsincludedthefinalredactionoftheTibetantranslationofDharmakīrti'smasterwork,thePramāṇavārttika,andhisownsynthesisofIndianBuddhistepistemology,theTreasuryofEpistemology(Tshad-marigs-gter),whichenjoysasingularlyextensivecommentarialtradition.Inotherwritingshecommentedatlengthoncurrentdoctrinaldebates,voicingtrenchantcriticismsofvariousdevelopmentsinTibet.Amonghisforemosttargetswasthenotionofsuddenenlightenment,whichheoftencharacterizedasthe“ChineseGreatPerfection”(rgya-nagrdzogs-chen).Buthefoundmanyotherissuestobeproblematicaswell,includingtheclaimsofeverydaylanguagephilosophy:

Somesophists,conformingwithmasterCandrakīrti,establishtherelativeasaccordingwithordinaryworldlyconventions,andtheysaythat,thoughtheindividualmaynotbeaworldling,heneverthelessengages[inactivity]conformingtotheunanalyzed,unexaminedengagementofaworldlymind.Butifthisbeexamined[intermsof]thelogicandepistemologyofconventionalsigns,itis[showntobe]unsound.For,toamindthathasnotinvestigatedthem,therearenoengagementsinvolving[well-formednotionsof]perception,inference,proof,eliminationoftheexclusion, andsoon,andthereforetheentireorderofepistemiccriteriaandtheiropposites,thatareexplainedintheseventreatises[ofDharmakīrti],arebroughttodecline.Ifyouwishtofollowthosewhothusaffirmaworldlyphilosophy,then[youarealreadyrefuted],becauseamong(p.254) theobjectsofknowledge[youmayadmit]thereareonlyentitiesandnonentities,andamongtheentitiesonlyinanimatematterandawareness,andeverywayofaffirminginanimatematterhasalreadybeenrefuted,while,asforawareness,exceptforMindOnlynothingelseissound.

Inshort,everydayconventionsareinevitablyunsustainable.Toelaborateasoundapproachtorelativerealitysomesystembuildingmustbecountenanced,eventhough,likeeverydaydiscourse,thiswillultimatelygivewayundertheassaultoftheMadhyamakadialectic.

ThetraditionsofSangpuandSakyawerelargelyresponsibleforthecontent,style,andmethodofsubsequentTibetanBuddhistscholasticism,whichcametobecharacterizedbyclosestudyofthemajorIndianBuddhistphilosophers—Nāgārjuna,Asaṅga,andDignāga,andtheircommentatorsCandrakīrti,Vasubandhu,andDharmakīrti,aboveall—rigorousadherencetothecanonsofargument,andpreciseandelegantuseoflanguage.Nevertheless,despitetheresultingedificationofexegeticalsystemsinwhichtheBuddha'steachingwassubjecttothoroughgoingrationalization,skepticalundercurrentsstillsometimesrosetothesurface.Thus,thesecondKarmapahierarch,KarmaPakshi(1206–1283),authoredacatalogueofdisputedopinions,inwhichhewrites:

Itisheldthatsaṃsārahasabeginningandend,anditisheldthatsaṃsāraiswithoutbeginningorend.Itisheldthatmindsareofidenticalnaturethroughoutallsaṃsāraandnirvāṇa,anditisheldthatallmindsareofdifferingnatures.Itisheldthatsentientbeingsarenewlyproduced,anditisheldthatsentientbeingsarenotnewlyproduced.…Butwhateversuchtenets—whethergood,bad,ormediocre—onemightharborarethecausesofgood,bad,ormediocre[conditionsof]saṃsāra.Theyaredevoidofthelife-forceofnirvāṇa.Therefore,whatevertenets,hankeringsorparticularphilosophicalpositionsyouhold,theycauseyoutobebuddhaless,andmakeyoumeetwithsaṃsāra.Youshouldknowinthiswaythewholemassoftenets,[eachone]inparticular.

Buddha-NatureandtheLuminosityofMind

Thefourteenthcenturysawdeepeninginterestintopicsassociatedwiththeso-called“thirdturnofthedoctrinalwheel”:Buddha-natureorthe“matrixofthetathāgata”(tathāgatagarbha),the“consciousnessoftheground-of-all”(ālayavijñāna),andthe“luminosityofmind”(cittaprabhāsa)foremostamongthem.Therecanbelittledoubtthattheefforttoelaboratesatisfactoryintellectualframeworksfortheinvestigationoftheseandrelatedtopicsreceiveditsimpetusinpartfromthespreadof(p.255) contemplativeandyogictechniques,whichmadeuseofthesesameconceptsinthepracticalcontextofspiritualdisciplines.ThepresenceofsimilarterminologyinsomebranchesoftheIndianscholasticliteratureandincertainofthesūtrasledagrowingnumberofscholarstoarguethatthehighestteachingsoftheBuddhaweretobefoundinsuchtextsandtoelaborateanexegeticalprograminsupportofthatposition.ThedebatestowhichthisgaverisebecamesomeofmosthotlycontestedareasofTibetanBuddhistthought,andamongtherichestintermsoftherangeofperspectivesthatemerged.Astrongcurrentofidealistinfluencemaybedetectedinmanyauthors,thoughmost,whowerewellawareofthecritiquesofidealismonthepartoftheIndianMadhyamakaphilosophers,steeredclearofanycommitmenttotheultimateviabilityofmetaphysicalidealism.

TheeffortsexpendedbyIndianBuddhistwritersinordertodistinguishtheteachingsofālayavijñānaand

9

10

11


of 14


tathāgatagarbhafromvarious“doctrinesofself”(ātmavāda)demonstratethattheywerefelttobeproblematicalmostfromthetimethattheywerefirstintroduced.D.S.Ruegghasarguedthatinterpretiveapproachestothemexhibitedtwobroadtendencies:ontheonehandtherewerethosewhosoughttoshowthatthedoctrinesinquestionwerenotliterallyintended,butregardedasderivingfromasoteriologicalstrategytailoredfortheneedsofthosenotyetreadytoapprehendthegenuinepurportoftheBuddha'steaching;andontheothertherewerethosewhomaintainedthattheyhadbeensointended,addingonlythattheirproperrelationshipwithotherdiscoursesontheabsolute,especiallytheconceptofemptiness,hadtobeunderstoodcorrectly. Itwasthislatterapproachthatwasmostobviouslyproblematic,asitseemedtosuggestthat,onceemptinesswascomprehended,therewasneverthelesssomethingmoretobeknown.

TheThirdKarmapaRangjungDorjé(Karma-paRang-byung-rdo-rje,1284–1339)wasoneofthemostinfluentialfiguresinconnectionwiththedevelopmentswithwhichweareconcerned.Hisviewsaresetforthinhiscelebratedtreatise,ProfoundInnerMeaning(Zabmonangdon),summarizedhereintheremarksofJamgönKongtrül(‘Jam-mgonKong-sprul,1813–1899):

Thatreality,orsuchness,thatisthegroundofallsaṃsāraandnirvāṇa,isreferredtobymanynames,suchasthe“primordial,indestructible,greatseminalpoint,”“Prajñāpāramitā,”“inborngnosis,”and“ordinarycognition.”Whenitisstirredbytheagitatingvitalenergyofintellect,extraneousthoughtsgrowactive.Owingtotheappearanceofdichotomizedphenomena,oneadoptstheconvention[ofdistinguishingbetween]the“gnosisoftheground-of-all”(ālayajñāna)andthe“consciousnessoftheground-of-all”(ālayavijñāna).

Regardingthegnosisoftheground-of-all:itisbuddha-nature,andinthePrajñāpāramitāandtheUttaratantraśāstraitiscalledthe“natureofmind.”…That,moreover,isthehomogeneouscausalbasisofnirvāṇa,andthedominantorappropriatingcausalbasisofsaṃsāra.Andbecauseitabideslatentlyintheconsciousnessoftheground-of-all,inthemannerofwaterandmilkmixed(p.256) together,thosewhoarebewilderedaboutthedefinitivesignificancedonotrecognizethegnosisoftheground-of-all,andmaintainthatthereareonlythesixaggregatesofconsciousness;andeveniftheymaintaintheretobeeightaggregates,theyapprehendtheground-of-allasconsciousnessalone.

Passagessuchasthis,takenoutofcontext,mayleadonetosupposethatKarmapaRangjungDorjéfavoredasubstanceontologysimilartothatsometimesassociatedwithidealisttraditions.OtherpassagesfromtheKarmapa'swork,however,suggestthatthefundamentalground,asheunderstoodit,wassomethingfarmorediaphanousthansomesortof“mind-stuff.”Indeed,intheversesinwhichhecomesclosesttocharacterizingitdirectly,hedeliberatelyundercutsthetendencytosubstantialism:

Thecausalbasisismind-as-suchthatisbeginningless.Thoughitiswithoutinterruptionandimbalance,Throughitsunimpededplay—Emptyinessence,radiantinnature,unimpededinfeatures—Itarisesasanythingwhatsoever.

AndelsewherehedescribesthesignificanceofthegroundinthealtogethernormalMadhyamakatermsof“uncompoundedreality,surpassingthought,neitherindicatedbyaffirmations,norrefutedbynegations.”

Thefiguremostoftenassociatedwithcontroversialontologicalspeculations,however,wasajuniorcontemporaryoftheKarmapa,DölpopaSherabGyeltsen(Dol-po-paShes-rab-rgyal-mtshan,1292–1361),whoseradicalteachingassertedthatemptinesswasnottheintrinsicnatureoftheabsolute,whichwasinfacttoberealizedasaplenitude.Itisthusonlyextrinsicallyempty,thatis,emptyofallthatconstitutesrelativereality:

Theintentionistodistinguishintrinsicemptiness(rang-stong)fromextrinsicemptiness(gzhan-stong).Asforthosewhodonotdosoandwhosaythatallisonlyintrinsicemptiness,andthatemptinessisnotdeterminedintermsofextrinsicemptiness,butthatonlyintrinsicemptinessdeterminesemptiness,andwhomaintainthatall[theBuddha's]statementsthatultimatelythereisexistence,permanence,self,purityandtruthareofprovisionalmeaning,whileallstatementsofnonexistence,impermanence,non-self,impurityandrottennessareofdefinitivemeaning,andthatthe[…]absolute,theultimatebodyofreality,theessentialbody,naturalluminosity,naturalcoemergence,naturalgreatbliss,the(p.257) naturallyinnate,naturalnirvāṇa,thenaturalandspontaneouslyachievedmaṇḍala,etc.,aswellasthenaturalabidingbuddha-familywithitsmanyclassifications,theultimatebuddha-natureendowedwithmanyattributes,etc.,areheldwithrespecttorealitybutthatrealityisitself

12

13

14

15

16


of 14


intrinsicallyempty—theseandmorearesomanyperverseviews,coarseandbadviews,withoutnumber.

Dölpopa'sthinkingsparkedaprolongeddisputeandhewascondemnedinsomecirclesasatacitadherentoftheHinduteachingoftheātman.Aftertheordertowhichheadhered,theJonangpa,wassuppressedbytheFifthDalaiLamaforpoliticalreasons,hiswritingswereevenbanned,andmanybelievedthesuppressionitselftobeduetoperceivedheresy.Nevertheless,Dölpopa'sinsistencethattheabsolutecouldnotbeconceivedasamerenothingnesshadtouchedasorenerveinTibetanBuddhistthought,sothathisteachinghasbeenrepeatedlyrevived,albeitwithvariousmodifications,downtothepresenttime.Hisworkhadmadeclearthegreatdifficultiesinvolvedinreconcilingtheteachingsofthe“thirdturn,”asdescribedabove,withthoseofthe“secondturn,”thatis,thePerfectionofWisdomsūtraswiththeiremphasisonemptiness.Thenotededitorofthecanon,ButönRinchendrup(Bu-stonRin-chen-grub,1292–1364),forinstance,insistedagainstDölpopathattheBuddha'sdefinitiveteachingsweretobefoundjustthere,andnotinthethirdturn.Theirdisagreementinmattersofhermeneuticswasnotwithoutsignificantphilosophicalramifications.

ThegreatinterestarousedbydiscussionsofluminosityandBuddha-naturemaybeseen,too,intheworkofLongchenRabjampa(Klong-chenRab-’byams-pa,1308–1364),thegreatesttheoreticianoftheNyingmapateachingoftheGreatPerfection.Nowhereisthismoreevidentthaninhistreatmentofthe“ground”(gzhi),thebasisfortheactualizationofthe“fruit”(‘bras-bu)thatisbuddhahood.Inhisconceptionoftheemptinessoftheabsolute,heavoidsDölpopa'sposition,butisneverthelesssimilarlyconcernednottoembracewhatheregardsasthenihilistictendenciesofsomeTibetanscholars:

Theprimordiallyluminousrealitythatisunconditionedandspontaneouslypresent,fromtheperspectiveofemptinessisinnowayestablishedasentityorcharacteristic,andsoisinnowaydividedintosaṃsāra,nirvāṇa,etc.,forwhichreasonitisfreefromallelaboratedextremes,likespace.Fromtheperspectiveoflucency,beingprimordiallyendowedwiththenatureofbodyandgnosis,thereisspontaneouspresenceandluminosity,likethemaṇḍalasofsunandmoon….

Nowadays,mostoftheteachersandallofthehermitsalikemakeoutthegroundtobeabarevacuity,nothingatall,andthisdoesnotaccordwiththeintentionofthesignificanceofthematrix.Byexperientiallycultivatingagroundthatisnothingatall,thefruitofawakeningasbuddha,withallenlightenedattributes,willnotemerge,becausethetrioofground,path,andresulthasbeenconfounded.Thisisbecausetheawakenedbuddha,unconditionedandpossessingthespontaneouslypresentenlightenedattributes,isadisclosureofthe(p.258)resultofaseparation[ofadventitioustaintsfromtheprimordiallypureground].…Here,ontheotherhand,itistheunconditionedandspontaneouslypresentluminositythatisheldtobetheground.Fromtheinherentstructureofsuchaground,whennotrecognizedasitis,therecomestobeunawareness.Duetothat,havingerrantlyconstructedtheapprehendingsubjectandapprehendedobject,oneturnsthroughthethreerealms.

TsongkhapaandHisCritics

ThefourteenthcenturywasinmanyrespectsthegoldenageofTibetanBuddhistphilosophy.Besidesthefiguresjustsurveyed,ahostofscholars,manyofwhomwereeducatedintheKadampaandSakyapatraditions,contributedtotheelaborationofeveryaspectofBuddhistthought,engenderinglivelycontroversiesinmostareas.Itbecamecustomaryforaspirantstomovefromonecentertoanother,studyingwithdifferentmastersandhoningtheirdebatingskillsontheway.OneofthosewhoenteredthisworldofitinerantscholarswasJéTsongkhapaLozangDrakpa(RjeTsong-kha-paBlo-bzang-grags-pa,1357–1419).OriginallyfromthefarnortheasternTibetanprovinceofAmdo(modernQinghai),hecametocentralTibetasateenagerandpursuedrigorousstudieswithalltheforemostluminariesofthevariousorders.HisdedicationtotheKadampateachingoftheprogressivepathofthebodhisattvawassuchthatheandhissuccessorsoftencametobethoughtofas“newKadampa”(bka’-gdamsgsar-ma)andhistreatisetheGreatExpositionoftheStagesofthePath(lam-rimchen-mo)isrenownedasadefinitiveexpressionofthisapproach.FromhisSakyapateacher,RemdawaZhönuLodrö(Red-mda'-baGzhon-nu-blo-gros,1349–1412),heacquiredaspecialconcernfortheinterpretationofthePrāsaṅgika-MādhyamikaphilosophyoftheIndianmasterCandrakīrti,anditwasincollaborationwithRemdawathatheundertookhiscelebratedreformofthepracticeofthemonasticcode,orVinaya.Hethoroughlyrejectedthe“extrinsicemptiness”doctrineofDölpopa,regardingitasanextremerepresentativeofpersistentTibetanmisunderstandingsoftheYogācāraphilosophyofIndia,and,thoughacceptingtheauthorityofthePrāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika,hedevelopedhisowndistinctiveinterpretationthereof,thatinmanyrespectswasnotanticipatedintheworkofRemdawaorearlierthinkers.IncontradistinctiontoAtiśa'sreservationswithregardtotheutilityofBuddhist

16

17


of 14


epistemology,forinstance,TsongkhapasoughttoforgeaviablesynthesisbetweenDharmakīrti'sapproachtologicalanalysisandCandrakīrti'sconceptionofthetwotruths.InTsongkhapa'sformulationofthelatter,(p.259) theabsolutedidnotoverrideconventionalreality,butinthehighestinsightonearrivedataseamlessintegrationofthetwo.Ashehimselfexpressedit:

TheBuddha'srealizationisnotcomprehendedsolongastheinfallibleconditionalityofappearanceandemptiness-without-assertion arebothunderstoodasseparate.When[theyarise]simultaneously,withoutalternation,sothatinjustperceivingtheinfallibilityofconditionedoriginationallpositionsapprehendingtheascertainedobjectdissolve,atthattimetheanalysisofviewpointsisconcluded.

Inshort,thoughdrawingonearliertradition,TsongkhapaformulatedanovelsynthesisoftheIndianBuddhistlegacy,stronglyemphasizingcarefultextualstudyandthedemandsoflogic.AfterfoundinghisownmonasticcenterofGandenin1409,hisfollowersgraduallycametobeestablishedasadistinctiveneworder,whicheventuallyadoptedthenameGelukpa(Dge-lugs-pa)andtowhichtheDalaiLamasadhere.

TsongkhapaclearlyperceivedthatthemanycontestedtopicsintheBuddhismofhisdaycouldnotberesolvedbyappealingtoscripturalauthorityaloneandwrote:

Ascripturalpassagewhichmerelysays“this[text]isofthis[levelofmeaning]”cannotestablishthattobeso,for,asthereisingeneralnosuchinvariableconcomitance[relatingstatementsoftheformgiventothelevelsofmeaningtowhichtheyrefer],themerestatement,“this[scripture]isofthis[levelofmeaning]”cannotproveaparticularinstanceofinterpretableordefinitivemeaning.

Thewould-beinterpreteristhereforethrownbackontheoperationsofnaturalreasonifheistocutthroughtheconundrumsposedbydoctrinaltexts.

InconnectionwiththePrāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikaphilosophy,inparticular,therewereprincipallyeightsuchconundrumsaboutwhichTsongkhapaproposednewsolutions.Oneofhischiefdisciples,Gyeltsab-jé(Rgyal-tshab-rje,1364–1432),liststhemasfollows:

(p.260) Inrelationtotheground:(1–2)thedenialsoftheground-of-allandtheself-markingparticular, and(3)theaffirmationofouterobjects.Inrelationtothepath:(4–5)thedenialsoftheautonomoussyllogism[i.e.directproof]andreflexiveawareness asthemeansforrealizingjustwhatisasitis,and(6–7)theaffirmationof[auniqueapproachtotheexplanationof]howthetwoobscurationsareestablishedandoftherealization,amongpiousattendantsandself-centeredbuddhas,oftheabsenceofthesubstantialnatureofprinciples. Andinrelationtotheresult:(8)[auniqueapproachtotheexplanationof]howtheBuddhacognizestheextensionofthings.

Eachofthesetopicsiscomplex,andeachoccasionedextensivediscussion.Aswehaveseenaspectsoftheearliertreatmentoftheconsciousnessoftheground-of-all,someextractsofGyeltsab-jé'scommentsonthismaybetakenasillustrative:

Someholdthat,ifvirtuousorunvirtuousdeedsweretoabideuntilthematurationoftheresult,thentheywouldbepermanent,sothat[onewhoaffirmedthis]wouldfallintotheextremeofeternalism,whileif,ontheotherhand,thedeedthatwasperformedweretobeannihilatedinthesecondinstant,then,becausetheannihilatedcannotbeanentity,itcouldnotgeneratethematureresult,whereforecompleteddeedswouldvanishwithouttrace.

Somerespondtothisargument,sayingthat,eventhoughthedeedbeannihilated,thereisagroundforthesuccessiveemergenceofthepotencyofthedeed,whichisconsideredtobetheground-of-all,whileothersaffirmthistobethecontinuousstreamofintellectualconsciousness.Andsomerespondbyholdingthat,eventhoughthedeedbeannihilated,thedeed'sacquisitionremainsinexistence,whileothersholdtheretobesomeotherprinciple,called“inexhaustion,”thatislikethesealwitnessingadebt.Ourownresponseisthat,evenwithoutaffirminganyofthosefourpropositions,beginningwiththeground-of-all,itisimpliedthatthecompleteddeedwillnotvanishwithouttrace.Forevenifthose[fourtheories]arenotaffirmed,thereisnocontradictioninvolvedifweassumethatitistheannihilateddeedthatgeneratesaresult.If[ouropponentcounters,]saying,“Unproven!Forwhatisannihilatedcannotbeanentity,”then[werespondthat]thatisunproven,for,thoughtheannihilatedcannotbeanentityifyouaffirmtheself-markingparticular[tobethedefiningentity],wedonotaffirm

18

19

20

21

22

23


of 14


theself-markingparticularevenasamatterofconvention,whereforebothannihilatedandunannihilateddeedsareequivalentwithrespecttowhetherornottheyareentities.

Tsongkhapa'ssolutiontotheproblemofkarmaandcausation,thattheannihilationordestruction(zhig-pa)ofathingcouldactinacausalstreamjustasdoesanentity,mayappeartobearabbitpulledfromthehatjustinordertopreservehissystem.This,indeed,ishowhiscriticsperceiveditand,togetherwithmanyotherof(p.261) thedistinctiveaspectsofhisthought,itwasuniversallyrejectedbythoseoutsideoftheGelukpaorderhehadfounded.Oneofhissharpestopponents,theSakyapaGorampaSonamSenggé(Go-rams-paBsod-namsseng-ge,1429–1489),forinstance,arguedthatithadtheabsurdentailmentthat“karmaanditseffectsaredifferentsinceatthelevelofconventions,theyaresetofffromoneanotherbyanintermediary,namely‘destructionquarealentity,’justliketwomountainsthatfaceeachotheraresetofffromoneanotherbytheriver[thatrunsbetweenthem].” MuchofthelaterhistoryofBuddhistthoughtinTibet,infact,maybeinterpretedintermsofthecontinuingdebatebetweenTsongkhapa'scriticsanddefenders.Amongtheformer,besidesGorampa,particularlynotablephilosophersincludetheSakyapamasterSerdokPaṇchen(Gser-mdogPaṇ-chen,1428–1507)andtheEighthKarmapahierarchMikyöDorjé(Mi-bskyodrdo-rje,1507–1554),while,amongthelatter,SeraJetsünChökiGyeltsen(Se-rarje-btsunChos-kyirgyal-mtshan,1469–1546)isfamedforhisdetaileddefensesofTsongkhapa'sthinkingagainstallthreeofthecriticsmentionedhere.

LaterDevelopments

PoliticalturmoilinCentralTibetthroughoutmuchoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,intandemwithchangingrelationswithTibet'sMongolandManchuneighbors,contributedtoaremarkableshiftinTibet'sculturalgeography.WhereasCentralTibethadbeen,throughouttheprecedingcenturies,theunrivaledheartofTibetanreligiouslife,newcentersofintellectualandartisticactivitynowemergedinTibet'sfareasternregionsofAmdoandKham.Inthelatter,withthepatronageoftherulersofDergé(Sde-dge),KarmapaandSakyapamasterscontributedtothefoundationofTibet'sgreatestpublishinghouse,theDergéPrintery,whichmadecanonicalandotherworkswidelyavailable.Atthesametime,theGelukpamonasteriesinAmdoforthefirsttimealsobecameimportantcentersoflearningintheirownright,forinstanceatKumbum(Sku-'bum),nearTsongkhapa'sbirthplacenotfarfromthecityofXining(QinghaiProvince),andLabrang(Bla-brang),foundedbyJamyangZhepa(‘Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa,1648–1721)insouthernGansu.ScholarsassociatedwiththeselattercenterswereoftennotethnicTibetans,andtheyfrequentlyenjoyedthepatronageoftheManchucourt,whichregardedTibetanBuddhismassupplyingaculturallinguafrancaforthepeoplesofInnerAsia.

Theprominenceoftheeastinthisperiodisverywellillustratedinthelifeandworkofthegreateighteenth-centurymasterChangkyaRolpeiDorjé(1717–1786).BornamongtheMonguorofQinghai,hewasidentifiedattheageoffourasthe(p.262) incarnationofafamouslamaandsenttoBeijingtobeeducatedatthecourt.TherehebecamethefastfriendofaManchuprince,wholatersucceededtothethroneastheemperorQianlong(reigned1736–1799),thegreatestoftheQingmonarchs.Changkyarosewithhisboyhoodfriendtobecometheempire'spreeminentBuddhistclergyman,aswellastheconfidanteandbiographeroftheSeventhDalaiLamaKelzangGyatso(Bskal-bzangrgya-mtsho,1708–1757).AsChangkya'swritingsmakeclear,headheredcloselytoTsongkhapa'sidealofreasoninseekingtoresolveforhimselftheconflictedpointsofBuddhistteaching.

OneofChangkya'smostesteemedandpuzzlingworks,calledthe“EpistemologicalPath”(Tshadmalamrim),recordsadream-visioninwhichtherelationshipbetweenthesystematicstudyofDharmakīrti'sepistemologyandprogressontheBuddhistpathissetoutingeneralterms.Changkya,byplacinghissketchofBuddhistrationalisminthecontextofadream-vision,effectivelyannulsthegulfseparatingreligiousexperiencefromreason.Inhisdream,avoiceinstructshim:

YoumustreflectonyourunderstandingofDharmakīrti,interminglingyourintellectualinsightwithyourpresentexperience:thesevariedpleasuresandpainsthatoccurtoyounowinthecourseofthingsareephemeraloccurrences.Thesepleasuresandpainsareexperientiallyproventooccuronthebasisofcausesandconditions.…ThusyouarriveatthethoughtthattheBuddha'steachingsofimpermanence,suffering,andcausalityareestablishedbyreasonandverifiedexperientially….”

Hence,forChangkya,thereasonedinvestigationoftheteachingistobeintermingledwithone'sexperiences;itmustflowfrom,andinturninform,one'sengagementintheself-cultivationthatcharacterizestheBuddhistpath.

Thepositionofthenon-GelukpaorderswasrelativelystrongerinKham,where,duringthenineteenthcentury,adynamic

24

25

26


of 14


movementoftencharacterizedas“eclectic”or“universalist”(ris-med)soughttodefusetheintensesectarianismthathadoftenplaguedTibetanBuddhism.TheencyclopedicwritingsofJamyangKhyen-tse(‘Jam-dbyangsMkhyen-brtse,1820–1892)andJamgönKongtrül(1813–1899)becameinsomerespectsanewcanonfortheadherentsofthismovement.Oneoftheirdisciples,MipamNamgyel(Mi-phamrnam-rgyal,1846–1912),alsoelaboratedanewscholasticcurriculumemphasizingthedoctrinalstandpointoftheNyingmapaorder,andengagedinwide-rangingdebateswithsomeofhisGelukpacontemporaries.Likehisteachers,however,MipamwasconvincedthattheTibetanBuddhistordershadmoreincommonthansectarianpolemicistswerereadilywillingtoadmit.Inasatiricalessay,afternotingsomeofthestrengthsandvulnerabilitiesofthefourmajororders,heconcludes:

ThephilosophicalsystemsoftheteachinginTibetbeganatthetimeofthe[…]thereligiousking[TriSongdetsen].Fromthatancientandexcellentlegacy,all[theTibetanorders]arealikeinaffirmingthefoursealsthatmarkthetransmittedpreceptsoftheteaching. Aboveandbeyondthat,theyallaffirmthe(p.263) greatunelaborateemptinessand,what'smore,alsoaffirmthevehicleofthetantras,[whichteaches]thecoalescenceofblissandemptiness.Because,then,inpointoffact,theirviewsandsystemsaresimilar,theyareexceedinglyclose.

Inthinkingaboutotherfactions,[considerthat]amongnon-Buddhistsandbarbarians,withwhomwesharenoteventokensanddress,andwhoare[asnumerous]asnighttimestars,we,whoarejustafew,likedaytimestars,areapproachingthecompletionoftheteaching.Whilesomethingofitremains,thosewhohaveenteredintothedomainsoftheteachingwithcommonpurposeoughttocultivatetheperceptionthattheyaremostcloselyrelated.Becausemutualenmitywillbringruination,regardoneanotherasdoesamotherherchild,orasdoesabeggaratreasure,andsocultivateaperceptionofjoy.

ThoughsectarianantagonismshaveremainedundiminishedamongsomeTibetans,theidealoftoleranceespousedherehasbecomewidespread,andinourtimesisembracedbyH.H.theFourteenthDalaiLama.

BibliographyandSuggestedReadingsARGUILLÈRE,S.(2007)Vastesphèredeprofusion,Klong-chenrab-’byams(Tibet,1308–1364),savie,sonœuvre,sadoctrine.OrientaliaAnalectaLovaniensa167.Leiden:Peeters.

CABEZÓN,JOSEIGNACIO,andGESHELOBSANGDARGYAY.(2007)FreedomfromExtremes:Gorampa's“DistinguishingtheViews”andthePolemicsofEmptiness.Boston,MA:Wisdom.

DEMIÉVILLE,P.(1952)LeconciledeLhasa:unecontroversesurlequiétismeentrebouddhistesdel'IndeetdelaChineauVIII siècledel'èrechrétienne.Bibliothèquedel'InstitutdesHautesÉtudesChinoises,VolumeVII.Paris:ImprimerieNationaledeFrance.

DREYFUS,GEORGESB.J.(2003)TheSoundofTwoHandsClapping:TheEducationofaTibetanBuddhistMonk.Berkeley/LosAngeles/London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

DUDJOMRINPOCHE,JIKDRELYESHEDORJE.(1991)TheNyingmaSchoolofTibetanBuddhism:ItsFundamentalsandHistory,translatedbyGyurmeDorjeandMatthewKapstein.Boston,MA:WisdomPublications(2nded.2002).

GOLD,J.C.(2007)TheDharma'sGatekeepers:SakyaPaṇḍitaonBuddhistScholarshipinTibet.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

GOLDFIELD,A.,J.Levinson,etal.(trans.).(2006)TheMoonofWisdom:ChapterSixofChandrakīrti'sEnteringtheMiddleWaywithCommentaryfromtheEighthKarmapa.Ithaca,NY:SnowLion.

GUENTHER,HERBERTV.(1989)FromReductionismtoCreativity:Rdzogs-chenandtheNewSciencesofMind.Boston,MA:Shambhala.

HOPKINS,J.(2004)MapsoftheProfound:Jam-yang-shay-ba'sGreatExpositionofBuddhistandNon-BuddhistViewsontheNatureofReality.Ithaca,NY:SnowLion.

JACKSON,DAVID.(1987)TheEntranceGatefortheWise(SectionIII):Sa-skyaPaṇḍitaonIndianandTibetanTraditionof

27

28

e


of 14


PramāṇaandPhilosophicalDebate.2vols.WienerStudienzurTibetologieundBuddhismuskunde17,1–2.Vienna:ArbeitskreisfürTibetischeundBuddhistischeStudienUniversitätWien.

KAPSTEIN,M.T.(2001)Reason'sTraces:IdentityandInterpretationinIndianandTibetanBuddhistThought.Boston,MA:WisdomPublications.

KARMAPHUNTSHO.(2005)Mipham'sDialecticsandtheDebatesonEmptiness.London:Routledge.

KLEIN,A.C.,andGESHETENZINWANGYALRINPOCHE.(2006)UnboundedWholeness:Dzogchen,Bon,andtheLogicoftheNonconceptual.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

KUIJP,LEONARDW.J.VANDER.(1983)ContributionstotheDevelopmentofTibetanBuddhistEpistemology.Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag.

LOPEZ,D.S.,JR.(2006)TheMadman'sMiddleWay:ReflectionsonRealityoftheTibetanMonkGendunChopel.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

MAKRANSKY,JOHNJ.(1997)BuddhahoodEmbodied:SourcesofControversyinIndiaandTibet.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

MATHES,KLAUS-DIETER.(2007)ADirectPathtotheBuddhaWithin:GöLotsāwa'sMahāmudrāInterpretationoftheRatnagotravibhāga.Boston,MA:Wisdom.

NGAWANGSAMTENandJAYGARFIELD.(2006)OceanofReasoning:AGreatCommentaryonNāgārjuna'sMūlamadhyamakakārikā.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

PETTIT,JOHN.(1999)Mipham'sBeaconofCertainty.Boston,MA:WisdomPublications.

RUEGG,DAVIDSEYFORT.(1989)Buddha-nature,MindandtheProblemofGradualisminaComparativePerspective:OntheTransmissionandReceptionofBuddhisminIndiaandTibet.London:SchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies.

STEARNS,CYRUS.(1999)BuddhafromDolpo.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

THUPTEN,JINPA.(2002)Self,RealityandReasoninTibetanPhilosophy:Tsongkhapa'sQuestfortheMiddleWay.London:RoutledgeCurzon.

THURMAN,R.A.F.(1984)TsongKhapa'sSpeechofGoldintheEssenceofTrueEloquence.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

TSONG-KHA-PA.(2001–2004)TheGreatTreatiseontheStagesofthePathtoEnlightenment,translatedbyJoshuaCutleretal.3vols.Ithaca,NY:SnowLion.

WILLIAMS,PAUL.(1998)TheReflexiveNatureofAwareness:ATibetanMadhyamakaDefence.Surrey,England:Curzon.

Notes:(1.)Birthfromanegg,fromthewomb,duetoheatandmoisture,ormiraculousbirth.

(2.)FollowingthetextasestablishedinHughRichardson,“TheFirstTibetanChos-'byung,”inhisHighPeaks,PureEarth:CollectedWritingsonTibetanHistoryandCulture,ed.MichaelAris(London:Serindia),pp.89–99.Unlessotherwisestated,thisandalltranslationsinthepresentchapteraremyown.

(3.)The“rabbit'shorn”isastandardexample,inIndianphilosophy,ofanempiricalimpossibility,the“barrenwoman'sson”ofalogicalcontradiction.

(4.)Ye-shes-sde,Ltaba'ikhyadpar.Archaicversion,ms.PelliotTibetain814,reproducedinMacdonaldandImaeda,Choixdedocumentstibetains(Paris:BibliothequeNationale,1978),vol.1,plates210–225.

(5.)Sba-bzhedces-bya-ba-lasSbaGsal-snang-gibzhed-pabzhugs(Beijing:NationalitiesPress,1980),pp.64–76.


of 14


(6.)Galmdo(Dolanji:TibetanBonpoMonasticCentre,1972),p.167.2ff.

(7.)Atiśa,Bodhipathapradīpa,verses3–5.

(8.)BoththisandtheprecedingquotationarefromAtiśa,Satyadvayāvatāra.Theaffectiveobscuration(Skt.kleśāvaraṇa)includesalldispositionsunderlyingtheemotionsthatbindustoworldlypatterns;thecognitiveobscuration(jñeyāvaraṇa)theinabilitytopenetratetoafullrealizationofthetruenatureofthings.

(9.)Theeliminationoftheexclusion(Skt.anyāpoha)wasthecenterpieceoftheBuddhisttheoryofmeaning,developedbyDignāga.Accordingtothistheory,whichaccordswithaspectsofmodernsemantics,thecontentofatermorconceptisafunctionofitsrangeofexclusion.Thatis,“cow,”whichexcludesallthingsthatarenotcows,isconceptuallyricherthan“livingbeing.”

(10.)Sa-skyaPaṇḍitaKun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan,Tshadmarigsgter(Beijing:NationalitiesPress,1989),pp.43–60.

(11.)‘Dodpargyamtshomtha’yas,inKarmaRang-byung-rdo-rje,Rgyamtshomtha'yasskor(Gangtok,1978),vol.1,pp.625–626.

(12.)RefertoRuegg1989.

(13.)Kong-sprulYon-tanrgya-mtsho,Rnal‘byorblanamedpa'irgyudsdergyamtsho'isnyingpobsduspazabmonanggidonnyungngu'itshiggisrnampar‘grolbazabdonsnangbyed,inBka’brgyudpa'igsungrabpodnyishupa:thabsgrol(Xining:Mtshosngonmirigsdpeskrunkhang,2001),pp.69–70.

(14.)KarmaRang-byungrdo-rje,Zabmonanggidonzhesbyaba'igzhung,inBka'brgyudpa'igsungrabpodnyishupa:thabsgrol,pp.3–4.

(15.)Ngesdonphyagrgyachenpo'ismonlam,op.cit.,p.892.

(16.)The‘Dzam-thangEditionoftheCollectedWorksofKun-mkhyenDol-po-paShes-rab-rgyal-mtshan(NewDelhi:ShedrupBooksandKonchhogLhadrepa,1992/1993),vol.5,pp.335–343.

(17.)Kloṅ-chenRab-’byams-paDri-med-'od-zer,Semsdangyesheskyidrilan,inMiscellaneouswritings(Gsuṅthorbu)ofKun-mkhyenKlon-chen-paDri-med-'od-zer(Delhi:SanjeDorje,1973),vol.1,pp.377–392.

(18.)Inadoptingthisexpression,Tsong-kha-paemphasizeshiscommitmenttothePrāsaṅgikatraditionofCandrakīrti,overandagainsttheSvātantrika-Mādhyamika,associatedwithsuchfiguresasBhāvavivekaandŚāntarakṣita,forwhomemptinessisassertedinthepositiveconclusionofaformaldemonstration.

(19.)RjeTsong-kha-paBlo-bzang-grags-pa,Lamgyigtsobornamgsum,inRjetsongkhapachenpo'ibka'‘bumthorbu(Xining:Mtshosngonmirigsdpeskrunkhang,1987),pp.344–346.

(20.)RjeTsong-kha-paBlo-bzang-grags-pa,Drangngeslegsbshadsnyingpo,Sarnathed.,p.3.

(21.)InthesystemofDignāgaandDharmakīrti,the“self-markingparticular”(svalakṣaṇa)isthediscretephenomenonthatbearsthosequalitiesthatestablishitsuniqueidentityforaperceiverwhoisnotsubjecttoerror.This,theelementarybuildingblockoftheirontology,wasacceptedbymanyTibetanthinkersasconventionallytrue,eveninMadhyamakacontexts,butbyTsongkhapatobenotevenconventionallyacceptableforthePrāsaṅgika.

(22.)ForDignāgaandDharmakīrti,reflexivityorapperception(svasaṃvittiḥ)wastheelementaryunitofconsciousness,paralleling,intheirsystem,theself-markingparticularastheminimalobject.Tsongkhapa,truetohisownprinciples,inrejectingone,rejectedequallytheother.

(23.)Themoreprevalentviewwasthatśrāvaka-sandpratyekabuddha-s,whoexemplifiedthehighestgoalsofthe“lesservehicle”(hīnayāna),realizedtheinsubstantiality(“selflessness”)ofpersons,butnotoftheprinciples(dharma)uponwhichpersonssupervene.

(24.)ThisandtheprecedingquotationfromRgyal-tshab-rjeDar-marin-chen,Dbumartsaba'idka’gnadchenpobrgyadkyibrjedbyang,inDbuma'iltakhridphyogsbsdebs(Sarnath:CentralInstituteofHigherTibetanStudies,1985),pp.154–187.


of 14


(25.)CabezónandDargyay2007,137.

(26.)Tshadmalamrim,inLcangskyarolpa'irdorje'irnamthar,pp.635–638.

(27.)Thefoursealsoftheteachingarethatconditionedentitiesareimpermanent;thatcorruptiblethingsinvolvesuffering;thatnoentityisorpossessesasubstantialself;andthatnirvāṇaispeace.

(28.)Mi-pham,Gzhanstongkhaslensengge'ingaro,Ser-lodgon-pa(Nepal)xylographiced.

MatthewT.KapsteinMatthewT.KapsteinisDirectorofTibetanStudiesattheEcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes(Paris)andNumataVisitingProfessorofBuddhistStudiesattheUniversityofChicago.HisrecentbooksincludeTheTibetans(Oxford,2006),aneditedvolumeentitledBuddhismBetweenTibetandChina(Boston,2009),andatranslationofaSanskritphilosophicalallegory,TheRiseofWisdomMoon(NewYork,2009).

buddhist thought in tibet

Documents