jiabs 13-2

THE JOURNAL

tbF THE .INTERNATIONAl ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIES

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.

Roger jackson Dept. of Religion Carleton College

Northfield, MN 55057 USA

EDITORS

Peter N. Gregory University of Illinois

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Alexander W Macdonald Universiti de Paris X

Nanterre, France

Steven Collins Concordia University Montreal, Canada

Volume 13 ~~,. . 1990

Ernst Steinkellner University of Vienna

Wien, Austria

jikido Takasaki University of Tokyo

Tokyo, japan

Robert Thurman Columbia University

New York, New York, USA

Number 2

THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION! OF BUDDHIST STUDIES, INC. . ···i.

This journal is the organ of the International Association of Buddhist St d:; Inc. I t is governed by the obj ectives of the Association and accepts scholarl u les~ tributions pertaining to Buddhist Studies in all the various disciplines, s:c~o~, philosophy, history, religion, sociology, anthropology, art, archaeology, PSych as

ogy, textual studies, etc. ThejIABS is published twice yearly, in the summ' . ?l, . er and

wInter.

Manuscripts for publication (we must have two copies) and correspondence < cerning articles should be submitted to the jIABS editorial office at the add~on: given below. Please refer to the guidelines for contributors to the jIABS prinie~ on the inside back cover of every issue. Books for review should also be sent to th address below. The Editors cannot guarantee to publish reviews of unsOlicited books nor to return those books to the senders.

The Association and the Editors assume no responsibility for the views expres;~d' by the authors in the Association's journal and other related publications

Editor's Address

Roger Jackson jIABS c/o Dept. of Religion Carleton College Northfield, MN 55057 USA

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Andre Bareau (France)

M.N. Deshpande (India)

R. Card (USA) .

B.C. Cokhale (USA)

John C. Huntington (USA)

P.S. Jaini (USA)

Joseph M. Kitagawa (U§A)

Jacques May (Switzerland)

Hajime Nakamura (japan)

John Rosenfield (US;;')'

David Snellgrove (U.~:)

E. Zurcher (Netherlan4ir

Both the Editor and Association would like to thank Carleton College for its financial support in the production of the Journal. ....

Copyright © The International Association of Buddhist Studies 1990. ISSN: 0l93-600X

Indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, American Theological Library Association, Chicago, available online through BRS (BibliographiC Retrieval Services), Latham, New York, and DIALOG Information, Services, Palo Alto, California.

Composition by Ann Flanagan Typography, Berkeley, CA 94710. Printing by Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, MI 48130.

CONTENTS

I. ARTICLES

A Lajja Gaud in a Buddhist Context at Aurangabad by Robert L. Brown 1

2. Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita the "Polemicist": Ancient Debates and Modern Interpretations by David Jackson 17

3. Vajrayana Deities in an Illustrated Indian Manuscri pt of the A-ltasiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii by John Newman 117

.4. The Mantra «O1(l mar;i-padme hU1(l" in an Early Tibetan Grammatical Treatise by P C. Verhagen 133

II. BOOKREVIEWS

Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka) by Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere (Vijitha Rajapakse) 139

The Emptiness if Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Miidhyamika) by C. W. Huntington, Jr., with Geshe Namgyal Wang chen (Jose Ignacio Cabez6n) 152

III. NOTES AND NEWS

1. Notice of The Buddhist Forum (Roger Jackson) 163

ERRATA 164

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 165

fA Lajja Gaurl in a Buddhist lfbontext at Aurangabad Is""

fby Robert L. Brown ~:;*

JIn a recent volume of Lalit Kalii/ V. H. Sonawane has discussed ~~nd illustrated a number of images of Lajja GaurI, the Indian ~~oddess who displays her pudendum by squatting with her legs 'widely spread (see figs. 2 and 6). Sonawane shows that the godtaess is associated in many instances with Saiva iconography f(Nandin, trisula, linga, Ga~eSa) and concludes that "Th~s ... ishe can very well be considered as a manifestation of the Sakti t~spect of Siva."2 In this light, it is interesting to consider a (female figure in a Buddhist panel in Cave 2 at Aurangabad ~(figs. I a and b). She appears to be naked, except for jewelry, 'iiind squats to display her pudendum. Yet, she is placed in a ~panel with a Buddha image. How should we identify such (~afigure? Y The panel in which the female figure appears is on the ~south wall of Cave 2, one of several panels that because of their :various sizes and haphazard arrangement were presumably i~commissioned by a variety of donors and are not part of the 'planned iconographic organization of the cave. The subject of Kthese intrusive panels hardly varies; there is a single seated ;Buddha, either inpralambadiisana or (as in fig. 1) in padmiisana, ~and usually performing dharmacakramudrii. As in our panel, the ,Buddha is often flanked by two bodhisattvas, has two flying vi?dyiidharas above, and is raised on a lotus the stalk of which is 'upheld by two niigariijas. Finally, flanking the niigariijas are ~donor or worshipping figures, seen in profile. In the case of the "figure 1 panel, the squatting, front-facing female takes the ;place of the proper right-hand donor figure. Thus, the iconog;raphy of the panel, except for the appearance of the female ~figure, is standard, although the precise meaning of this

; 1

2 JIABS VOL. 13 NO.2

,arrangement is not certain. 3 Nevertheless, it is likely that eVe a sure identification of the iconography, if one indeed exists~. would be of little help in explaining the surprising appearand of the "shameless woman" (Lajja Gauri),s as it is difficult t~ imagine in what ways she might relate to the iconography of the Buddha. ' ,,'

Is she, in fact, a Lajja Gauri? As the numerous publica~ , tions on the subject have made. clear, what iden~ifies the god:; de.s~, whatever name. she takes, IS her act of exposmg ~erselfby' raIsmg her knees. It IS not clear, however, whether thIS posture is a sexual one, or whether it indicates paturition. The goddess is worshipped today by women in order to promote fertility particularly for barren women.6 It is reasonable to suppos~ that this would have been the purpose of the goddess earlier as well; although the 3rd-century inscription on a Lajja Gau~i from NagarjunikOI).<;la (fig. 2) specifically states that the donor is flvaputii (one who has her child or children alive). 7 The donor, the Ik~vaku Queen Kharh<;iuvula, could of course be dedicating an image in thanks for success in worshipping thd, goddess. 8 Fertility, in any regard, is what is (or was) desired} and either a sexual or birth-giving posture could be seen as facilitating it. ;.,;

The most likely explanation, in fact, appears to be that the,: posture was used with both meanings; and it is probable that, the "two" postures, representing (potential) sexual intercourse' and resultant birth, are linked in the worshipper's mind as theyare in reality. That the position is a sexual one, however, is: somewhat difficult to support from ,artistic and textual evi-: dence. The Lajja Gauri figures appear frontally and almost' always without male partners, with the artist's intention beinf the exposure of the yoni and not the presentation of a sexual act. " Nevertheless, we see the association of the posture with sex in reliefs in the fikhara of the 12th-century temple at Bagali, where; a male literally aims his exaggeratedly large and erect phallus ,', toward a female who looks his way and is in the knee-raised, posture, but who occupies a completely separate relief paneL9~ In a relief on the 8th-century Huchchimalli Temple at Aihole,'i the squatting female actually reaches out and grasps theS enormous phalluses of two flanking males.!O"

While one thus could see in the exposure of the yoni a sex~ ,

A LAJJA GAUR! 3

ual posture, the evidence tends to suggest that it is above all a birth-giving posture. This position, called uttiinapad and glossed by Monier-Williams as "one whose legs are extended (in paturition),"ll finds graphic depiction in late Chalukyan (12th century) sculpture showing women giving birth (fig. 3). Its association with birth and fruition, however, is seen.as well in much earlier art, as in this small, 1st-century B.C. terra-cotta in which a goddess removes (gives birth to) a sheaf of grain from her vagina (fig. 4) .12 As several scholars have pointed out, this imagery goes back even to the Indus civilization,13 and whoever this goddess might be, she is seen as the creator of vegetation and must have associations with the earth.14 The birthing posture of the earth or vegetation goddess is that used by the Lajja Gaurl when human birth is desired ..

The Aurangabad figure does not spread her legs as widely as the Lajja Gauri figures usually do, an exaggerated posture that often produces an unnatural, frog-like form (as in figs. 2, 4 and 6) .15 She looks more to be in a squatting posture (utkutiisana) , which in the context of Indian goddesses is the posture frequently taken by the miitrkiis (fig. 5), particularly during the Ku~a1).a period (lst-3rd c. A.D.).16 Miitrkiis always, however, are clothed. The Aurangabad figure compares to both the miitrkiis and the Lajja Gauds in having the right arm raised with the elbow resting on the knee. The lowered left arm, with the hand lying on the left knee, is more suggestive of the miitrkiis, however, than of the Lajja Gauris, who raise their left arms in parallel with their right arms (fig. 6). Nevertheless, the objects held by the Aurangabad figure are unlike those held by either the Lajja Gauri or miitrkii figures. She holds in her lowered left hand a large circular object. The identification that comes to mind is a gem, a cintiimafJi or ratna. The object in the raised right hand is not distinct enough for a sure identification. It is not a solid object, and gives the appearance of being a bouquet of flowers or sheaf of grain. If the latter, we may be able to connect our figure to the earlier imagery of the goddess who removes sheafs of grain from her vagina, as seen in figure 4. We may, furthermore, see in the Aurangabad female an association with the Buddhist goddess Vasudhara, whose most characteristic attribute is the sheaf of grain (dhiinyamaiijarl). Is the Aurangabad figure therefore a Tara, and specifically Vasudhara?


Again, as ·with the identifications of her as Lajja Gaun or miitrkii, the identification of her as a Vasudhara can be made only partially. Vasudhara, like our figure, is frequently described in iconographical texts as two-armed, and, as B: Bhattacharyya . has pointed out, she may "be represented id~' any attitude, standing or sitting";l7 thus a squ·atting posture m~y_ b~ pos~ible, although I know of no:?t~er examples of any.! Tara m thIS posture. Further, Vasudhara, accordmg to the~ texts, holds gems (ratnamafijanl/8 and even is mentioned in one text as holding a cintiimanTJi. l9 But, Vasudhara always (according to the texts as well as to artistic evidence) holds the sheaf" of grain in the left hand; and the right, which holds the gems ". is lowered in varamudrii. Of course, self-display is unknown iri textual descriptions and images of Tara.

The Aurangabad female thus appears not to fit any of our usual categories for goddesses, but, rather, has characteristics' of several. We may say that all of them-the goddess giving birth to vegetation, the Lajj a Guar!, the miitrkii, and Vasudhara -relate to one another in a general waY,20 as goddesses of fer< tility and fruition, and this is clearly the meaning of the Auran': gabad figure as well. Nevertheless, that she displays he~·. genitals, however discretely as compared to the usual Lajja Gaur! images, must put her most fully into the Lajja Gaur! cat~: egory, and into a unique category for a goddess in a Buddhist' context. ..

Any explanation for her appearance in this panel at AurarF gabad will fall largely into the realm of speculation. Still,if these small sculptural panels are individual donations, it may be that the donor of this particular panel was hoping or giving thanks for a particular boon, a child. The kneeling figure in the lower left corner appears to be a female. While she may be regarded as a donor or worshipper, it is not possible to know if her sex reflects that of the human donor as well. Nevertheless, only female donor figures are depicted with Lajja Gaur!/l and it is assumed that she is worshipped only by women. There is no reason to assume that goddesses of the Lajja Gaur! type 'Jere worshipped only by Hindus, however, let alone only by Saivites. The 3rd-century inscription placed on a Lajja Gaud, mentioned above, was that of a queen who, like other Ik~vak~ queens, was a patron ofBuddhism. 22 What is unusual about the.

A LAJJA GAUR! 5

Aurangabad figure is not that she might be worshipped by a Buddhist, but that she has been brought into the official iconography of a monastery. This was done by softening aspects of .her Lajja Gaur! iconography, and giving her the guise of a Tara: in addition to the arm positions (although reversed) and attributes, her jewelry and hair-do are. typical of those of a Tara.23

A similar motivation, that of bringing Lajja Gaud into an official temple context, produced comparable adjustmepts on the Lajja Gaurl in Cave 21 (RameSvara) at Ellora, a Saivite ,cave. 24 The goddess here has the height of her knees lowered so that her posture, like that of the Aurangabad figure, is not so exaggerated; her head is, again like that of the Aurangabad female, coiffed similarly to that of other goddesses depicted in the cave's reliefs and is given prominence;25 and she is flanked by two female attendants, as might befit an important Hindu 'goddess. As the dates of the Aurangabad and Ellora images are 'probably very close, and the two sites proximate, it is not 'unreasonable to see at playa similar interest in legitimizing the ;goddess in both cases. 26 . But that it was allowed at Aurangabad is due to the special nature of the Kalacuri -period (second half of the 6th century) rCaVeS,27 which include Cave 2, when female imagery began to :~ominate. It is not only that the number of Tara images ;tlramatically increased in these later caves. According to John Huntington, explicit sexual imagery is suggested by some of rthe female figures in the caves' sculpture, making the genital .display of our goddess less surprising. 28 In addition, there is in ~the so-called Brahmanical Cave at Aurangabad a set of sap;tamiitrkiis.29 The date for this cave, which combines Buddhist and Hindu deities, is also the second half of the 6th century, ~and argues for a period when some close relationship between ;Hindu and Buddhist practices took place. 30 It is tempting to ~suggest that at nearby Ellora, where a Hindu phase of cave ,construction was ending and a Buddhist phase was beginning :,around 600, there was a period of overlap of occupation of the ;~ite, when both Buddhists and Hindus were using the caves.3!

};rhe Aurangabad saptamiitrkas find their direct Buddhist refle'ci#on at Aurangabad itself, where in Cave 7 there are six standting female figures who in their arrangement mimic the matrkiis, i:


. even to being bracketed by Avalokitesvara and Buddha as the mothers are bracketed by Siva and GaI).esa. 32

In sum, I think the Aurangabad image can be identified as a Lajja Gaur! who underwent certain modifications to enable her to fit into an official Buddhist context. The key characteris_ tic of a Lajja Gaur!, a display of the pudendum, remains. That she may be a proto-Vasudhara is a possibility, but with only this single example it is impossible to argue this with any certainty. Finally, that the image is placed where one would expect a donor figure, and is apparently being worshipped by the female figure opposite, suggests some relationship to the donor of the relief. Ultimately, it was the nature of Buddhist practice at Aurangabad, when Hinduism was showing tremendous influence33 and female and sexual imagery was becoming important, that allowed the appearance of our Buddhist Lajja Gaur!.

NOTES

1. VH. Sonawane, "Some Remarkable Sculptures of Lajja Gaurl from Gujarat," Lalit Kalii 23 (1988):27-35.

2. Ibid., p. 32. 3. The proper left-side bodhisattva in the figure 1 panel is Padmapa~i

(Avalokitesvara); the other bodhisattva is probably, based on the 'iconography of the flanking bodhisattvas in the Aurangabad caves, either Vajrapa~i or MaiijusrI. The significance of the Buddha being raised on a lotus stalk held by two niigariijas is uncertain. It was Alfred Foucher's contention that it indicated the SravastI Miracle. [Alfred Foucher, "The Great Miracle at SravastI," in The Beginnings if Buddhist Art, L.A. Thomas and F.W. Thomas (trans.) (1914; reprint, Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1972): 176. Originally published in French in Journal asiatique 13 (1909).J This identification continues to be made by scholars; Carmel Berkson, for example, identifies the figure 1 panel as the Great Miracle at SravastI. [Carmel Berkson, The Caves at Aurangabad: Early Buddhist Tantric Art in India (New York: Mapin International, Inc., 1986) :203; see my review of this book for a general warning regarding Berkson's iconographical identifications at Aurangabad in Journal if Asian History, 22, no. I (1988) :79-80]. The assump~ tion that the upheld lotus stem indicates the SravastI scene is, however, doubt~ ful. See my discussion in Robert L. Brown, "The SravastI Miracles in the Art of India and DvaravatI," Archives if Asian Art 37 (1984) :79-95. Seealso G. v Mit~ terwallner, "The Brussels Buddha from Gandhara of the Year 5," in Investigating Indian Art eds. Marianne Yaldiz and Wibke Lobo (Berlin: Staatliche Musetn Preussischer, 1987):236-239.

A LAJJA GAURI 7

4. There is no reason that this particular arrangement need have re:'~aJ1ed one specific scene or textual reference. I t is perhaps best to see such images as layered with readily identifiable associations, but used in a generic 'sense by the donor as an image to produce merit. ;' 5. Lajja Gaur!, which literally means "modest" GaurI, GaurI being a ;name of Pa~vatI, is explained by the story in which ParvatI is caught in dal'liance with Siva when they are interrupted during lovemaking by a devotee. But 'iSankalia has noted that glossing Lajja GaurI as '''a shy woman' ... is euphemis- . Idc. Really it means 'a shameless woman.'" [H.D. Sankalia, ·"The Nude God"cless or 'Shameless Woman' in Western Asia, India, and .south-Eastern Asia," iArtibus Asiae 23, no. 2 (1960):12l.] This is substantiated by the etymology of the >word lajjii proposed by R.C. Dhere as coming from old Kannada lanji or lanjikii 1which means an "adulteress" or "harlot." (See M.K. Dhavalikar, "LajjagaurI," :iBulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 39 (1980) :3l.]

;' 6. Sonawane, "Some Remarkable Sculptures of Lajja Gaur! from ~Gujarat," p. 33 and D.C. Sircar, ''Aspects of the Cult of the Indian Mother God~dess," Journal of the Indian Museums 36 (1980):14. ;;1. 7. H.K. Narasimhaswami, "Nagarjunikorida Image Inscription," Epi-ffraphia Indica 29:138-9. i'" 8. Dhavalikar mentions that the goddess (at least in an earlier form) !!inay be worshipped for the welfare of children as well as to protect against n:lrought. (Dhavalikar, "LajjagaurI," p. 33.) Also see Sircar, ''Aspects of the Cult ~ofthe Indian Mother Goddess," pp. 15-16. {;r-,.~

fl, 9. See Devangana Desai, Erotic Sculpture of India (New Delhi: Tata ~McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1975) :ph. 104. (: 10. See Devangana Desai, "Shades of Eroticism in Temple Art," Symbols ~d.nd Maniftstations in Indian Art (Bombay: Marg Publications, 1985) :fig. 4. ;~: 1l. Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford: At the Claren-irdon Press, 1974):ln ~: 12. See Pratapaditya Pal, Indian Sculpture Volume I (Los Angeles County ;Museum of Art, 1986):141 and Gerald James Larson, et aI., In Her Image: The ~Great Goddess in Indian Asza and The Madonna in Christian Culture (Santa Barbara: ;,University Art Museum, 1980):41; cf Desai, Erotic Sculpture of India, fig. 9. \,> 13. Madho Sarup Vats, Excavations at Harappa, Being an Account of t,Archaeological Excavations at Harappa Carried Out Between the Years 1920-21 and 1933-i;34, vol. 2 (Delhi: Government ofIndia, 1940), pI. xciii, no. 304. ~ 14. P.K. Agrawala, Goddesses in Ancient India (New Delhi: Abhinav Publi~ !;cations, 1984): 31-32. "; 15. This pose reminds one of a yogic posture, the uttiinamar;.rf:i1kiisana, ,l;which literally means "posture of a stretched out frog (maTfrf:uka)." Interestingly, !;;maTfif.iika alsQ means "a wanton woman" and "a kind of coitus." [Monier-;fWilliams, p. 776.] . F: 16. N.P. Joshi says Ku~aIfa miitrkiis with children are always seated. [N.P. ;JJoshi, "Matrka Figures in Ku~aIfa Sculptures at Mathura," in Investigating iJndian Art, p. 159.] In the Gupta period the miitrkiis with children stand as well fas sit. The seated miitrkiis in both the Ku~aIfa and Gupta periods are often ts.hown squatting on low stools; in some instances the seats are so high as to give


. th~ appearance,of chairs, with the mothers seated with both legs pendant (paryankasana or pratambapadasana).

17. Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, The Indian /!uddhist Iconography (reprint. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1968):245. .

18. Dipak Chandra Bhattacharyya, Studies in Buddhist Iconography (N Delhi: Manohar, 1978):23. ew

19. Pratapaditya Pal, "Two Buddhist Paintings from Nepal," BUlletin oj the Museum van Aziatische Kunst (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam) 5, no. 43 (/967)' appendix III. .

20. These associations could be pursued. For example, Gaur!, which means yellow, may refer to corn or grain, thus giving Lajja Gaur! a possible association with both the goddess giving birth to corn and Vasudhara who holds the she~f of corn.

21. Sonawane, "Some Remarkable Sculptures of Lajja Gaur! from Gujarat," p. 33. Sonawane illustrates several Lajja Gaur! images in which worshippers are included, and, as with the worshipper in our Aurangabad panel, they are kneeling female figures with their hands held in afijalimudra.

22. See note 7 above. Elizabeth Rosen ~ays that of the Ik(,vakus "all the men of the royal family were Hindus, usually Saivites ... while most of the royal women were Buddhists and patronized Buddhist monuments for the benefit6f thier Hindu spouses and kin." Rosen, "Buddhist Architecture and Lay Patronage at NagarjunakoI,H;la," in The Stilpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Sige niJicance ed. Anna Libera Dallapiccola (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980): 114.

23. Cf. Berkson, The Caves at Aurangabad, p. 223 24. See Sankalia, "The Nude Goddess or 'Shameless Woman' in Western

Asia, India, and South-Eastern Asia," Fig. 7. This image is unfortunately badly worn and is broken in the pubic area, so that it cannot be stated categorically that she is nude. Nevertheless, the posture of the legs indicates that she was.

25. As with the Lajja Gaur! in figure 6, the goddess is often depicted without a head.

26. Geri H. Malandra finds that "there is a clear connection between. Caves 21 [Ellora J and 6 [AurangabadJ, especially the shrine doors and sculptural styles of some images." She suggests there was a common workshop and, by inference, a common time period when these caves were being made. (Personal letter)

27. I am following Walter Spink herein assigning these to the Kalacurls: Walter Spink, Ajanta to Ellora (Bombay: Marg Publications, n.d. [1967J):9. The caves that date to this period at Aurangabad are 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

o 28. See John C. Huntington in Suan L. Huntington, The Art rif Ancient India (New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1985):267-68 and John C. Huntington, "Cave Six at Aurangabad: A Tantrayana Monument?", in Kaliidarfana: American Studies in the Art rifIndia, ed. Joanna G. Williams (New Delhi: Oxford & . IBH Publishing Co., 1981):52.

29. See Berkson, The Caves at Aurangabad, p. 226 30. At least I see no reason, based on the style of the admittedly badly

eroded images in the Brahmanical Cave, to place this cave in a different period

A LAJJA GAUR! 9

~roughly second half of the 6th century) than that which appears reasonable for fthe later caves (Caves 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) at Aurangabad. Needless to say, any ~ttrtain dating of the Brahmanical Cave will require a detailed analysis. The rt~ntral image in the cave, centered on the back wall, is Gal).eSa, who serves to· ~~ad the row of saptamiitrkiis which continues a~ound onto the back from the ~roper right wall, the first image of which is Siva. A Durga is to the left of YGaJ].eSa on the back wall. The proper left wall has images of the Buddha. See l:Berkson, The Caves at Aurangabad, pp. 226-8, and R.S. Gupte, '1\. Note on the iFirst Brahmanical Cave of the Aurangabad Group," Marathwada University Jour-~M 1, no. 1 (1960-61):173-176. . . !f 31. Most scholars feel there was a clear break between the Hmdu and fBuddhist phases at Ellora. (See Spink, Ajanta to Ellora, pp. 9-10.) This may be i:t;'~e for the construction of the caves, but we cannot say whether the occupation friIthe Hindu caves ended when construction on the Buddhist caves began, partiicularly in light of the Aurangabad Gal).esa Cave that indicates a shared reliiitus practice. ~} 32. Compare illustrations on pp. 226 and 120 of Berkson, The Caves at :~urangabad. The identification of these six female figures is uncertain. Berkson, 1ibid., p. 117 identifies them as "prajnas." I assume by this she means piiramitiis, ljthe sixth of whom would be Prajiiaparamita. Also, see R.S. Gupte, '1\.n Inter~I:sting Panel from the Aurangabad Caves," Marathwada University Joumal 3, no. 2 ~(1963) :59-63. . . ~:: 33. The Hindu influence could be argued in much greater depth, for ~examp1e in terms of the architectural design of the caves. ~

ilLLUSTRATIONS

;. 1a. The Buddha. 6th century A.D., Cave 2, Aurangabad. (photo: Robert L. Brown) :" 1 b. Detailoffig. 1 showing Lajja Gaun. (photo: Robert L. Brown) { 2. Lajja GaurI. 3rd century A.D., Stone. From Nagarjunikol).c;la. Nagar-junikol).c;la Museum. (photo: Robert L. Brown)

3. Birth Scene. 12th century AD., Bhatkal, Karl).ataka. (photo: :Archaeological Survey ofIndia)

4. Goddess. Ca. 2nd-1st century B.C., Terra-cotta, H:5.7 cm. From lChandraketugarh. Indian Art Special Purposes Fund, Los Angeles County "N.[useum of Art. (photo: Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

5. Miitrkii (proper left figure) with Kubera. 2nd century AD., Stone, H:17.8 cm. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Subhash Kapoor, Los Angeles County ,Museum of Art. (photo: Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

6. Lajja GaurY. 7th-8th century AD., Stone, H:91 cm. From Alampur. Alampur Museum. (photo: Robert L. Brown)


(Figure la.)

A LAJJA GAUR! 11

(Figure lb.)

A LAJJA GAUR! 13

14 ]IABS VOL. 13 NO.2

(Figure 4.)

A LAJJA GAUR! 15

'Sa-skya" Pa1J.dita the "Polemicist": !Ancient Debates and Modern Interpretations t,i;/'

!l;J DavidJackson

11 am not overfond qf polemicals; !they are almost as bad as galenicals. , B. Barton (1844)1

bne of the reasonS for the lasting fame of the great Tibetan sav~nt Sa-skya Pa1).<;iita (1182-1251) was his reasoned criticisms of r2ertain of the interpretations and practices of his fellow Budi~hi.sts in Tibet. The~e doctrina~ and philosophical criticisms, ~.:WhlCh he expressed In such maJor works as the sDom gsum rab ~bye, Thub pa'i dgongs gsal and Tshad rna rigs gter, inspired a large ['humber of further comments by later generations of Sa-skya!~a scholars, 2 and after a silence of about three centuries, they r~lso provoked a number of detailed rebuttals from the Dwags~po bKa'-brgyud-pa schools, among others. Lately Sa-skya ~Pa1).<;lita's critical writings have also begun to attract the atten~on of modern scholars, with the result that three discussions !!Sn related topics have appeared so far in the present journal ~afone. 3 Though some of the conclusions reached in them need ~to be reexamined, these articles have contributed to a better ~llnderstanding of the history of doctrinal interpretation in "ibetan Buddhism and the important role Sa-skya Pa1).<;iita (or ~~a-pa1)., as he is known for short) played in it. They have also ~.been thought-provoking, helping as they do to bring into focus ~~ number of methodological questions regarding both the ~ihethods of traditional Buddhist scholarship and how modern ~~cholars can best study the tradition. 1r~ It is a truism that before you can accurately evaluate a rgiven scholarly contribution, you need to determine what its t~07- '

17


. proposed aims and methods were. This holds just as true for '. ~ot-off-the-press article of modern scholarship as for. a tradt tIOnal treatIse penned by a 13th-century savant. Usually OIl~' can agree with or at least understand the proposed method and basic goals aimed at in a work of scholarship, whereas it's

ir: the realm o~ applica~ion where most disagreements arisd: SImply to clanfy the alms and methods often helps resolv'; problems or at least helps establish an agreed framewor~ within which the problems can be better addressed and under:: stood. In the present study I would therefore like to reexamine! three contributions on "Sa-skya Pal).c;lita the 'polemicist,"~ namely those. by Roger Jackson, Leonard van der Kuijp, and' Michael Broido, trying to clarify their purposes and methods and then taking another look at some of their conclusions.4 ;

The Three Articles

(AJ Roger Jackson: A First Attempt

Roger Jackson began the discussion with his article "Sa skya; pal).c;lita's Account of the bSam yas, Debate: History as' Polemic."5 He concerned himself here not with a direct study of the doctrinal debate that is held to have taken placea( bSam-yas in the late 8th century, but aimed instead at coni tributing to a "history of history," i.e., he attempted tel;. examine Sa-pal).'s account of the debate in order to show how: this account reflected the more contemporary concerns of its,' author. To do this, he translated the historical passage from Sai, pai),'s treatise the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal and then extracted tho~e~ elements which he took to show a willful altering of the tradi~~ tion by Sa-pal). to suit his own doctrinal purposes. ' :f!

R.J. advanced two main theses as being probably tnl~: about Sa-pal).'s account: (1) that Sa-pal). altered the wording of. the argumentation within the account of the debate in order to,: accord with his own interest in logic, and (2) that he attempted, to discredit his contemporary bKa'-brgyud-pa opponents bX ascribing their doctrine called White Panacea to the Chines( master at the bSam-yas debate. In other words, R.J. accused} Sa-pal). of tampering with the historical transmission of thi( account and, worse still, with falsifying the account for the puri" pose of fabricating evidence that he or others could then turIl!

.:~,,:j

~ {~!~

THE POLEMICIST 19

agalDst doctrinal opponents. These are fairly seri~us cha~ges against a figure who IS acknowledged by the BuddhIsts of TIbet to be one of the greatest lights in their religious and intellectual history.

How did R.J. attempt to establish these allegations? His primary method was to argue from the absence of sources that prove to the contrary. In the first case (p. 94) he reasoned that "in no other account . .. is the dilemma employed so consistently." Therefore: "In the absence qf any corroborating evidence, it is safest to assume that the speech attributed to Kamala§lla by Sa skya Pa1).c;lita reflects more closely what a Buddhist logician would like the acarya to have said than what he actually said" (italics mine) .

On the second point too his reasoning was similar. He summarized his argumentation very clearly (p. 96): "The conclusion is reasonable because [a] the White Panacea is mentioned as the bSam yas Chinese school in no other text) [bJ there .is no evidence that there ever existed any Chinese school called the White Panacea,6 [c ] there is no other indication that the White .panacea existed as far back as the eighth century, ... and [dJ Sa Skya Pal)c;lita's virulent opposition to the White Panacea and other miihamudrii teachings gave him a motive for attempting to discredit them." (Italics mine.)

The great danger or even the fallacy of arguing from "silence" or from a lack of available sources showing the contrary is well known in historiography. The trouble in many cases is that sources supporting the very opposite can turn up at any time. And this is precisely what has happened here. A version of the sEa bzhed early Tibetan history which contains Sa-pal)'s version of the debate almost verbatim was published from Beijing in 1980, showing that Sa-pal)'s account in its wording and content could well have been a faithful transmission of received tradition. 7 (Sa-pal) himself was aware of the possibility that his account of the debate might be doubted, and therefore in the Thub pa)i dgongs gsal and elsewhere he took pains to mention his sources, though what these sources were was apparently not clearly understood by R.J.)B That recently published version of the sEa bzhed and another newly available source, the Chos )byung ofNyang-ral (fl. 12th c.), show now that the "White Panacea" (Tib.: dkar po chig thub) is mentioned in other probably earlier sources as a doctrine of the Chinese at


the bSam-yas debate. 9 Moreover, the mention of a panacea a a suitable comparison for the simultaneous (cig car) and sell sufficient method occurs in the Tun-Huang Chinese material in a work attributed to the Chinese master who is said to hav~ participated in fhe controversy, Mo-ho-yen, as has been known since the publication in 1952 of P. Demieville'sclassic study of the debate.IO

But one of the reasons advanced by R.J. to prove his thesis remains to be considered-the one which supposedly established Sa-pal)'s motive for doctoring the historical account. This was namely that Sa-skya Pal)~ita's opposition to the White Panacea and other Mahamudra teachings was "viru" lent" or "violent.': The .implication ~eems to be that Sa-pal)· would stoop to dIrty tncks to get hIS way, so great was his animosity toward his opponents. But where is there evidence of "virulence" or "violence" in what Sa-pal) says about the dkar po chig thub doctrine in his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, sDom gsum rab dbye, or other works? His opposition is certainly strong, but it is reasoned and principled, and is directed against doctrines and not persons. For this, R.J. did not cite any evidence from Sa-pal)'s writings, but rather refers to the interesting defence()f the bKa' -brgyud-pa dkar po chig thub teaching assembled ina· fairly even-handed way by Thu'u-bkwan Chos-kyi-nyi-ma (1737-1802) in his famed Grub mtha' shel gyi me long (kha 24b ff.) Thu'u-bkwan here evinces considerable respect toward Sa-pal). even when voicing his disagreements with him.ll There is no evidence here at least that Sa-pal)'s views should be considered "violent" or "virulent." Therefore the reasoning of RJ. here seems to me to be either somewhat circular ("Sa-pal) attempted to discredit them because he wanted to discredit them~') or it is an attack upon the character of Sa-pal) the man ("He attempted to discredit them because he was driven by virulent and violent animosities"). But R.J. did not give the impression. of trying to make a lot of easy mileage out of this kind of argumentation, and he displayed even a certain sympathy for Sa-pal) by trying to reconstruct the thought processes that might have led him to his conclusions (p. 95).

A few additional remarks might be added about R.].'s translation and findings. Though his translation is genera.lly reliable, it breaks down in the key sentences in which the dkar po chig thub doctrine is described or characterized. He trans~

THE POLEMICIST 21

~l~ted (p. 91): " ... When one examines the mind, that is the ~lwhite Panacea." And (p. 92): " ... Meditating non-discurksively, one attains Buddhahood just by the examination of the ttnind." And, finally (p. 93): " ... the White Panacea, which ~,a.ccepts that Buddhahood is attained by pointing to the mind." l;rhe key terms which R.J. rendered as "examines the mind" ~hnd "pointing to the mind" are sems rtogs "to understand the ~tnature of] mind and sems ngo 'phrod "directly to meet and recKognize the [nature of] mind." An understanding of these key ~terms is a prerequisite for grasping what was mainly at issue y" ~here for Sa-pal)., and they will be discussed in more detail fbeloW. 12

Jf Another point, this one of a more methodological nature, fkas to do with R.J.'s total reliance upon the writings of other l~thools (including passages from works criticizing Sa-pal).'s ~~ews) in order to gain his .understandirig of the main criti-' i¢lsms attempted by Sa-pal). III the sDom gsum rab dbye. Though lin the account of the bSam-yas debate found in the Thub pa'i f&gongs gsal KamalaSlla indeed refutes what he takes to be a sort lpf nihilistic quietism involving the rejection of words, deeds tend conceptual thought, in the sDom gsum rab dbye Sa-pal). him~elf criticizes the dkar po chig thub notion of the bKa'-brgyudIpas along not entirely identical lines, and he is not out to refute f~s his specific target a tradition which embraced the rejection ror all "mentation" (yid la byed pa: manasikara).13 Moreover he taid not claim that the practice of bodhicitta generation was not 'f;followed by his opponents; on the contrary, he tried to point out lihat his opponent's practice of bodhicitta was incompatible with lihe special claims of self-sufficiency they seemed to make about ~fhe practice of Mahamudra as dkar po chig thub and indeed with fthe very concept chig thub. These points will be discussed again tpelow in more detail, but for now it is ~nough. to remind ourrselves of the obvious-that in polemical writings the oppo;$ent's view may receive a somewhat slanted or even distorted [presentation. It behooves the modern researcher to read, to the !~xtent that it is still possible, the views of both sides in their !,9riginal contexts. ii. It is safe to conclude that an interpretative, second-order I~history of history" of this kind, though an interesting underI!aking in principle, was in practice here premature given the ~stnall number of primary sources utilized and the lack of

r


thorough and definitive "first-order" studies. Roger Jackso '. basic insight that Sa-pal). used "history" in the Thubpa)i dgo n s gsal to add weight to a doctrinal criticism was correct andn~s certainly worth noting. But it was wrong to try to wring t IS

much from the available evidence. 00

(E) L. van der Kuijp: A Note on Newly Available Sources

The second contribution to this discussion was a brief note by L. v~n, der Kuijp entitled "On the ~,ources for Sa-skya Pal).<;iItas Notes on the bSam-yas Debate. 14 It appeared some four years later and was an attempt at disproving R. Jackson;s basic thesis that Sa-pal). had unfairly employed history as polemic or that Sa-pal). "was the first Tibetan scholar to 'use' Hva shang Mahayana in this way, and ... perhaps the most egregious .... " To demonstrate this, van der Kuijp listed a number of historical sources that R.]. did not have access to or did not use. To begin with, he mentioned (p. 148) one important source predating Sa-pal).'s Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, viz. the Cho; )byung of Nyang-ral Nyi-ma'i-'od-zer (1124-1192 or 1136-1204)~ and also pointed out a close correspondence between it and the parallel passages found in the Thub pa)i dgongs gsal and in another of Sa-pal).'s works, the sKyes bu dam pa rnams la spring ba'i yi ge. He also (pp. 149f) traced a number of references to the word dkar po chig thub as the name of a drug within Tibetan medicine. Finally he mentioned (p. 151) the existence of the recently-discovered version of the sBa bzhed published from Beijing, which gives the Thub pa)i dgongs gsal account almost verbatim, and said that a similar account was attributed· explicitly to "the sEa bzhed" by the sDom gsum rab dbye commentator sPos-khang-pa (fl. early-15th c.) and by the bKa'c brgyud-pa historian dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba. 15

Van der Kuijp summarized his conclusions as follows (p ..• 151): "This would seem to indicate that the association of dkar po chig thub with the Chinese goes back to pre-phyi dar [i.e. pre': 11 th c.] Tibetan literature, and that there just might be som~ substance to Sa pal).'s linkage of some of the Dwags po bKa'; brgyud pa doctrines with those promulgated by the Chinese in eighth-century Tibet." 16 Then he concluded on a more cautiou~ note, pointing out the necessity to investigate the exact refe~

THE POLEMICIST 23

'rents of dkar po chig thub, leaving open the possibility that they were very different for the Hwa-shang and the later Dwags-po bKa' -brgyud -paY

(C) JYf. Broido: Reinterpretations with the Help qfPadma-dkar-po

:The third contribution on this topic, that of Michael Broido, · was an article entitled "Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita, the White Panacea · and the Hva-shang Doctrine."18 It is unlike the first two in its aims and methods, and it raises methodological questions of a

. quite different nature because it attempts not to describe or analyze a sectarian controversy but rather to revive or reenact one.

At present, detailed investigations that treat or compare · the doctrines of more than one master from different schools and eras are very difficult within the scholarly discipline of Tibetan Buddhist studies. This is true first of all because definitive descriptions and analyses of the main masters and their systems have yet to be made. At this stage non-Tibetan schol';m are just beginning to map out the most salient and important features in this still largely unknown terrain by studying .the major treatises of individual major Tibetan teachers in order to describe their main doctrinal conclusions as well as .the methods and circumstances that led to them. For the present, it is usually an ambitious enough project just to try to understand a given master in his own terms and within the context of his own school.

This prospect of doing largely synchronous and descriptive studies may sound somewhat limited and unappealing, but I am not suggesting that such investigations should be pursued in a complete historical vacuum. One of the most interesting things to try to learn is what the great masters thought of their predecessors' and contemporaries' doctrines. Often the best way to understand a particular teaching is as a further development or opposing reaction to what has gone before, and so sometimes one must simply plunge in, knowing the limitations of one's own knowledge. But the danger in doing so is that one is probably not in a position to do the second tradition justice in drawing comparisons and reaching conclusions. Now

24 lIABS VOL. 13 NO.2

if such dangers exist for ordinary comparative studies, then th situation is of course even trickier when one attempts to treat e full-blown doctrinal controversy. And aJair and impartial pr ~. sentation becomes even more difficult if the modern schol: also has a personal stake in the outcome of the debate-i.e ,.rf, ., I the scholar has partly or wholly adopted the tradition of one master and tries to present to the world the contents of a controversy in which that master was in basic disagreement with one of his opponents. In the practice of scholarship, the goal must always be to present both sides of a debate as accurately as possible. But this goal is unattainable if a scholar adopts the prejudices of one side and treats the ideas of the other side asa priori unworthy of serious consideration.

The fundamental problem with Broido's article, in my view, is that he has adopted a traditional sectarian approach and in doing so he has not made any effort to counterbalanc~ the innate weaknesses of this one-sided method. He does n()t concern himself with investigating or describing the views of Sa-skya PaI).Q.ita except very cursorily; mainly he repeats theii' rebuttal by the 16th-century bKa' -brgyud-pa scholar Padma~ dkar-po, though with some additional discussions and expansions. Broido's special expertise on Padma-dkar-po to some extent compensates for the shortcomings of his approach. But in the study of a controversial discussion, I believe the main challenge is to understand what both sides have to say andtq present the disagreement from both points of view. In this respect B.'s article leaves much to be desired. I cannot claim tq have achieved in the following pages this ideal balance either, but I hope that by my presenting here Sa-paI).'s views a littl~ more clearly and assembling more references to the opinions of both sides, future discussions of the controversy can be more balanced and fruitful.

The Main Aim and the Theses to be Proven

B.'s main aim in writing his article was to show that Sa-pa~ was guilty in his sDom gsum rab dbye of a completely unfair and: unjustified polemic against the bKa'-brgyud-pa (which forB;; is primarily represented by the later scholar Padma-dkar-po,

THE POLEMICIST 25

11527-1592J and the 'Brug-pa school). In order to do this, he presents Padma-dkar-po's defence of certain Mahamudra doc"trines (mainly from Padma-dkar-po's Phyag chen rgyal baJi gan rndzod) in reply to some ofSa-pal).'s "attacks" found in the sDom gsum rab dbye.

...... B. begins his article by summarizing his understanding of Sa-pal).'s negative attitude towards thedkar po chig thub doctrine, outlining what he (B. himself) takes to be the basic idea behind this term for the bKa'-brgyud-pas, and then asserting (po 28) that Sa-pal). in his sDom gsum rab dbye "ignores the views of the bKa'-brgyud-pas and takes the word to stand for a complete quietism, a 'do-nothing' attitude towards the doctrine, and claims further that this was the heresy of the Hva-shang." B. then tells us that he will present Padma-dkar-po's reply to

... "some of these attacks" and advances nine particular theses of his own for which he will bring forward evidence. These nine theses (numbered A through K, with I and J missing) can be divided into three groups according to their subject matter:

[1.J The first four mainly have to do with showing the correct bKa'-brgyud-pa view on dkar po chig thub and showing that Sa-pal). was accordingly wrong about it:

A. That dkar po chig thub was used by Zhang Tshal-pa in the ~ense of" (mahiimudrii as) the only cure for the defilements" and that this was in order to convey a particular idea.

B. That evidence is lacking for a systematic use of the term before Zhang Tshal-pa.

C. That Padma-dkar-po never uses the term on his own account, though he accepts the thesis of Zhang Tshal-pa.

D. That Sa-pal). in the sDom gsum rab dbye was not working with any clear conception (1) of the term dkar po chig thub or (2) of the Hva-shang doctrine.

[II.J With the second half of thesis D, Broido reaches his second main contention, namely that Sa-pal). has misrepresented the bKa'-brgyud-pa position in his comparing it to the doctrine of the Hwa-shang. B. asserts (D-2) that Sa-pal). 'was unclear about the Hwa-shang doctrine and:

E. That Padma-dkar-po rejects that his tradition merely follows the Hwa-shang tradition.


, F. ~~at in rejectin~_ this, Padma-dka~-po mainly follows the posItIOn of KamalasIla, though sometImes he agrees with the Hwa-shang. And further that Sa-pa:tt.has failed to differe ~ tiate the notions of amanasikiira as used by the H wa-shang and.' by Maitrlpada. , .,

G. That Sa:'pa:tt's identification of the "sudden gate" teach~i ings of the Hwa-shang and the "sudden path" of the bKa'~ brgyud-pas was confused.

~. That the notion of the "su~den path" personality' applIes only to the tantras. In the sutras the problem never anses.:

[IlL] The final thesis ofB. has to do with the alleged peL sonal motivation of Sa-pa:tt for making a certain criticism in' the sDom gsum rab dbye, namely:

K. That Sa-pa:tt has attacked the "five aspects" lNga ldan system of the 'Bri-gung-pa with particular force, and that thii" may be explained by his personal animosity toward Phag-mo~ gru-pa rDo-rje-rgyal-po. "

The Term dkar po chig thub

B. starts out by trying to establish the basic meaning of th~' term dkar po chig thub in general and then to clarify exactly. what the early bKa'-brgyud-pa masters, and Zhang Tshal-p~i (Zhang g.Yu-brag-pa brTson-'grus-grags-pa, 1123-1193)irii

particular, understood by the term. There is nothing wrong' with using a later, more systematized layer of the tradition' such as the writings ofPadma-dkar-po to help clarify an earlier,' level of that tradition-as B. indeed does-but the primarY;:': sources should naturally be the writings of the early bKa'~ brgyud-pa masters who used the term.,i',

The dkar po chig thub, as B. realizes, is a medical metaphor. applied to a spiritual practice or realization. 19 He, along with" i

R. Jackson and L. van der Kuijp, employs the conventional:; English rendering "white panacea" for this term. But neithefls he nor other scholars have ever investigated or explained the) term itself in any detail. It is clear, however, that originally the 1ii term literally signified a certain white (dkar po) drug that wa~~; believed by itself alone (chig) to be able (thub) to effect a cure;;::; hence, dkar po chig thub was a white self-sufficient "simple"()fJ;'

THE POLEMICIST 27

!;'l'nedical remedy of one constituent. 2o The key element of the lterm is chig thub: "singly or solely (chig) capable or efficacious i~lthu~ )." The expression chi§ thub po. was define~ already in the ~,aictlOnary of s. c. Das as to be able to do a thmg alone," and t!in the Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen rna, we find chig thub defined as: l"'which helps by itself' and "independently able" (gcig.pus phan ~~'thogs pa dang / rang rkya 'pher ba). In medicine the word has the ~(bme sense, as shown in the recent dictionary of medical ~terms,gSo ba rig pa'i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan, where chig tthub sman is defined as: "a term for a medicine that possesses ~jthe property [lit.: the power] of being able to overcome the dist'ease by itself singly, without depending on such things as coin[;pounding (sbyor sde) and an 'assistant' [grogs, i.e., another drug ~given together with it?] ."21

~; As a metaphor for a religious doctrine or practice, a dkar Jipo chig thub is likewise a "panacea" of a similar "simple" and t!self-sufficient kind. It is a teaching through which, by the ~powe:r of realizing or knowing this one thing alone (gcig shes), a tperson is able to be completely liberated (kun grol). Or to use lanother expression familiar to the bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition ri(padma-dkar-po, rGyal ba'i gan mdzod 55a.6), it is the notion ~ithat by a single understanding or realization, all stages and ~paths are traversed (rtogs pa gcig gis sa lam ma lus pa b grad). In ~bther words, whether it was a medicine or a doctrine, a dkar po ~'chig thub was thought to be a single thing which was sufficient l'to effect the complete desired result. So while the English word 1"panacea" captures some of the word's semantic range (a dkar ~~o chig thub is by extension also a cure-all or "universal f}nedicine"), the Tibetan chig thub fundamentally denotes "sim~ple self-suffiCiency," or the capability to do a thing alone. ri~ That this was the sense of the term for many early and ;,jater bKa'-brgyud-pas is attested to by various sources. Thu'u~bkwan Chos-kyi~nyi-ma (kha 26a.4) quotes from the Phyag chen tgsal sgron ofNor-bzang:

The early bKa' -brgyud-pa masters' terming of the cultivation of Mahamudra as the "White Self-sufficient Simple" (dkar po chig thub) had in mind that the ultimate fruit will be attained simply (gcig pus) by means of the meditative cultivation ofultimate reality through the Original Mind's having arisen as the nature of the Great Bliss. 22


. rDo-rje-shes-rab (fl. 13th c.), a disciple of'Bri-gung Shes-rab_ 'byung-gnas (1187-1241), gets at the same thing i his dGongs gcig )grel pa rdo shes ma (dGongs gcig yig cha, It 407 = 22b):

The lord 'sGam-po-pa, drawing a metaphor. from medicin said: "This [teaching] of mine [of the] seeing ofthe nature ej mind is called 'the White Self-'sufficient Simple.'" To that sorno '. . , e great scholars have saId:.!

"Does that White Self-sufficient Simple of yours need bodhicitta and dedication of merit or not? If it needs them, the Selfsufficient [or Singly Efficacious] Simple will become triple."

[But] it has been authoritatively taught: "It is sufficient even doing [it] without merit dedication and bodhicitta which are other than the White Self-sufficient Simple. From the standpoint ofliberation from cyclic existence with its three COS"

mic spheres, even taking the White Self-sufficient Simple by itself alone is sufficient."23 ..... .

Zhang Tshal-pa teaches some of the same ideas near the beginning of his treatise, the Phyag chen lam zab [or: lam mchogJ mthar thug, though not using the term dkar po chig thub:

[When] one definitely understands [the nature of] one's owri mind, all the gnoses of nirviir;.a will arise as great bliss. There~. fore, since everything without exception issues forth from one's own mind alone, if one recognizes the reality of one's OWIl

mind, one will come to know the reality of all sentient beings. [By] knowing that, one knows all dharmas such as nirviiTfa.· Thoroughly understanding all dharmas, one passes beyond the whole of the three-realm [universe]. By knowing the one) one becomes learned in all. If the root falls over, the leaves naturally fall over. Therefore establish only [the nature of] one's own mind.24

B. 's portrayal of how the term dkar po chig thub was under~ stood by the early bKa' -brgyud -pas is somewhat different. To begin with he takes it (p. 27) as basically indicating a cure-all, but that when used by bKa'-brgyud-pas such as Zhang Tshalpa on their own account, the idea is that once the disease has

THE POLEMICIST 29

been cured, "there is no need to take any further medicine." .Then on p. 28 he says that Zhang Tshal-pa uses it in the sense ,of" (mahiimudra as) the only cure for the defilements," thus departing significantly from the idea of a cure-all. What, then, does this notion of "only cure" convey? B. says it means that "once mahiimudra has been attained, there is no more. effort to ibe made, and the practitioner should act effortlessly .... "

He believes this to be plainly supported by Zhang Tshal-pa's >dKar po c/Zig thub tu bstan pa chapter of the Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug, but he fails to show how or where the text indicates the sense of "only cure" or enjoins the practitioner to act in any

;Way, effortlessly or not. Actually, the main point of the chapter is rather to describe what is effortlessly and simultaneously brought to perfect completion by the practicer in the moment of understanding the nature of one's own mind, namely: the totality of all excellent spiritual qualities or attainments. B. believes (p. 54) that this chapter mainly shows how the various aspects of the Buddhist path "are complete when various conditions are satisfied" (italics mine), thus missing the central point that it is this very realization of the nature of mind which is taken here to be by itself sufficient for bringing the path instantaneously to its highest, final fruition, i.e., to Buddhahood. That this is the gist of Zhang Tshal-pa's teaching in this chapter is indicated in the first verse:

In the moment of realizing [the true nature of] one's own mind, all "white" (i.e., excellent, virtuous) qualities without, exception are effortlessly completed simultaneously.25

According to ZhangTshal-pa, in the understanding of (the true nature of) one's own mind (rang sems rtogs pa) all the excellent realizations of the path and of Buddha hood come to perfection. Namely, all these excellent qualities are brought to perfection instantly and simultaneously in the realization of mind itself (sems nyid), whose nature is for instance like the sky (bar snang Ita bu) and free from all discursive elaborations (spros bral). B. (p. 31) explains that " ... the whole chapter is a series of aphorisms listing the various stages of Buddhist practice and 'saying what has to be the case for them to be complete. This question of completeness is adumbrated for the moment of abhisam-


bodhi." He then refers to the abhisambodhi chapter of th AbhisamayiilaT(lkiira and Padma-dkar-po's notes on that. 26 Bu~ surely Zhang Tshal-pa was not expressing or basing himself 0

the latter doctrine here. The idea is rather that all attainment are won or perfected simultaneously in the moment that th S

gcig-car individual gains the insight into mahiimudrii; the notio e of stages or of gradual attainments is thus excluded for one wh~ achieves this realization. For such a one, the fruit is already complete. That this was a radical doctrine liable to misinterpretation was no doubt felt by Zhang Tshal-pa himself, for he felt it necessary to add four final lines to the end of the chapc ter as a sort of afterthought or corrective, these lines reaffirm~ ing that until one has reached this insight that destroys the postulation of a substantial self, there does exist a conventional path of practices along with the fruition of karma and the imperative to avoid evil and cultivate virtue.27

According to B., Zhang Tshal-pa expressed his thesis using the term dkar po chig thub in the sense of " '( mahiimudrii as) the only cure for defilements,' that is, to convey the idea that once mahiimudrii has been attained, there is no more effort to be made, and the practitioner should act effortlessly." The idea. that there is no more effort to be made once mahiimudrii is attained belongs to a closely related set of concepts and it is also there by implication, but what Zhang Tshal-pa actually makes explicit here is more positive, namely that all spiritual. attainments are brought to perfection spontaneously and effortlessly in the moment of the realization of one's mind as mahiimudrii. The term dkar po chig thub is in fact nowhere explicitly defined in the chapter, and Zhang Tshal-pa actually uses it only once there, i.e., in the title appearing at the chapter's end. There it is used metaphorically to characterize the main point of the chapter: that the realization of the nature of mind is sufficient in and of itself to bring about instantaneously the consummation of all virtuous qualities, including Buddhahood itself. 28

It is good that B. took the trouble to quote from this impbr~ tant text at length because it illustrates a dkar po chig thub notion <is it was taught by a great master prior to Sa-pal)., and not how it was later interpreted (if we exclude the possibility of later editorial changes or additions to the text). As for B.'s ow:r:

THE POLEMICIST 31

understandings of the term dkar po ehig thub, however, I think they were based not on the contents of this chapter but rather on something else, perhaps another occurrence of the term in Zhang Tshal-pa in the chapter on "vows" (dam tshig) from which B. quotes the last three lines after commenting (p. 54): "the whole subject of the [dKar po ehig thub] chapter is not going beyond this completeness. Zhang Tshal-pa makes this even more explicit in an earlier passage."29 The last two verses of the passage B. then refers to could be translated as follows: 30

Having seen the nature of one's mind, one should abandon all harm to the mind. After the realization of non-duality has arisen, one should avoid all specially directed activities (ched du bya ba). (3) In all cases one's own mind should be made the "judge" (lit.: "the witnessing arbiter," dpang po). Having realized the reality of not going outside "the true nature of things" (dbyings) , that "not-to-be-guarded" (srung du med) is the highest pledge. [It] is called the "White Self-sufficient Simple." (4)

Here too the term dkar po ehig thub is not defined, though the ultimate reality inherent in one's own mind (and specifically realizing it as the "not-to-be-guarded") is taken to be the singly decisive factor even in the context of vows or pledges. 3l

As Zhang said (v. 4a): "In all cases one's own mind should be made the 'judge.'"

B. perhaps takes this passage to indicate the fundamental sense of the term (i.e., as "once mahiirllUdrii has been attained, there is no more effort to be made, and the practitioner should act effortlessly") because Zhang also states here: "After the realization of non-duality has arisen, one should avoid all specifically directed activities (ehed du bya ba)." In addition, Padma-dkar-po too seems to be getting at something similar in a comment that B. translates (p. 41):, "To seek for another means after having attained this mahiimudrii would be like looking for the same elephant which one had already found and abandoned [and this is the point of the White Panacea]" (the comment in square brackets was added by B.).32 On the other hand, there can be no doubt that Zhang understood the term


.dkar po ehig thub as a metaphor standing for a singly efficaci or self-sufficient means, for he has used the term and glosse~~s unequivocally in another work, the NJan: ngag snying po gsal ba~~ bstan beos. There, he speaks of pleasing the religious mast l

(w.ho will i.ntroduce. t~e disciple t? the ~ahamudra insight)=~ bemg the smgly declSlve factor whlch brmgs about realizatio independently and without recourse to other things:33 n

That which pleases the guru brings about full completion without depending on anything

else; that is the great "White Self-sufficient Simple."

Zhang Tshal-pa thus uses the term dkar po ehig thub in at least three different contexts-i.e., soteriology, gnoseology, and ethics-and in each case uses it to characterize a single factor which he believed to be by itself sufficient to effect the highest good. In his view: (1) the evocation of the realized guru's spiritual power or grace is sufficient by itself to effect reaIiza-. tion in the qualified student, (2) the insight into the nature of mind so conferred to the disciple is sufficient to actualize all enlightened qualities and realizations, and (3) the liberating. insight into the nature of mind likewise has the power to resolve all moral dilemmas.

Further Theses about the dKar po chig thub

B. further aims to show (thesis B) that there was no systematic use of the term in a technical sense before Zhang Tshal-pa or as part of any doctrinal scheme. This would indeed be worth trying to demonstrate, but in the end B. never translates or discusses in detail the known instances of sGam-po-pa's use ofthe term (two of which he lists on p. 63, n. 9), and he makes no effort to show that they were less "systematic" or "technical" than Zhang Tshal-pa's use. If normally sGam-po-pa (1079-1153) preferred to avoid such terms, would we be wrong in placing some importance on the exceptional cases when he did use the term in question? It is very important for understanding the whole controversy to know exactly where and how sGam-po-pa and other early great bKa' -brgyud-pa masters

THE POLEMICIST 33

ffised this key term, and we can be grateful to B. for also quotring (without translation or discussion) a fragmentary extract ~from one passage where sGam-pb-pa uses the word. There (p. ~27) the term is glossed by the phrase gcig shes kun grol ("com-Jplete libe~atio:n through knowing one thing").34 . [~ ThesIs GIS that Padma-dkar-po never uses the t~rm on hIS rbwn account, though he agrees wIth Zhang Tshal-pa s usage of tthe word. In fact Padma-dkar-po does employ the word at least !'once in the rGyal ba'i gan mdzod on his own account, i.e., in a ~'passage that is not a reply to the criticisms of others. At the end ~of his Nges tshig mdo rgyud gnyis kar bstan tshul section, Padma~dkar-po takes the notion of (Mahamudra as) dkar po chig thub ;'}o refer to an ultimate single "metatheory" of soteriology iWhich relativizes, so to speak, the concept of the ultimate fspiritual goal or fruit and integrates it in a special way with the :~ground and the path, in consonance with the tantric notion of if'making the fruit the path" ('bras bu lam byed). As he states just fbefore the beginning of the De dkar po chig thub tu 'gro ba'i gnad ~bshad pa section (48a.2): "Therefore, though from the i§tandpoint of the mind (blo ngor), the stages of 'basis to be !!IJUrified' (shyang gzhi), 'purifier' (sbyong byed) and 'purified fruit' ~(sbyangs 'bras) may be acceptable, still in ultimate reality ~bothing of the sort is established, and consequently this !,:Mahamudra has been termed a 'White Self-sufficient Simple' l(dkarpo chig thub) ."35 This is apparently connected with what B. Jrefers to on p. 34: "dKar-po chig-thub-remaining in Mahamudra ias the place of origin of the dharmas-is precisely what holds the ~many together as one, and so is not itself subject to the notions ! of one and many (gcig dang du bral), even in a purely logical ;sense."36 In any case, thesis C is of no direct relevance to B. 's 'reply to Sa-pal).'s criticisms, although it may have some histori-• cal significance otherwise. Yet I am not clear what inference if any we are supposed to draw from it-though surely not that the concepts expressed by the term were unimportant or that the term was considered problematic by the later tradition as embodied by Padma-dkar-po.

, Thesis D-l is that Sa-pal). is not working with any clear conception of the dkar po chig thub in the sDom gsum rab dbye. On p. 28, B. states very clearly what for him is Sa-pal).'s opinion: "[Sa-pal).] takes the word to stand for a complete quietism, a


'do-nothing' attitude toward the doctrine .... " Where did h find this" clear" conception of Sa-pal)'s view, if Sa-pal) himsel~ was unclear on this point? It must be admitted that the treat_ ment of the bSam-yas debate is quite abbreviated in the sDo gsum rab dbye. But I wonder why he di<;l. not look at the accoun: that he knew to exist elsewhere, such as in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal. Again in footnote 3 (p. 62) he alleges that ''As in the sDom gsum rab dbye, so also here [in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal] Sa skya Paw;iita makes no attempt to state what he understands by dkar po chig thub." This may indicate that B. did not go through all the relevant passages of the work. 37 Nevertheless, he did trace two or three of the relevant quotations directly addressed by Padma-dkar-po back to some version of the sDom gsum rab dbye. 38 But he did not search out or discuss in the main body of his article any of the other passages which clarify Sa-pal)'s conception of the dkar po chig thub. 39

In a future article I plan to present in more detail the usage of the term by Sa-pal), but briefly put, for him the dkar po chig thub signified a self-sufficient simple medicine which had become a metaphor used by others to characterize a spiritual method as self-sufficient and singular. He understood the proponents of this self-sufficient method to maintain in particular that the attainment of Buddhahood can arise simply through the understanding (rtogs pa) of the nature of mind (sems) or the direct meeting and recognition (ngo 'phrod pa) of mind (sems). B. in a postscript (p. 48) translates one of the passages stating precisely this, a quotation from the sJ<:yes bu dam pa rnams la spring baJi yi ge: " ... To know one's own mind is to rise into buddhahood. Thus if the nature of mind is known, there is [i.e. this is] dkar-po chig-thub ... . "40 Could there be a simpler or clearer statement of Sa-pal)'s basic conception than this? And in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal (tha 48b.5), which was the original point of departure for R. Jackson's article, Sa-pal) repeats a summary characterization of the doctrine as attributed to the Hwa-. shang: "Words have no pith. One will not achieve Buddhahood through a dharma ofvyavahrira [i.e., involving language and conventional practices]. If one understands the mind, [that] is the 'White Panacea'" (tshig la snying po med tha snyad kyi chos kyis 'tshang mi rgya sems rtogs na dkar po chig thub yin). Sa-pal) presents the doctrine once again in the same source (49b.2) as main-

THE POLEMICIST 35

tiitaining that "Through a doctrine thaI involves the doing of ithings to be done [or religious duties?] one will not awaken to :):J3uddhahood. One awakens to Buddhahood simply through ~the undei~tanding of mind, having cultivated non-concephualizing" (bya byed kyi chos kyis 'tshang mi rgya bas rnam par mi rtog ~pa bsgoms nas sems rtogs pa nyid kyis 'tshang rgya) .

[Logical Implications as Forciful Attacks Y',

~tt would be tedious to go one-by-one through all the remaining ,'theses and the evidence advanced to prove them; instead, I "'would like to examine in the following pages his translations of ' fPadma-dkar-po's replies and just a few other passages of pariticular methodological interest. Let us begin with the last Ithesis (i.e., thesis K), in which B. asserted that Sa-paI..1 ';attacked the "fivefold" (lNga ldan) system of the 'Bri-gung-pas 'with particular force. The reason suggested for this was Sa~paI..1's personal animosity towards Phag~mo-gru-pa rDo-rje·~rgyal-po. Where is Sa-paI..1 supposed to have made this attack? ~It is in the sDom gsum rab dbye where he says (na 34a.2): i'i

Some say that the dedication of merit is needed after cultivating this "self-sufficient simple" (or "singly efficacious") (chig thub) [practice]. In that case the "self-sufficient simple" would become two-fold. If, in addition to that, one requires such things as going for refuge, the generation of bodhicitta, and meditative practice involving a tutelary deity, the "self-sufficient simple" would be manifold. Therefore such a tradition of a "self-sufficient simple" (chig thub) [practice] has not been taught by the Buddha. 41

There is of course nothing here that could be taken as unusuallY,hard-hitting or forceful. It is just Sa-paI..1's plainly worded demonstration of the contradiction he sees implicit in using the term chig thub ("self-sufficient") to designate one out of two or more essential elements in a system of religious practice: B. (p. 34), however, considers this to be a sharp assault formulated "semi-explicitly" against the 'Bri-gung-pas, and he finds something to be "especially pigheaded" about it as so directed.


. B. has no doubt correctly understood from Padrna-dka _ po's reply that the lNga ldan ("fivefold") system or a simil r doctrinal tradition is the implied subject of the criticism (to t~r extent that it simultaneously maintains a self-sufficient simple method). B. lists the five factors of this system, as he under~ stands them, on p. 39:

1. bodhicitta-mahiimudrii 2. devakiiya-m. 3. devotional m. 4. abhi~eka-m. 5. vidyii-m.

In a quotation of'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten-mgon-po given by Thu'ubkwan (kha 23a-24a), however, as well as in numerous other sources, a somewhat different list of the five factors of the lNga ldan system is found (including one more element of practice mentioned by Sa-pal) i.e., bsngo ba):

1. byang chub kyi sems bsgom pa (meditative cultivation of bodhicitta) 2. rang lus lhar bsgom pa (visualization of one's body as a deity) 3. bla ma la mos gus bsgom pa (cultivation of devotion toward the guru) 4. mi rtog paJi lta ba bsgom pa (meditative cultivation of the non-discursive view) 5. bsngo smon gyi rgyas ~ebs (conclusion through sealing with a prayer of merit dedication)

Insofar as Sa-pal)'s criticism has to do with the lNga ldan system, it probably refers to this standard formulation of it and not to the apparently mistaken one presented by B.42

Sa-pal)'s analysis here is a continuation of his criticism of the notion of chig thub and of teachings which claim to be a single method that is in and of itselfsufficient for effecting the attainment of Buddhahood. The Sa-skya-pa commentator Gorams-pa bSod-nams-seng-ge (1429-1489) (ta 138b.6), who flourished in the century before Padma-dkar-po, identified such masters as Dwags-po lha-rje (sGam-po-pa) as the holder of the views criticized in these lines, namely that the dkar po chig thub (i.e., mahiimudrii as so characterized) should be practiced with concluding dedication of merit, or with the introductory· stages of refuge and bodhicitta, and the yi-dam deity visualiza-'

THE POLEMICIST 37

ftion. 43 There is no reason to suppose that Go-rams-pa would r'not have attributed this doctrine to the 'Bri-gung-pas had he ~:known of any special grounds for doing so; he makes a great ~;jnany such .attributions elsewhere. Another very important Sarskya-pa scholar, Shakya-mchog-ldan (1427-1507), similarly ~identifies the originators of the criticized view as "those main~faining the tradition of the Lord sGam-po" (rje sgam poJi f[bjrgyud 'dzin rnams).44 These attributions show that for the Sarskya-pa commentarial tradition too this verse was not a known ~Fattack of "particular force" specifically against the founder of ~the 'Bri-gung-pa school or against Phag-mo-gru-pa.45

Jc Some of B. 's difficulties in interpreting the above passage ::jn the sDom gsum raa dbye may stem from his almost total freliance upon Padma-dkar-po. The latter's reply to Sa-pal).'s ~critical observations is not always very clear, and the most ;'interesting comments start only after a long series of quota~'fions. At first Padma-dkar-po (50b.5) merely states: ~ .

This is a childish criticism. If it is correct, then you too would not be able yourself to arrange the two stages [of tantric meditation] (krama) as two stages. This is also talk which is blind regarding the realm of the ultimate truth, [because] in our own tradition this very thing is the generation of the ultimate bodhicitta .... 46

~Padma-dkar-po thus begins his reply by accusing Sa-pal). of ~~aying something here that would be incompatible with the lat;~!er's own system. Evidently he takes Sa-pal). to be denying that La spiritual practice in general may be two-fold or manifold, :\Vhich is exactly the opposite of the view Sa-pal). actually main~;.tains. In other words, Padma-dkar-po apparently misun.derstands this as a criticism of a two-staged practice including 'mahiimudrii and the dedication of merit, instead of as a criticism ,of the validity of the term or concept "self-sufficiency" (chig thub) within a tradition which mairitains that more than one .essential element of religious practice is necessary. As his next 'point, Padma-dkar-po replies to Sa-pal).'s question regarding :whether (relative) bodhicitta (as a preparatory practice for the ,dkar po chig thub) is essential by saying that "in our tradition ;!his [dkar po chig thub] is the ultimate bodhicitta generation." But


by introducing the ultimate bodhicitta into the discussion and identifying it as the main practice, he refrains from directly addressing the real issue. B. in his translation (p. 39) has Cornpletely misconstrued the last two sentences of this passage.47

But after his (at least to me) somewhat unclear initial retorts and after several quotations, Padma-dka::-po finally does show that he knows very clearly what Sa-par;t IS getting at (i.e., that he is criticiz~ng the n~tion ~f "self-suffic~ency" [chig thub]), and he summanzes the dIscuSSIOn at one pomt with the words (p. 54b.l): "The above [ quotation] shows that by knowing that one thing alone, one understands the whole of this other host of knowable things as clearly as ifit were a myrobalan fruit laid out in the palm of one's hand. This is what is called in bKa'-brgyud-pa terminology 'liberation of all [by] knowing one' (gcig shes kun grol)." Many quotes follow, and one of the • basic points Padma-dkar-po thereby makes is that in many authentic scriptures a single important teaching or practice is said to be in some sense sufficient or decisive. 48 At one point (55a.6) he summarizes again: "The above quote also shows the serise of the bKa' -brgyud-pa saying 'By:a single realization, alL stages and paths are traversed'" (rtogs pa gcig gis sa lam ma lui' bgrod) , though this sentence has dropped out of B.'s transla~' tion. B. extracts as the main point from these quotes the follow~ iug (p. 40-41): "The essential point is that what is thereby gained is always the same, even though the methods differ; and ". so once one method has been pursued to the end, there is no need to take up another." Then he makes a direct reference to, a verse by Padma-dkar-po that he quoted at the beginning'of the article (p. 27), which contains the phrase gcig shes kun grol : ("complete liberation through knowing one thing"). , '

To Sa-par;t's critiCism that a manifold method cannot reasonably be termed "self-sufficient" or "singly efficacious," B. himself (cf. p. 33f) would perhaps reply that the term dkar po chig thubcan mean various things and in fact covers many of the meanings ofmahiimudrii, though with some special nuances;! As a ground and goal it is essentially one, but as a path it is] various. And in its widest usage as the ultimate single over:" arching concept and underlying practice of this ultra-soterioP,,' ogy, it is not subject to conventional logical analysis. In R'~;~ own terms: "The seal (mudrii) is the understanding that in each,~

:-'~ji

~;·,:~f .,~1~]

THE POLEMICIST 39

case, items of that general category depend on the feature-universal for their identity as items of that category." And (p. 34): "dKar-po chig-thub-remaining in mahiimudrii as the place of ori-

. gin of the dharmas-is precisely what holds the many together as one, and so is not itself subject to the notions of one and many (gcig dang du bral), even in a purely conventional logical

. sense. " This broad interpretation is plausible, and it accords with

Padma-dkar-po in places. But what remains to be done-ifit is possible-is to trace these interpretations back and demonstrate that rJe sGam-po-pa and bla-ma Zhang intended this in their usages of the term.

Personal Animosity and Circumstantial Evidence

The thesis that Sa-pal). in the above-mentioned verses of the sDom gsum rab dbye has attacked the lNga ldan system with particular force is not justified, because here Sa-pal). is criticizing the notion of soteriological self-sufficiency and mentions the separate elements of the lNga ldan system to point out an inconsistency with the notion of chig thub (and not to reject a multiple-element method as such, or to criticize these particular elements, which he accepts). Nevertheless it may be instructive to go on and have a look at the argumentation B. subsequently gives.

Having apparently not clearly understood what Sa-pal). was getting at, and having convinced himself that Sa-pal). is an unprincipled opponent of the worst sort, B. tries to make his charge stick through circumstantial evidence and traditional ad hominem attack. By attributing base personal motives to SapaI)., he thinks (p. 34) the whole thing "may become slightly more comprehensible (though not really excusable)." The line of reasoning he advances goes something like this:

(1) The attack is perhaps directed against 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rtenmgon-po, since this system was a 'Bri-gung-pa specialty. (2) The real originator of the teaching was the latter's teacher, Phag-mo-gru-pa. (3) Phag-mo-gru-pa had been a disciple of Sa-paI).'s grandfather Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po, but later studied under sGam-po-pa.

40 JIABS VOL. 1.'3 NO.2

(4) After sGam-po-pa's death in 1153, Phag-mo-gru-pa sought Sa-chen out and tried to speak with him, but had to go aWa without being able to do so. This mighthave indicated a fallin~ out between the two. . (5) The name of Phag-mo-gru-pa subsequently has not been heard of much in the Sa-skya-pa tradition. (6) Therefore "it is tempting to speculate that Sa-skya PaI).Q.ita's attack on the lnga ldan system may have been motivated by animosity toward Phag-mo-gru-pa, rather than towards sGam-po-pa or 'Bri-gung-pa."

What B. assumes is that Sa-pal). is motivated by personal animosity toward somebody, and that this fairly bland verse in the sDom gsum rab dbye is not only a doctrinal criticism but also a personal attack against somebody. Rather than attempting to address directly the arguments Sa-pal). raises, he replies with a tempting speculation that amounts to an attack on Sa-pal)'s character. But in so doing, what he fails to see is that there is no real need for personal factors to enter into the doctrinal dis~ cussion at this stage. Sa-pal). is criticizing the term and notion of chig thub. It is perfectly consistent ·doctrinally for him to make his criticisms, so what further motive does he need? If Sa-pal) were departing from his normal doctrine to make a criticism, then it would be reasonable to search elsewhere for a motive.

Even supposing that personal factors may have been strongly at work here, there is not sufficient evidence in this case to establish those that B. suggests. The sources are not very clear about what transpired on that last meeting between Sa-chen Kun-dga' -snying-po and Phag-mo-gru-pa rDo-rjergyal-po twenty-five years before Sa-pal).'s birth, and it would be very problematic to assert that whatever happened, it was the main factor motivating Sa-pal). some seventy-five years later when he penned the above verses (he is said to have written the sDom gsum rab dbye in c. 1232). Certainly Phag-mogru-pa was not a target of hatred or animosity for subsequent followers of the Sa-skya-pa tradition. The cave where Phagmo-gru-pa had meditated in Sa-skya was considered a shrine worthy of respect, and it was renovated in the 16th century by the Sa-skya-pa hierarch sNgags-'chang Kun-dga'-rin-chen' (1517-1584).49 And, as the late Dezhung Rinpoche (1906-1987) once told me, Phag-mo-gru-pa was spoken of respectfully also

THE POLEMICIST 41

byone ofthe recent main transmitters of the Lam 'bras, sGa-ston Ngag-dbang-legs-pa (1864-1941), who appreciated his commentary on the (Lam 'bras) rDorje tshig rkang, called the dPe dzodma. .

The interpretation of what happened between Sa-chen and .. Phag-mo-gru-pa hinges in large part on the understanding of a single term found in the Tibetan sources: spyan rtsa 'gyur, an expression unfortunately not attested in any dictionary accessible to me. In the Blue Annals of 'Gos lo-tsa-ba gZhon-nu-dpal

.. (nya 69a), the following passage occurs:

de nas yar byon te bla ma sa skya pa chen po de sngar nga la khams pa shes rab can gsung zhing mnyes / da shes rab Hi 'dra ba skyes pas khong gi drung du phyin la zhu dgos dgongs nas / slar yang sa skyar byon pas / da res ni dri ba tsam yang mi mdzad par spyan rtsa 'gyur 'dug pas/ phyir 'ong du phebs nas mtshal sgang du bzhugs.

G. Roerich (p. 559) translated the key sentences: "But on this occasion Sa-skya-pa did not ask him a single question, and

. seemed to be displeased. Phag-mo-gru-pa returned home." Thus, Roerich took spyan rtsa 'gyur 'dug to mean "seemed to be displeased," i.e., to indicate a change in attitude for the worse. In that case, the whole passage could be translated:

Then [i.e., after completing the stilpa for the recently deceased sGam-po-pa], he went West [to gTsang], and thinking, "Previously the bla-ma Sa-skya-pa chen-po referred to me affectionately as 'the Wise Khams-pa'; now that such great discriminative wisdom has been born in me, I should go to his presence and tell him," he went once again to Sa-skya. This time [however] without so much as questioning him, [Sa-chen] seemed to show a worsened attitude. Therefore he [Phag-mogru-pa] returned back, and dwelled at mTshal-sgang.

Padma-dkar-po gives a similar account in his Chos 'byung (271a, as quoted by B., p. 64, n. 22), though with some interesting differences:

de nas yar byon te thugs la bla ma sa skya pa chen po de chos dri ba la dgyes pas da nga la bshod rgyu thogs pa med snyam byon/ d{a} res dri ba tsam yang mi mdzad par spyan rtsa 'gyur 'dug pas / bla ma de myur 'grongs par mkhyen /


Here Padma-dkar-po understood the phrase spyan rtsa 'gyur a . a portent of impending death. This would more or less fit th S

known facts, since Sa-chen did die within a relatively shor~ time (in lIS8).

The noun spyan rtsa is the honorific for mig rtsa, which denotes the blood vessels or nerves of the eye. Mig rtsa 'khrugs pa for instance is defined by Jaschke as "the blood vessels [of the sclerotic] irritated, reddened." For this part of the eye to redden or darken could be understood as a sign of anger or displeasure. In addition, another term derived from mig rtsa has a. ne.gativ~, meaning, n~m~ly mig rtsa can, which signifies "stingy;: mIserly. 50 A LadakhI fnend, however, understood mig rtsa 'gyur to m.ean mig rts~ 'bak. ~e s~i? the latter had a more specifically medIcal meamng, mdIcatmg the occurrence of a particular change in a person's eyes indicating a sickness (perhaps a dun': sunken look or lack of liveliness in the eyes?). Following thi; medical interpretation, the passage from Padma-dkar-po : could be translated: ' <;,~

. <.):~

Then going West [to gTsangJ, h~ went [to Sa-skyaJ thinkinii"/ "Because the bla-ma Sa-skya-pa chen-po loves to inquire abouf;: religion, [I should meet him again, since J I am now unir:n~~ peded in having things to tell [him] . [But] at that time without';. so much as asking questions, [Sa-chen's] eye-"veins" seemed to;, have changed [for the worse]. Therefore [Phag-mo-gru-paf¥ knew that this master would soon die. '

,""

This more medical interpretation is also borne out even moreT clearly by a third version of the story preserved within a histor-: ical work of the 'Ba'-ra-ba bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition, where," moreover, there is no indication of a falling out between the;' two. Following sGam-po-pa's death, and after staying for sonH~; time at 'On Tshal-sgang, where he trained a number of great} meditators, Phag-mo-gru-pa is said to have gone back to Sa~' skya, accompanied by sGom bSod and several other old disei~.~ pIes of his, bringing with him a manuscript of the large Pra-, jfiiipiiramitii that had recently been executed by some disciples .' or patrons in his honor. At Sa-skya the teachers requested [ahdU1 received? (zhus)] the four tantric consecrations [from Sa-cheri];;:, It was sufficient for Phag-mo-gru-pa to give what he had for,;.!.

-;'·'·""4

';l:,i >:~;~~~

THE POLEMICIST 43

offerings, but still he expected to be questioned by Sachen about religious things, since his teacher had been fond of doing so in the past.

[Phag-mo-gru-paJ thought: ''After I went to sGam-po, my discriminative understanding has increased a hundredfold. Realization has arisen. If the bla-ma questions me about this, [my realization which is unimpeded] regarding all dharmas like a spear waving in the air, I must give an answer." But he was not questioned like before. [Phag-mo-gru-pa later] said "My bla-ma will probably not have a long life. His eye-'veins' have changed [for the worse]. He stopped without questioning about religion. That is a sign of [impending] death." Accordingly, [it transpired that Sa-chen] passed away when about a half a year had elapsed. 51

From this source, 'which is the most detailed of the three, one gets the impression that the relations between the two remained correct until the end. 52 Sectarian divisions among the gSar-ma-pa tantric traditions were not in the mid-12th century as strongly established and institutionalized as they became later. Nor was there any rule that a religious master such as Phag-mo-gru-pa should study under or acknowledge only one teacher. Indeed, both he and Sa-chen had studied under many masters, among whom they each revered two or three in a special way. Phag-mo-gru-pa would seem to have continued to hold not only sGam-po-pa but also Sa-chen in the very highest esteem. 53 That Phag-mo-gru-pa considered the Lam 'bras teachings which he had received from Sa-chen still to be very valuable is also indicated by the fact that he transmitted them later to his disciple gLing-ras (from whom they were passed down through gTsang-pa rGya-ras and the 'Brug-pa lineage to Padma-dkar-po). 54 Therefore, rather than pointing to the relations between Sa-chen and Phag-mo-gru-pa as an instance of incipient sectarian ill-will, one could just as easily interpret them as showing its successful avoidance. I t would be useful to find and compare occurrences of spyan rtsa 'gyur and the related terms in other contexts or to have them explained by other Tibetan scholars. In any case, B.'s apparent understanding of the term spyan rtsa 'gyur as indicating an unwillingness or refusal to meet with someone (pp. 34 and 64, n. 22) can


probably be e4 cluded, since according to the sources Sa-chen and Phag-mo-gru-pa did meet: the only thing that failed to take place was the expected questioning. '

By viewing this episode through the magnifying but distorting lens of later sectarianism and finding here a source for hostile feelings, one does not take into account the nature of the special relation between a genuine master and devoted disciple within the Mantraya~a tradition. vyithin thatc~n~ext, a rupture between the two IS almost unthmkable, and It IS explicitly rejected as impossible by no less an authority than Padmadkar-po when he discusses this very episode again in his record of teachings received (gsan yig),. Here, in connection with the Lam 'bras lineage he had received, Padma-dkar-po gives the following account;55

The great "Sugata" [Phag~mo-gru-pa] was the most learned of his [Sa-chen's] disciples, and [Sa-chen] proclaimed him to have attained the realization of the Path of Seeing. Later he [Phag-mo-gru-pa] went to sGam-po. Then when he [later] went into the presence of his teacher [Sa-chen again], [the latter] looked with clouded eyes (spyan sprin 'gyur). With regard t{) this, others think that he was not pleased that [Phag-mo-gru~ pa] had become the disciple ofsGam-po-pa, and they even say this. But how could such a thing be possible for genuine masters? For they intentionally apply one to those [teachings] by which one is [best] trained and from which the maximum benefit will come to sentient beings. To think of it as like the dis" carding and accepting of religious teachers is purely [the erroneous conception illustrated by] the maxim of "the strict monk [?] (ja gdan) drunk on beer."56 Moreover, [ eventually] it [all] actually came to pass in accordance with the statement by the lord Phag-mo-gru-pa himself, who said this was a sign that the teacher would not live long.. "

Here Padma-dkar-po used the new term spyan sprin in place of spyan rtsa. Spyan sprin means a cataract or a clouding of the cornea, and this reinforces the other medical interpretations. Still, it is interesting to note that the accounts of this event were sufficiently ambiguous that 16th-century Tibetans wen~ already interpreting it in different ways.,"

No matter how these terms are to be understood (and eved>

THE POLEMICIST 45

without Padma-dkar-po's unequivocal rejection of their interpretation as indicating Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po's displeasure), the interpretation of these events as establishing Sa-paIJ's motives for writing two or three verses seventy-five years after the fact co'uld never be more than an extremely shaky hypothesis at best. B. too seems to sense that he is walking on thin ice here since he characterizes his theory as something which is "tempting" to "speculate."

* * * One problem with discussions that arise in reply to prior

polemics-whether traditional or modern-is that they tend almost automatically to continue the previous polemical tone and framework of discussion. The presentation is selective, and almost inevitably it is at least a bit slanted, if only for increased rhetorical effect. But the readers of Buddhist controversial writings, like the real participants in Buddhist debates, should always bear in mind that what is at issue is normally single points of doctrinal' interpretation or practice, or at most a restricted system of religious practices or philosophical ideas, and that one Buddhist opponent is not normally attempting to throw out the whole Buddhist tradition of the other side. Within the traditional context, to do so completely would be to risk committing the great evil of "discarding religion" (chos spong ba'i las). There always remains between two Tibetan Buddhists a large, commonly acknowledged body of scripture, doctrine and practice which both maintain. Otherwise there would be very little common ground for discussion and very little scope to prove or disprove anything of mutual doctrinal interest. 57 In a Buddhist doctrinal controversy, the goal is of course to show that the particular teaching in question is unacceptable to the opponent himself as a Buddhist in general or as a follower of the Buddhist tradition he professes in particular.

Moreover, within the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist tradition scholars usually differentiate clearly between criticizing faults of doctrine (chos kyi skyon) and criticizing personal or individual faults (gang zag gi skyon) .58 Personal faults can have no bearing on the substance of a doctrinal discussion, and to introduce them into a debate would thus constitute a "defeat" for the one who did so. But the trouble with this idealized scholarly ethic


was that its application was not always so clear-cut: a pI . criticism of the religious doctrines taught and practiced ~n another could easily have the same emotional impact as a p Y ~ona.lly di~ected. slap t~ the face, especial~y to th?se not train:J III dIalectIcal dIsputatIOn and who habItually Identified do·~. trines with persons. To say: "The Buddha never taught this c" or: "To practice or teach this vitiates the essentials of th Buddha's teachings," could easily provoke some Tibeta~ Buddhists to feelings of outrage and righteous indignation, just asit still can today.

Sa-pal).'s criticisms were often phrased in rigorous and straightforward terms, and therefore some adherents of the criticized traditions felt that he had overstepped the boundaries of mere doctrinal criticism, and that in doing so he could only have been motivated by vindictive personal animosity.59

B. is not the first to seek out the old relation of Sa-chen with Phag-mo-gru-pa as a possible historical explanation for later tensions or animosities between the Sa-skya-pa and bKa'" brgyud-pa-I had previously heard this suggested by others within the living bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition, and Padma-dkarpo records the existence of this theory in the 16th century in the course of his firm rejection of it. But if one really wants to attribute the writing of a specific passage in Sa-pal).'s sDom gsum rab dbye to such supposed old animosities, it would be better to examine carefully also the sections in the same work where the author discusses what had motivated him. Sa-paJ) himself was fully aware that his motives for making such criticisms would be questioned, and therefore he devoted one ofthe final sections of the sDom gsum rab dbye to a discussion of the legitimate aims and motivations of doctrinal criticism as well as to the history of such criticisms in India and Tibet. At the end of the treatise he listed the various religious lineages that he had received himself, and he denied accordingly that his criticisms were one-sidedly biased. 60 Before that, he declared that if perchance in an uncollected moment he has been guilty of any vilification of others, he renounces that as a morally rep~ rehensible mistake. 61 But as he explained further:

THE POLEMICIST 47

If you say that the differentiation of erroneous from correct religion is anger and jealousy, in that case, how [otherwise] are sentient beings to be saved from the ocean of Cyclic Existence?62

To differentiate carefully right doctrines from wrong was thus for Sa-pal). crucial to the task of establishing and maintaining the Buddhist Doctrine, and thereby making possible Liberation itself. As he tried to show in the sDom gsum rab dbye at some length, criticisms or philosophical disputations .between schools as attempts to settle conflicting doctrinal claims were legitimate and very important parts of religious scholarship in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. Tibetan Buddhists by and large came to accept that there can be principled and jus.tified "controversy" or doctrinal disputation. 63 This was accepted as legitimate also by Indian philosophy in general, as well as by Dharmaklrti and his school in particular, whose views came to influence the whole Tibetan learned tradition. In Dharmaklrti's manual of disputation, the Viidanyqya, it is maintained that proper disputation should be for the sake of investigating and explaining the truth, and not motivated merely by the desire to win. 64 Disputation must use honest methods: sound reasoning grounded in objective fact or based on the citation of scriptures accepted by the opponent was the sole criterion by which a definitive judgment could be reached. 65 It must also avoid blameworthy methods such as misrepresenting or falsifying evidence, personal attacks, abusive language, etc. Within this tradition, even "minor" faults such as redundancy or irrelevancy were considered grounds for "defeat," for the only two legitimate functions of a debater were soundly to state either the arguments proving his position or the reasoning which refutes that of the opponenL 66 Not every scholar of the tradition lived up to these strict ideals completely in every case. The modern scholar in fact must sometimes sift very carefully through later polemical discussions to try to glean what is substantial discussion from what is occasionally just dialectical cleverness or even pure sophistry. Nevertheless the underlying ideal of a fair, objective and rational search for truth was always present, and within the tradition it was this high standard against which doctrinal discussions ultimately were judged.


Implications and Interpretations

Let us return now to B.'s article and see how he presented Padma-dkar-po's criticism of another passage from the sDom gsum rab dbye, this one just preceding the discussion in connec_ tion with the "Fivefold" (lNga ldan) system. As mentioned above, Sa-pal) identified the dkar po chig thub as a doctrine claiming that one can attain Buddhahood through the single method of understanding the nature of one's mind. He ques~ tioned the validity of any "self-sufficient" or "singly efficacious" (chig thub) practice from the point of view of causation and this is his subject here. Sa-pal) raises the question: Isi~ acceptable that the three kay as of Buddha hood could arise from a simple or unitary cause? In his Phyag chen rgyal baJi gan mdzod (49a.4), Padma-dkar-po quotes this verse from the sDom gsum rab dbye (p. 34a.l):

Some say that the result [ or fruit] of the three kiiyas arises from the dkar po chig thub. However, a result cannot arise from a single thing. Even if a single result could arise from a single thing, that result too would be a single thing, like the cessation. (nirodha) of the friivaka. 67

According to Go-rams-pa (ta 138b.3), the holders of this position included Zhang Tshal-pa et al. As seen above, the latter did propound that all qualities of Buddha hood are instantly and spontaneously realized in the understanding of the nature of mind, and he specifically mentions the three Bodies (kiiya) as understood as being perfectly complete in the mind (in the moment of mahiimudrii realization) in such places as f. 22a.3 (sku gsum ye shes lnga Ldan gyi / / sang rgyas rang la tshang ngo zer / / Jdi rangyinpardagdod shes/ /), f. 22a.6 (skugsum [22bJyon tan sems la rd;::ogs) , and f. 31 b. 3 (' bras bu sku gsum de ru rdzogs). Padma-dkar-po (49a) attempts to defend this view, replying to begin with through a purely dialectical objection, asserting that Sa-pal) has disproved or contradicted his own position (rang La gnod) because the middle statement [or line of verse] (i.e., the Tibetan phrase corresponding to: "like the cessatioh of the friivaka") is refuted by the final two. Why? He asserts that Sa-pal) himself has granted that a manifold result cannot arise

THE POLEMICIST 49

froIll a single cause, but then he speaks of the friivaka's nirodha as an example of "an effect that arises from a single cause."68

Padma-dkar-po and B. (p. 37) are apparently misled by the wording of this versified argument and fail to see that Sa-pal). cites the example of the friivaka)s nirodha merely as a simple (non-manifold) effect and not as a simple effect from a single cause. 69 What Sa-pal). is engaged in is eliciting a hypothetical consequence from a purely hypothetical and contrafactual supposition. He is saying: "Even supposing that there could be . such an effect, what would it be like? It would be single (or simple), like the friivaka's nirodha, and not threefold." It is not self-contradictory for Sa-pal). to cite the arhat's nirodha as an example of a spiritual fruit that is simple or single (and also .11nsatisfactory), whereas to cite it as an example of a simple resultfrom a single cause would indeed be self-contradictory. The placement of the example phrase between the supposition and its hypothetical result (and the somewhat elliptical versified phrasing) make it unclear at first sight what is meant.

I do not think Padma-dkar-po's misunderstanding was . intentional or that he was here attempting to skirt the main issue by means of a dialectical quibble based on a conscious misinterpretation. Such a strategy would trivialize the discussion (though such ploys are also not completely unknown in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist controversial writings, in spite of their having been unequivocally rejected by Dharmakirti). Apparently Padma-dkar-po considered Sa-pal).'s wording of his argument to be either genuinely self-contradictory or else so hopelessly ambiguous that this needed to be pointed out.

On the other hand, Padma-dkar-po did understand that the main thrust in this and the following passage of the sDom gsum rab dbye was to criticize a notion of mahiimudrii as a singly efficient and self-sufficient practice, for as seen above he does eventually reply to just this point through various quotations from scripture, and he also sums up his own ideas to the same effect. (He begins his more substantive rebuttal with the words [49b.1]: "[Sa-pal).'s] meaning too is unacceptable" don yang mi )thad te.) He goes on to give what according to B. (p. 38) is "a series of nine [i.e., eight?] quotations that simultaneously illustrate four points." All of these quotations would be acceptable to Sa-pal). in their own particular contexts. But I cannot find


where the fourth point, that "it is essential not to go beyond this one mahiimudrii" (which for B. is an especially characteri _ tic topic of the dkar po chig thub), is illustr.ated in any ofthe quS_

tations, to say nothing of in all eight quotations simultaneousl~.

Even in the beginning of this same [Phyag chen] de dkar po chig thub tu 'gro ba'i gnad bshad pa section of the Phyag chen rgyal ba'i gan mdzod, Padma-dkar-po makes clear that in his own system this idea of self-sufficiency or single efficaciousness or something similar is maintained. He begins the chapter by quoting Mar-pa's commentary on the Hevajra Tantra,appar_ ently tracing back the germ of the dkar po chig thub idea to the passage:

All factors of existence (dharmas) from the subtle [read: "stable static" brtan pa] to the "moving" (or "dynamic" g.yo ba) are no; established on their own account. Having made oneself thus understand this spontaneously and innately born (sahaja) nature alone as the [correct] theory, meditatively to cultivate it is referred to in the Tantra by the passage beginning with "equality." And [that] meditative cultivation too is to place [the mind] equally in the spontaneously and innately born gnosis without [distinguishing] concentrated meditations (samiihita) and post-meditative states (Pr~thalabdha). If viewed by a person who understands such a mahiimudrii, all factors of samsiira and nirviir;a arise from it and are its emanations [read: 'phrul]. This is shown by the passage [in the Hevajra Tantra] beginning with the word "I" (nga). Accordingly, if even a man with little merit who, having understood that the whole of theory, meditative cultivation, and action are mahiimudrii and having cultivated [that] for a long time, will attain realization, it goes without saying that others [of greater merit will do so]. The sense of these words is shown by the passage [in the Hevajra Tantra] beginning with the words "like that" (de lIar). 70

B. in his translation (p. 37) has misconstrued this passage, partly through not understanding which words were quota~ tions from the Tantra (he did not trace the quotation referred to). The lines being commented upon are Hevajra Tantra, part I, chapter viii, verses 39-42.71 Padma-dkar-po concludes this section with the comment: "So at the time of realization (rtogs

THE POLEMICIST 51

pa), we do not maintain ('dod pa) any dharma at all other than rnahiimudrii." 72

The next quote, fromJfianakIrti's Tattviivatiira (found in the Peking Tanjur, vol. 81, p. 126.4.3), includes several sentences which are essential to the discussion. For instance: "Then just to gain competence [ or mastery] in that (de lagoms pa nyid) is to complete perfectly all results without exception. Thus this, ,just the cultivation of n?n-dual mah~mud:ii, [as that] which :brings about all results without exceptIOn, IS a common possession of all yogins." 73

Sa-palJ is against the notion that certain teachings or practices being taught as "dkar po chig thub" can be self-sufficient causes for bringing about Buddhahood, or that, in general, any

:single meditative or religious practice can claim to be in and of itself the sufficient cause for Buddhahood. Wherever the scriptures teach a single practice as being self-sufficient in effecting complete liberation, he says this is to be taken as a statement of provisional meaning or of special or 'hidden intent. 74

Throughout, his intention is to stress the necessity for manifold skillful means (thabs) in addition to insight into silnyatii, and to affirm that this was the definitive meaning taught by the Buddha. 75 The second step of his discussion I have already described, namely his attempt to point out the self-contradiction implicit in first terming a practice "self-sufficient" (chig thub) and then integrating it into a general system of practice in which other preparatory, main and concluding factors are said to be necessary. But before that, Sa-palJ presents the difficulty that such a notion of causal self-sufficiency is incompatible with accepted notions of causation, and by this reasoning implies that a single practice cannot be a self-sufficient soteriological means. In presenting Padma-dkar-po's reply, B. correctly understands the main point at issue, but goes on (p. 38) to add the commentary: "In any case, these arguments of Sa-skya PalJQ.ita are irrelevant, since we are not talking about causation in a technical sense." B. here is right, at least technically speaking, if he means to say that ordinary causation is held not to function at the very moment of the attainrnent of Buddhahood, the moment bridging the conditioned caus,es and the unconditioned fruit. Yet Sa-palJ apparently considered his remarks to have soteriological relevance because


. some people did think that a single simple practice was capabl literally of causing in and of itself the full realization of BUd~ dhahood, including the three kayas.

According to the sDom gsum rab ·dbye commentator Gorams-pa (ta 133b.3), the people who maintained this opinion included Zhang Tshal-pa et al., and indeed the latter taught that all the qualities of Buddhahood are realized instantane_ ously and simultaneously when one reaches the realization of the nature of mind (as mahiimudrii) through the gcig-car individual's method. Go-rams-pa's understanding was that such masters had taught that by means of meditatively cultivating insight into siinyatii alone, the so-called "White Self-sufficient Simple," the three kay as will arise. 76 The great adept Zhang Tshal-pa would probably have replied that his method was not really singular and that it incorporated both method and wisdom (he spoke against "emptiness devoid of skillful method and discriminative understanding" [thabs shes bral ba'i stong nyid] on p. 27a.3). He may have also discounted the importance of the term dkar po chig thub and its implications. He was not overly concerned with words, terms or concepts, and had no great love for the fine distinctions of the scholiast or logician (see his treatise, pp. 8b and 34a.5). Sa-paJ) by contrast, was clearly convinced of the importance of the basic doctrinal notions and terms as well as their logical and philosophical implications,77 and he was concerned to what extent a method such as Zhang Tshal-pa's could claim to include skillful means (upaya: thabs) since for him it seemed to be a one-sided cultivation of insight into emptiness. Later in the sDom gsum rab dbye (p. 315.4.4 = na 33b.4) he returns to the same basic point, asserting that some people considered [the realization of the ultimate as] the mere absence of discursive elaborations (spros bral rkyang pa) to be a dkar po chig thub. This too, in Sa-pa1J.'s opinion, will not suffice for bringing about the attainment of Buddhahood.

There can be no doubt that some early masters of the Mahamudra tradition made very special if not radical claillls for their doctrine. Assertions of its "self-sufficiency" (chig thub) or "all-at -once or instantaneous decisiveness" (chig chod)1a fo~ instance were made more than once by Zhang Tshal-pa, and one pair of lines to this effect attracted the attention of Sa-paIj

THE POLEMICIST 53

'so much that he repeated them in his Thub paJi dgongs gsal ,(tha 52b.2): "Th~ i~nor~nt one. errs who considers. t~e stages fand paths [as eXlstmgJ m the mstantaneously decIsIve mahii'mudrii."79 GQ-rams-pa (ta l40b.5) correctly attributes these 'lines to Zhang Tshal-pa. Thu'u-bkwan does the same, quoting more of the passage (with slightly different readings) and inter

'preting it as relegating to the level of erroneous and non-definitive interpretation the alternative bKa' -brgyud -pa teaching that the systematization of the Mahamudra path according to the four yogas (mal Jbyor bzhi) entails the gradual passing though the stages and paths.8o These lines are also quoted by bKra-shis-rnam-rgyaI81 and Padma-dkar-po.82 The same lines can indeed be located in Zhang Tshal-pa's Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug treatise,83 though I present these references mainly for the convenience of anyone who would like to take this up in rnore detail in the future. 84

;lnteresting Comparisons

,One of the most interesting sections of the article is where B. compares the views of Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen and Padma-dkarpo (p. 41fI). But the author cannot rest content with presenting important similarities and differences. Evidently he wishes to prove his thesis (D-2) that Sa-pal) was not working with any clear conception of the Hwa-shang's views, though one of his immediate aims is to show that Sa-pal)'s linkage of an 8thcentury Chinese doctrine with that of certain 12th-century bKa'-brgyud-pa masters was empty invective in which Sa-pal) distorted the Hwa-shang's views. B. believes he can show this by pointing out any difference at all between, on the one hand, the opinions of the 16th-century Padma-dkar-po and, on the other hand, the ancient Chinese and Tibetan materials on Moho-yen as retrieved from Tun-huang and investigated and translated by modern scholars.85 In his own words (p. 45):

... This kind of more detailed comparison really does show up the hollowness and emptiness of Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita's invective. Because Sa-skya PaI).Q.ita has not taken any trouble to make clear in exactly what ways the mahiimudrii is like the Chinese or· the H va-shang view, he can be refuted by pointing to any difference one can find; ...


. His reasoning seems to be that Sa-pal.l, by not specifyin which points of the two "dkar po chig thub" traditio~s are th~ same, has equated them completely, and that thIS can b shown to be erroneous by finding any difference at all betwee~ the Mahamudra views ofPadma-dkar-po and the views oCMo_ ho-yen found in the Tun-Huang documents.

I must admit that I am having some difficulty following the line of argumentation at this point, and I am no less disoriented when I read to the end of the sentence just quoted: " ... he [Sa-pal.lJ can be refuted by pointing to any difference. one can find; and of course Padma-dkar-po has no difficultyin finding important and substantial differences." Up until now I and I take it the majority ofreaders with me, had assumed thai it was B. who was making comparisons and finding differences between what Padma-dkar-po said and what recent research on the ancient documents ca,n tell us. Now why is Padma-dkar-po himself popping up here? Will it be differences which Padmadkar-po points out between his understanding of the Hwashang and his understanding of the bKa'-brgyud-pa that will serve to "refute" Sa-pal.l? In a more general way, too, I am not clear about the role Padma-dkar-po is supposed to be playing here. Are his views in some respect essential, or would anyearlier or later bKa' -brgyud-pa master do just as well? Or are w~ to think that Padma-dkar-po, as spokesman for "the bKa'brgyud-pas," maintained exactly the same opinions as the masters such as Zhang Tshal-pa who lived four centuries before? Surely a comparison of these two different sets of mate~ rials (Padma-dkar-po and translated excerpts from Tun~ Huang documents) cannot really prove anything about whether Sa-pal.l misinterpreted or consciously misused his·· sources. (Incidentally, I cannot find any precise mention.of which works or passages in Padma-dkar-po's writings B. used for this "comparison," and it would have been useful to hav~ the citations in order to be able to check what Padma-dkarcp() said in the original.)

I wonder whether B. can really be demanding more of Sapal.l than that he did the best he could within his own cultural context, in his own historical period, and using the documents available to him. Is B. trying to prove the hollowness of Sa" pal.l's "invective" by using the latest results of modern scholars.

THE POLEMICIST 55

who have access to the ancient Tibetan and Chinese docu-ments from Tun-huang? Surely to do so would be unrealistic and inappropriate.

. When it comes to his main authority, Padma-dkar-po, B. is more charitable. On p. 46 he writes that though Padmadkar-po is perhaps not completely unbiased (i.e., from a West-ern scholarly standpoint), "within the Tibetan cultural context he was completely successful" (italics mine). Though indeed, " ... we have no need to take everything he says at its face value." But this dual-level scheme of standards or criteria for .some reason does not apply to Sa-pal)..

The premise underlying B.'s reasoning in the above passage is that Sa-pal). has complete(y identified the mahiimudrii with the Hwa-shang view and has not specified in what way he takes the Hwa-shang's doctrine and later dkar po chig thub notion to be alike. B. was led to this because he did not understand Sa-pal).'s conception of dkar po chig thub and thus could not make out what essential elements were in Sa-pal).'s view shared between the two traditions. But Sa-pal). has made clear what common soteriological error in his opinion unites the two a.s dkar po chig thub: namely, the notion that a non-conceptual realization of the nature of mind is in and of itself sufficient to bring about the attainment of Buddha hood.

Perhaps B.'s understandings have been influenced by Padma-dkar-po's argumentation, which likewise attempts to refute a "complete" identification. But actually Sa-pal). does not always identify the two traditions down to the last detail. He states in one place that the Tibetan" dkar po chig thub" teach-: ing, which he terms a "present-day Mahamudra" is "for the most part" or "to a large extent" (phal cher) a Chinese religious tradition. He has said this in so many words in the sDom gsum rab dbye at the end of the passage criticizing the dkar po chig thub notion and summarizing the bSam-yas debate: 86

da lta'i phyag rgya chen po nil I phal cher rgya nag chas lugs yin I 187

When he criticizes the Tibetan dkar po chig thub elsewhere, he specifies certain doctrines or instructions known to be taught in- the Dwags-po bka' -brgyud-pa in connection with their


Mahamudra teachings; in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal (50b.2) h " specifies, for instance, the three "delaying diversions" or "de~ viations" (gol sa), the four "occasions of lapsing" (shor sa) and the simile of spinning the Brahmin's sacred cord. He states for example (52a.4). that the latter simile is like the Hwa-shang's simile of the eagle or garurja (khyung) in the traditional aCCOunt. he does not assert that the two doctrines were formulated i~ exactly the same ways.

Nevertheless, insofar as it cites historical precedent, Sa~ paJ).'s argument has no force unless he is identifying the two doctrines at least in their essential details. At one point in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal (SOb.S) he says: "This is to follow (rjes su 'brang ba) the White Self-sufficient Simple of China" (Hi rgya nag gi dkar po chig thub kyi rjes su 'brang ba yin . .. ). Then as a, reason showing that this doctrine contradicts the sutras and tantras and is unacceptable when examined by reasoning, he states (Sla.3): "[And it is unacceptable] because it is not even slightly different from the Chinese master's White Self-; sufficient Simple" (rgya nag mkhan po'i dkar po chig thub dang~ khyad par cung zad med pa'i phyir ro /).88 By identifying it in this way with a doctrine already refuted by Kamalaslla, Sa-pat;l\ indeed cites a historical precedent to give his argument addi-: tional force. The implication he wants to draw is that no> further refutation of the doctrine is really needed, since it had, already been authoritatively repudiated and officially rejected.~ But by not qualifying his statement with something like "in its: basic doctrine" and thus seemingly identifying the two doc~': trines completely in this passage, Sa-paJ). has strictly speaking 1 phrased his reason too strongly and has contradicted his earj'~ lier qualified statements. Perhaps he did this in order to give(;; his argument added rhetorical impact, or maybe it was just an:. oversight. In any case this was not mere rhetoric-he did con-'T sider the two traditions to share one and the same fundamental,'! error, namely the teaching that to realize the nature of mind) through non-conceptualization suffices to bring about Buddha-,~ hood. 89 "

THE POLEMICIST 57

(Scholasticism versus Direct Experience

In the next paragraph of the article (p. 45) B. clarifies more about his attitude toward Sa-paI,l. He finds something to be fundamentally objectionable about the variety of Tibetan :Buddhism which he takes to be "represented by Sa-skya PaI.H;lita-thoroughly scholastic, and considering only the \graded path ... ," and he wants in particular to warn contemporary scholars not to repeat "the very mistakes of Sa-skya Pal).c;lita," those errors being to identify Tibetan Buddhism

twholly with the "scholastic tendencies" in Indian Buddhism and to link any elements stressing "direct experience" with .;China. , . I really wonder whether such a condemnatory view of Sa.pal). as "thoroughly scholastic, and considering only the Sgraded path" is justified in B.'s own thinking. To turn the . tables, in what way is Padma-dkar-poless "thoroughly scholasttic" than Sa-paI,l? Is it a question of method or of doctrine? Padma-dkar-po can be quite scholastic in his own method, and ;B. himself (p. 57)-whose own work too is seldom if ever :unscholastic-extols the superiority of Padma-dkar-po's Phyag . chen rgyal ba'i gan mdzod over the Phyag chen zla zer of Dwags-po (or sGam-po-pa) bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal:90

Valuable though it is, the Zla-zer is merely a compendium of aphorisms and man-ngag. The Gan-mdzod is a work of reconstruction; that is, it provides an articulated structure, within which the mass of traditional details can be seen as intelligibly ordered .

. If we try to determine what analytical methods Padma-dkarpo uses to give his material its intelligible order, what do we find if not the common scholastic technique which he shares to a great extent with Sa-paI,l? As a "scholastic" (mtshan nyid pa) philosopher Padma-dkar-po automatically stands somewhere ;in the wider Sa-skya/ gSang-phu tradition. 91 In his study of the :logical and epistemological theories ·of DharmakIrti's Pramii(T}aviirttika, for instance, he was a recipient of a lineage which ihad been transmitted to all of Tibet by Sa-skya PaI,lc;litahim~self. (Padma:-dkar-po acknowledges this graciously in his writ-


ings and refers to Sa-pal). on occasion with words of highest respect and honor, praising him as "the bodily manifestation [sprul pa'i sku] of the Bodhisattva Manjusrl."92) In other Words Padma-dkar-po had received some of the dialectical and philosophical tools he used for answering the old criticisms of Sa-pal). from the very tradition of Sa-pal) as transmitted by later similarly minded scholars such as Bu-ston of the 14th centuryor Rong-ston of the 15th.93 Why is Padma-dkar-po honored with the designation "kun-mkhyen" ("omniscient one") within his tradition if not largely in recognition of his great· scholastic achievements? Why did he write so many scholastic treatises, and why are many of them still used as scholastic manuals in the traditional seminaries, if the scholastic method is basically bad? (And despite Padma-dkar-po's difficult style, we still might well wonder whether it is not precisely the scholastic superiority ofPadma-dkar-po's penetrating analyses that recommends them to a Western scholar such as B. over those of many other bKa'-brgyud-pa writers.)

I can only conclude that B. is not against the scholastic method itself, but only against something he considers as bad or lopsided scholasticism. He takes Sa-pal). to be "thoroughly scholastic" and to consider "only the graded path." But this too perhaps shows merely a basic doctrinal preconception or bias, and in any case it cannot be established from a reading of Sa~ pal).'s biographies or from his own writings. Sa-pal). himself was of course very much concerned with gaining "direct experience" and to that end he was a highly accomplished practicer oftantric meditation. 94 It would be strange indeed if even this does not qualify as direct experience simply because· it was not the doctrine followed by the gcig car ba individuals of the Mahamudra.

The impression I sometimes get is that B. is not addressing the specifics of what Sa-pal). actually taught or practiced, but. is instead attacking a straw man, in this case making Sa-pal). the Tibetan prototype for the popular image of the fastidious, persnickety par;r/.ita or the hair-splitting and over-intellectual but contemplatively unaccomplished Geshe, a stock character who is typically made the butt of dismissive criticisms in certain bKa' -brgyud-pa writings as well as in the related popular culture. But there'is much more at stake here than just the

THE POLEMICIST 59

rejection of a popular stereotype or the condemnation of scholastic "gradualism" in favor of "simultaneist" direct meditative experience. Both sides of the conflict or tension alluded to were embodied for instance in the person of Pad madkar-po, and both have been present in the bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition since the time of rJe sGam-po-pa himself, for it was he who first tried in that Tibetan order to integrate the disciplines of monasticism and scholasticism (stemming primarily from the bKa' -gdams-pa order) with the ascetic practices and transcending yogic insights of the anchorite. 95

A Suggestion for Modern Researchers: Trace Each Doctrine

B. in his next paragraph (p. 46) sets forth the program he hopes will help modern researchers avoid "the very mistakes of Sa-skya Par:l(;iita." But in doing so, he could hardly have stated better Sa-pal).'s own preferred procedure: "Really, there is no alternative for asking, separately for each system of doctrine or doctrinal notion found in the Tibetan literature: did this come from India? did it come from China? or is it a Tibetan innovation?" In leading his contemporaries to face up to these same critically framed questions, Sa-pal). was unusual in his day. Behind Sa-pal).'s inquiry lies the old official decision (accepted also by Padma-dkar-po) that for the Tibetans, India should be counted as the one valid origin for Buddhist doctrines. The fundamental point that B. seems to miss throughout is that Sapal). does in fact accept as genuine the original bKa'-brgyud-pa doctrines which are based on the teachings of Indian masters such as Naropa and MaitrIpada, and which were transmitted from them through such recognized masters as Mar-pa the translator and his greatest disciple Mi-Ia ras-pa. He is not launched upon a full-scale rejection of bKa' -brgyud-pa doctrines in general or of every teaching on Mahamudra in particular. What Sa-pal). doubts is whether certain teachings or interpretations that gained later popularity can indeed be traced back to Naropa, for instance, or were even taught in the Tibetan tradition until sometime after Mar-pa or Mi-la raspa. If these specific teachings did not accord with the widely recognized doctrines of Indian Buddhism, i.e., if they seemed to be later Tibetan innovations or introductions from some


unknown source, then according to Sa-pal). they deserved cri(_ cal investigation. 96 For Sa-pal)., the Mahamudra as dkar po chi~ thub-with its similar name and certain strong doctrinal and terminological reserr:blances to the H,:~-shang's teachings as they were portrayed III some of the tradltIOnal sources available to him-was one such case. Can we really fault then either Sapal).'smethod or, within their own cultural context, even his conclusions ?97

As B. acknowledges, Padma-dkar-po himself had the intention of proving the Indian origin of his tradition. Like Sa-pan he was not "unbiased" in this regard. But with all due respe~~ to Padma-dkar-po's achievements, I cannot follow B. (p. 46) when he gives the impression that Padma-dkar-po was completely successful within the Tibetan cultural context in establishing his views on the main historical or doctrinal points in question to everyone's satisfaction. In fact he did not have the last word on these subjects in his Phyag chen rgyal ba'i gan mdzod; in due course theSa-skya-pa scholar Mang-thos Klu-sgrubrgya-mtsho (1523-1596) replied to Padma-dkar-po's remarks, arid this led to still more discussion. 98 Moreover it is a bit misleading to say that Padma-dkar-po established once and for all that the bKa'-brgyud-pa doctrines were not "merely Tibetan or Chinese inventions," for that was never really in question. Sa-pal). for one did not doubt the authentic Indian origins of such fundamental bKa' -brgyud-pa doctrines as the Six Dharmas cif Naropa (Na ro chos drug) that had been transmitted by Mar-pa and Mi-la. 99

A Common dKar po chig thub

In his own way even B. asserts indirectly that the bKa'brgyud-pas accept a dkar po chig thub doctrine that can be found also in the very writings of the historical Mo-ho-yen or his school (though of course without positing a historical connection between them). B. (p. 45) freely accepts the existence of . important doctrinal parallels between the two traditions, and he points out as a key point acceptable to Mo-ho-yen (who said the following) and "the bKa'-brgyud-pas" (as represented by his understanding of Padma-dkar-po):

THE POLEMICIST 61

... If concepts arise, one should not think anywhere of being or non-being, purity or impurity, emptiness or the absence thereof, etc. One does not think of non-thinking either. . .. But if one were to experience non-examination and does not act according to these concepts, or accept them or become attached to them, then every instant of mind is liberated at every moment. IOO

As B. has stated already III connection with one sense of mahiimudrii (p. 32):

... The realization of mahamudra as the great seal means just letting the mind rest in its experiencing without becoming attached to the labelling concepts which arise in the course of experience ... . dKar-po chig-thub is another way of expressing this same idea.

But in reading the article one can almost fail to notice this point, for it is certainly not stressed. (I t is also open to question whether traditional bKa'-brgyud-pas would agree here.)

Sa-pal). himself probably would not have said that such a meditational practice could play no role in the Buddhist path. But he would have wanted to clarify the precise contribution to the attainment of Buddhahood that such a practice could claim to make. In the meantime he would be in agreement with Padma-dkar-po (as portrayed by Broido) in totally rejecting such claims as (pp. 42-43):

A. If one sees conceptions as no conceptions, one sees the Tathagata. To understand this single thought is in itself the greatest merit, surpassing by far all the merits that one could obtain by cultivating good dharmas .... 101

And (p. 43):

G. When conceptualizations are given up, there is an automatic attainment of all virtues .102

Sa-pal). considered the "self-sufficient simple method" (dkar po chig thub) doctrines, both Tibetan and Chinese (as portrayed in his sources), to be making these or similar claims. The paral~


leIs become allthe more obvious when one substitutes "under_ standing the nature of mind through non-conceptualization" for the phrases "seeing conceptions as no conceptions" or "giving up conceptualizations." Broido therefore overstates the case when he says (p. 31): "There is not the slightest reason to think that what is described by Zhang Tshal-pa in this famous work has anyth~,ng .to ~o wit? quietism or the views~fHo-shang Mo-ho-yen.,. (ItalIcs mme). Zhang Tshal-pa hImself indicates his own awareness that this doctrine might easily be (mis) understood as a one-sided emphasis on the contempla_ tion of the highest reality to the exclusion of other standard religious practices, or as a denial or abrogation of the normal moral imperatives. This is shown for instance by the final lines of the dKar po chig thub chapter (31 b.5), where he says as a sort of corrective that until the liberating insight is gained, there indeed does exist the normal path of practice. On the other hand he teaches that once the mahiimudra insight into non-duality has been attained by the gcig-car individual, then the practitioner should allow himself or herself to act ad libitum, not thinking "This is to be done and this is not to be done." 103

Moreover, to find something the least bit similar with the Ho-shang's views, one merely needs to compare statement G. of the Ho-shang quoted above with the opening verse of Zhang Tshal-pa's dKar po chig thub chapter. 104 There are other striking similarities or parallels too, such as the passage of Mo-ho-yen's writings devoted to showing how the single practice of nondiscrimination brings all six or ten perfections to completion. 105

B. curiously enough has failed to mention even the occurrence of the "panacea" or "self-sufficient single medicine" notions in Mo-ho-yen's writings, though any comparison must take this into account. 106 It is probably also worth noting that Zhang Tshal-pa in his chapter on the "Fruit" ('Bras bu'i le'u, the tenth chapter, p. 104 = 28b) spoke approvingly of the hawk's or eagle's (khra) sudden swoop from the sky to seize a fruit as like the gcig-car individual's procedure for coming to see the dharmakaya, in contrast to the monkey's laborious limb-by-limb ascent from below. 107 The example of the sudden descent of the similar khyung bird is of course attributed to Mo-ho-yen and criticized in the account Sa-par; gives of the bSam-yas debate in the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal (49b.2) based on older

THE POLEMICIST 63

Tibetan materials (it is found in the alternative sBa bzhed tradition), and it may have been a Tibetan adaptation or extension of a bird simile that Mo-ho-yen himself used for the cig-car realization. lOB

Final Arguments

After trying to take into account the new sources mentioned in van der Kuijp's note, B. marshals his final arguments (pp. 49-50). As before, the goal is to prove something concerning Saskya PaJj.<;lita, namely that it was unjustified for Sa-pal). t6 drag Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen into the discussion of the Tibetan dkar po chig thub. B. attempts to demonstrate this by enumerating and then exhausting all logical possibilities, viz. by showing that the above is true whether (a) the Chinese used the term similarly to the bKa'-brgyud-pas, or (b) whether they used it differently. But as previously, he overlooks the fact that whether Sa-pal).'s criticisms "stand convicted of polemic" 109 can only be decided by establishing that he doctored or twisted the sources available to him in order to suit his own sectarian ends. One would have to show that he misinterpreted or misused his sources, or that his conclusions were unreasonable given what he could or should have known on the subject. But instead, B. pursues the investigation on a different level, using sources that could not prove anything regarding what materials Sapal). used or whether he used them in good faith.

In other words, though he thinks he is establishing Sapal).'s guilt of polemical invective, B. is actl,lally trying just to prove that Sa-pal). was historically wrong, thus combining and confusing two very distinct things. What B. apparently fails to see is that one can be innocent of malicious, unjustified criticism and still be historically wrong. It is also .conceivable that a person be accidentally correct about the historical facts and at the same time be guilty of unprincipled polemic (i.e., if the available sources had to be twisted to reach the conclusion that promoted the desired sectarian end). But he evidently believes that there is a necessary connection here between historical correctness and non-polemicizing, and between historical error and unjustified controversy. Hence his unabated concern with showing the error of Sa-pal). and his overlooking the significance of the sources mentioned by van der Kuijp.


Even the historic~l facts are not as cut and dried as they are portrayed. B. claIms (p. 50, a) to have shown decisively that the Tibetan use of the term dkar pa chig thub "does not apply directly to the doctrines of Mo-ho-yen." Yet until he has studied and described in more detail the relevant teachings by Zhang Tshal-pa and Mo-ho-yen, he will not have anything firm to compare and cannot exclude the possible existence of important similarities. He has also not established convinc_ ingly his blanket statements that Zhang Tshal-pa's dkar po chig thub was strictly non-Vajrayana or that it consists "of perfectly orthodox and innocuous limitation principles relating to the paths, stages, and paramitas .... " On p. 35 he has already informed us that (according to Padma-dkar-po) in contrast to the general non-Mantrayana doctrine of the Hwa-shang, "the Indian cig-car-ba doctrine of nlopa [and] Naropa ... is a va-jrayana doctrine." Was Zhang Tshal-pa's doctrine in fact different from this one? In his own treatise Zhang Tshal-pa makes it plain that the special method of the cig-car-ba that he teaches belongs neither to the usual Paramita nor the usual Tantra paths, transcending as it were both (in his view) essentially rim-gyis-pa methods.1l0 After summarizing the rim-gyis-pa paths in chapter 4, Zhang Tshal-pa then (11 b.3) introduces the practice of the cig-car-ba individual, showing it in actual practice to include nevertheless certain Mahayana and Mantrayana elements:

The simultaneist (cig-char-ba) individual should gratify a lineage-possessing guru with his body, life, and whatever things he has. Possessing abhi{eka 111 or "spiritual impelling force" (byin brlabs), propelled by bodhicitta, and possessing the yoga of [oneself as] the deity, from the very beginning one should cultivate the definitive meaning, mahiimudrii. The guru who possesses the elixir of realization will introduce one to the gnosis one possesses, like a treasure in the palm of one's hands, and though there is nothing to be meditatively cultivated and nothing to do the cultivating, one should not be distracted from the non-cultivated.ll2

The main subject of Zhang Tshal-pa's treatise is of course just this special path, which is "the ultimate of profound paths" (lam zab mthar thug). The dKar po chig thub tu bstan pa chapter in

THE POLEMICIST 65

_ particular concerns itself with showing, in the context of spiritual fruition, that this secref 13 and profound path is a

-singly and instantaneously effective· complete spiritual -"cure." 114

The only way to understand Zhang Tshal-pa's doctrines in ,a more complete and definitive way is to investigate Zhang's life and writings systematically.115 The mere fact of the existence of a "White Self-sufficient Simple" (dkar po cftig thub) notion among the mid- or late-12th-century bKa'-brgyud-pa teachings or the mere fact of Zhang Tshal-pa's studies with a certain early Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud-pa master does not prove anything definite about the origin of the notion or about his own interpretations or uses of it. Reasoning like the following does not lead very far: 116

The White Panacea is in the. mainstream of the Kagyudpa tradition. Zhang was a disciple of sGom-pa, who was a disciple of sGampo-pa. Therefore Zhang stands squarely in a lineage going back to the Indian siddhas. Therefore the White Panacea belongs to the second diffusion of Buddhism, whereas Chinese influence was felt in the first diffusion, and- the White Panacea's determinable antecedents are Indian, not Chinese. ,

Just how "squarely" Zhang stands in the lineage remains to be proved, and it begs the question to assume from the outset that the teachings he received or developed on this point derived purely from the Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition, which in turn is assumed by definition to be completely gSar-ma-pa and purely Indian in origin. ll7 The whole thing could have been expressed better in a single descriptive sentence: "The notion of a 'self-sufficient white simple' (dkar po chig thub) was employed in Tibet most notably by the master Zhang Tshal-pa, one of whose basic doctrinal affiliations lay with the Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud-pas (a gSar-ma-pa or New-Translation-Era school), having received Mahamudra teachings from sCompa Tshul-khrims-snying-po (1116-1169), the nephew and successor of sCam-po-pa whose lineages are held to go back to Indian siddhas." Of course nothing firm can be inferred from

66 jIABS VOL. 13 NO.2

this information alone about Zhang Tshal-pa's particular interpretations of the notion of a soteriological or spiritual selfsufficient (chig thub) factor or even, strictlY' speaking, where it ultimately originated or what influenced his formulation ofit.lIB

I doubt that anybody would nowadays reject out of hand the possible ultimate origin of this or closely related doctrines within the Indian siddha movement. But exactly how it was transmitted to Tibet and how it was subsequently developed and interpreted remain unclear. Was the kernel an Indian notion which was extensively recast or reformulated some generations after its arrival in Tibet? If so, what influenced its rein~ terpretation, and was it accepted and understood in the same way by all later bKa' -brgyud-pa masters? The more radical interpretations of a self-sufficient and simple (chig thub) soteriology and the related notion of the gcig-car-ba)s all-at-once or instantaneous (chig chad) realization not entailing the passing gradually through the paths and stages, for instance, seem not to have been taught so unilaterally by every later "mainstream" bKa-brgyud-pa master. 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rtenmgon-po (1143-1217), for instance, apparently denied that the progressive succession through the ten stages could be circumvented or that all qualities of Buddhahood could be attained instantaneously by the yogin who realizes the nature of mind. As the latter taught in the thirteenth and fourteenth main points of his dGongs gcig doctrine: "all paths are traversed through the ten stages" (lam thams cad sa bcus bgrod) and "all paths are entered gradually" (lam thams cad rim gyis Jug).lI9 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, an authoritative l7thcentury commentator of the 'Bri-gung-pa, explained (II 45 = 23aA):

But as for what is maintained by the Mahamudra and rDzogspa-chen-po, i.e., that Buddhahood is attained by an instantaneous realization: if there were a path apart from the two-Sutra and Mantra-and which is other than [a matter of relative] speed as in the previous example [in which the very fast gradual path was merely designated as "instantaneous,"] this would entail a path which was not taught by the Buddha. Consequently the basic doctrine of such a path is difficult to be known by the mind. Therefore the attainment of perfect Bud-

THE POLEMICIST 67

dhahood is achieved through the force of bringing to completion of the two preparatory assemblages [which participate in the working] of moral cause and result. 120

But, as seen above, Zhang Tshal-pa maintained the radical simultaneist and instantaneous approach (identified here by Rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa as characteristic of the Mahamudra and r Dzogs-chen), and he referred disparagingly to the opposing notion of gradual realization with the words: "The ignorant one errs who considers the stages and paths [as existing] in the instantaneously decisive Mahamudra.12P'

Until we know our way safely through the tributaries and sometimes divergent side channels of the key bKa' -brgyud-pa ma£ters' teachings, it is thus dangerous to launch every controversial doctrinal notion immediately into the still uncharted "mainstream." For the present, each teacher or doctrine needs to be studied in his or its own right, especially in a school such as this which otherwise shows a fair number of diverging doctrinal interpretations. It is true that there is no alternative to asking, separately for each system of doctrine or doctrinal notion found in the Tibetan literature: did this come from India? did it come from China? or is it a Tibetan innovation? And having asked ourselves these questions, there is also no alternative but to admit that it is often neither easy nor uncomplicated to give satisfactory answers. The only starting point is carefully to study and describe the doctrine or notion in question in terms of its own system, preferably as it appears within the writings of a single early authoritative master or of a closely linked school. In the present case the notion or notions of a selfsufficient simple spiritual factor or method (dkar po chig thub) need to be understood as they were set forth by Zhang Tshalpa and his tradition, and then they should be traced back to sGam-po-pa and carefully and systematically placed within the framework of the latter's Mahamudra teachings. Having described this in detail (and having indicated any important differences of interpretation between those two that may have existed), one could then usefully try to go on to determine how sGam-po-pa reached his own special doctrinal formulations, what he based them on, and what elements, if any, could be justly called his own special emphases or even his "innova-


tions."122 Only then will we be in a better position to under_ stand such traditional statements about the sources of Or influences on his teachings as the following by Thu'u-bkwan Chos-kyi-nyi-ma:

Regarding the matchless Dwags-po rin-po-che's' [i.e., sGampo-pa's] composition of treatises proving the existence of the [Buddha's] teaching of emptiness in the piiramitii tradition to be Mahamudra by quoting many sutra quotations, some have said: "Such words of the sutras do not appear in the canon of the Translated Word (bka' Jgyur)." Nevertheless [regarding this] my omniscient guru has said: "Those sutras are found within the canon of the Translated Word translated into Chinese. And though they are not worded in exactly identical ways, [passages with] the same sense can be seen also in some other sutras translated into Tibetan, such as the [sutra] Sangs rgyas mngon sum du bzhugs paJi mdo, which is now [available?] .123

Or the statement ofbKra-shis-rnam-rgyal in his Phyag chen da baJi Jod zer: 124

Although in the Practice Lineage down to the great Reverend [Mi-Ia] they mainly cultivated in meditation the instructions of the Mantrayana, and taught the practical instructions on the Mahamudra appropriately at the times of [instructions on] Inner Heat and Luminous Awareness, nevertheless that Lord sGam-po-pa, motivated by unlimited compassion, singled out and brought to the fore this instruction of the Essential Sense, the Mahamudra, in order that all disciples-high and lowcould easily realize [it]. And by [his] so teaching it, [this Mahamudra instruction] increased very much and became widespread, and it became the sole path used by all people of fortunate endowments.

As long as a Tibetan school maintains the primacy of received tradition-i.e., as long as the primary duty of a religious teacher is held to be the faithful realization, transmitting and defending of received tradition-for so long will the question of authentic, historically demonstrable Indian origins remain very important for its followers. But if, on the other hand, the tradition derives from a new revelation or major doctrinal development, or if it affirms in an iconoclastic spirit the

THE POLEMICIST 69

primacy of direct experience, then of course a different approach to the questions of "origins" and "traditionalism" may also be jlJ.stifiable for it. One of the great interests of the bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition is how its masters attempted in different ways to reach their own balance between the claims of received tradition and immediate experience, though of course a tension between these two poles can also be found to greater or lesser degrees in all the Tibetan schools and indeed probably among all living religious traditions.

Conclusions

No tradition-minded follower of the Dwags-po bKa'-brgyudpa can be blamed for wanting to show that the historical thesis of Sa-pa~-namely, that there was a historical connection between the Hwa-shang Mo-ho-yen's doctrine and the 12thcentury Mahamudra's gcig-car-ba teachings through the reading of older texts recovered from caches l25-was wrong, or at least for trying to show that it cannot be directly substantiated by the available evidence. But to exclude this possibility once and 30r all or to establish definitively the origins of the Mahamudra simultaneist doctrine will require a much more detailed knowledge of the history of Tibetan Buddhism from the 9th through the 12th centuries (and of its interactions with Indian and Chinese Buddhism) than what we are likely to possess for some time.126 Therefore, at present the most fruitful approach for illuminating this problem will probably be a comparative one, an attempt to describe and gauge the most salient similarities and differences between the main traditions involved. One would have to begin by identifying and describing the key terms and doctrines called into question and then tracing them (and other closely related terms, examples, citations and doctrinal formulations) in all the pertinent writings that are available, including if possible even texts from early Tibetan traditions whose possible roles as intermediaries in the transmission have yet to be clarified or excluded. The broader thematic discussions and typological comparisons must be based at every step upon a careful and accurate philological and historical treatment of the terms and texts.


But if, on the other hand, the main objective is to demon_ s~rate something about how Sa-pal). himself reached his conclu_ sions or what motivated his writings, this would entail a Somewhat different choice of materials. To establish how Sa-pan (rightly or wrongly) understood the simple and self-sufficient (chig thub) soteriology ascribed to the 8th-century Chinese master Mo-ho-yen or to disprove any links between whatever Sapal). should have understood and the "White Self-sufficient Simple" (dkar po chig thub) notion of certain 12th-century bKa'brgyud-pas, the researcher will have to examine in detail the sources immediately bearing on this. The only way to proceed here, even if the sole motive is to "refute" -Sa-pal)., would be to go through the relevant passages in Sa-pal).'s works and the early historical sources he cites or may have used, and to compare them with what the great early bKa'-brgyud-pa masters such as sGam-po-pa and Zhang Tshal-pa said on this and closely related subjects. Any other method could not yield satisfactory results.

These historical and doctrinal problems have been discussed within the Tibetan tradition for generations, and it is unlikely that foreign scholars will suddenly stumble upon easy solutions to them. Moreover, it has to be admitted that from the point of view of modern scholarship, both Sa-skya Pal).<;lita and Padma-dkar-po have sometimes oversimplified things in the course of their critical discussions. Nevertheless, their criticisms can be very useful for modern scholars if used judiciously, for they isolate and highlight many of the key concepts and doctrinal issues that were considered essential but that were interpreted differently by the different schools and masters. If used incautiously, however, such writings can misinform the reader because they seldom show the complete context of a controversial remark or notion, and therefore without additional confirmation from the writings of the criticized tradition itself they should never be trusted unconditionally as telling the whole story.

Obviously such controversial writings can be dangerous in the hands of any scholar who is not intimately familiar with both traditions or who is not scrupulously trying to avoid using them one-sidedly. But the intrinsic interest and importance of the polemical treatises are so great that modern scholars cannot simply shun these works like some sort of Pandora's box.

THE POLEMICIST 71

Regardless of the formidable difficulties they entail and despite the new controversies they may occasionally provoke, such writings when carefully studied can also reveal like nothing else the multifaceted complexity and diverse richness that have always been characteristic of Tibetan Buddhism.

Notes

1. B. Barton, Select. (1849), p. 63, as quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary under the entry "polemical." A galenical is a remedy such as the 2ndcentury Greek physician Galen prescribed, e.g., a vegetable simple.

2. For a survey of some of these, see D. Jackson (1983). 3. R. Jackson (1982), van der Kuijp (1986), and Broido (1987). A more

recent discussion of several of the same P9ints is found in the recent book of Karmay (1988), pp. 197-200. The first brief discussion of the dkar po chig thub controversy in Western scholarship was given by Stein (197·1), a recent English translation of which has also appeared. See now Stein (1987), p. 58, n. 15. See also D. Seyfort Ruegg (1989), which appeared too late to be cited in detail below, but which contains many relevant discussions.

4. In later publications I hope to study in more detail the aims and methods of Sa-pal)-'s own scholarship, and to take a closer look at the conclusions he reached regarding the subjects dealt with in the above-mentioned three articles.

5. R.Jackson (1982). 6. The reasoning in (a) and (b) that there was no Chinese school called

"the White Panacea" either in bSam-yas or China is not quite to the point because dkar po chig thub was not a school name but rather a doctrinal notion.

7. This was noted by van der Kuijp (1986), p. 151. 8. Sa-pal)- lists four sources in his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, pp. 25.3.6 and

25.4.1, and also three in his sKyes bu dam pa, p. 332.4. See D. Jackson (1987), pp. 402f. That three sources were mentioned in the latter text was noticed already byVostrikov (1970), p. 25, n. 55.

9. Van der Kuijp (1986), pp. 148f. 10. Demieville (1952), pp. 122f. See also Gomez (1983), p. 92, quoting

the same passage from the Ching li chileh, p. 146b: According to the MahaparinirvaT}-a Sutra, there is a certain medicinal herb that will cure all diseases in those who take it. It is the same with this absence of reflection and inspection.

This passage had previously been translated into English in E. Conze, Buddhist Scriptures (London: 1959), p. 217. The term Mo-ho-yen uses is not, however, a direct equivalent of dkar po chig thub, though he uses it in the sense of a panacea and single, self-sufficient medicine. Cf. Broido (1987), pp. 51f, whose mention of these references was not taken from Demieville (1952) or Gomez (1983), but rather was drawn from the Jordan Lectures given by Professor D. Seyfort Ruegg at SOAS in the Spring of 1987, the published version of which has now appeared (D. Seyfort Ruegg [1989]).


11. Thu'u-bkwan refers to Sa-skya Pa~ll:lita in this same chapter for instance as "Jam-mgon Sa-par;." on p. 170.1 (kha 25b).

12. R. Jackson seems to have read sems rtog / brtags instead of sems rtogs, and also sems ngo sprod instead of sems ngo 'phrod. Sa-par;. understands the Chinese masters to have taught an understanding of the mind gained through a method which avoided conceptualizing and intellectual examining. It is interesting to note that myi rtog pa in the Tun Huang texts can mean "no-examining" (as a translation of the Chinese pu kuan). See Broughton (1983), pp. 66, n. 79. See also the more general comments of Gomez (1983a), p. 398, on mam par mi rtog pa (Skt. nirvikalpa or avikalpa).

13. Cf. the comments ofThu'u-bkwan, p. 170.4 (kha 25b.4), which portray these criticisms as having been so directed, and therefore reject them as unsatisfactory: ci yangyid la mi byed pa'i phyogs ni min pax gsal bas sdom gsum gyi dgag pa mams thub chad kyi gsung du mngon no. Sa-par;. never seems to mention specifically that the Tibetan dkar po chig thub involved the lack of "mentation" (manasikiira, yid la byed pa), but uses instead such terms as "non-discursiveness" (nirvikalpa: mam par mi rtog pal even when characterizing the Hwa-shang's doctrine in his presentation of the traditional history of the bSam-yas debate. In the above-mentioned passage, Thu'u-bkwan tries to exculpate Zhang precisely because this doctrine of "complete non-mentation" (ci yang yid la mi byed pal is not to be found in Zhang's treatise. It was a typical later bKa' -brgyud-pa understanding that Sa-par; was "hostile" especially to Maitrlpada's non-mentation cycle. See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1257, who translates Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. 11.3 (6a.3). Here other bKa'-gdams-pas are also said to have shared this basically negative attitude, which Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje attributed originally to Grolung-pa's criticisms of the Yid la mi byed pa as not being Madhyamaka.

Cf. Lopez (1988), p. 266, who translates lCang-skya Rol-pa'i-rdo-rje's discussion of this topic as follows: "The term 'One Pure Power' (dKar-po-chig-thub) was not disseminated widely after Shang-tsel-ba (Zhang-tshal-pa) who wrote a treatise which is concerned mainly with the One Pure Power. It appears that this was the main object refuted by Mafijunatha Sa-gya Par;<;lita. Later many of our own and other [sects] refuted this position. If Shang-tsel-ba's own assertion rests in the position that mind is not to be directed to anything, then these refutations are correct; I do not wish to elaborate on it in detail."

With reference to strictly "non-discursive" meditation, cf. the criticism of this by Zhang, Phyag chen lam :cab mthar thug, p. 78.2, and that of sGam-po-pa, voL 2, p. 111.6, who criticizes those who would stop all discursive thought (rtog pa): fa las rtog pa byung tshad bkag nas rtog med la blo dril 'jog pa la yon tan du blta ste / des lam gcod mi nus ye shes phye bo bya ba yin / . On the other hand, within the INga ldan system for instance the main theory to be cultivated and realized was called specifically the mi rtog pa'i {ta ba.

14. Van der Kuijp (1986). He had already referred to some aspects of this problem in a footnote to his published dissertation (1983), p. 304, n. 303, though wrongly identifying the dkar po chig thub with the dGongs gcig.

15. Though dPa' -bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba retells this tradition, he did not accept it as genuine. See his Chas 'byung, voL 1, p. 397 (ja 122a), and also Karmay (1988), p. 200, n. 112. .

THE POLEMICIST 73

16. Van der Kuijp here has evidently assumed that the section in the sBa bzhed corresponding to Sa-pal!'s account goes back to the phyi-dar period, whereas all we can safely say at present is that it had appeared by the mid- or

. late-12th century. Its importance is thus not as a "smoking gun" proving the historical link that Sa-pal! alleged to exist between the traditions. Rather, it (together with Myang-ral's history) shows primarily that Sa-pal!'s account was based on a historical tradition which was already established in his day and was not fabricated by him. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that the account was first set down considerably earlier than the late-12th century, for it contains elements that can be traced to still older sources. Cf. also Karmay (1988), p. 200, who dates the seeming origin of this account of the debate to the eleventh century, and "most probably prior to sGam-po-pa's elaboration of his Phyag chen theory," though he does not explain his basis for pushing this dating back another century.

17. There is nothing in van der Kuijp's straightforward remarks in this article that could be considered "an intemperate attack on [R.] Jackson's conclusions" (cf. Broido [1987], p. 50).

18. Broido (1987). 19. In Stein (1987), p. 58, n. 15, the English translation for the term is

given as: "the white one capable of acting alone (once only?)," which is closer to the Tibetan. See also Karmay (1988), p. 197: "the white one that has power of itself." Lhalungpa (1986), p. 439, n. 19, translated it as "omnipotent white path," and Lopez (1987), p. 266, as the "One Pure Power."

For a curious modern occurence of the term, see the Tibetan foreword by H. H. the Dalai Lama to the Japanese publication Hiroki Fujika, Tibetan Buddhist Art (Tokyo: Hakushuisha Publishing Co., 1984), p. 2, where the following sentence occurs: nyi hong dang hi ma la ya'i ri rgyud kyi yul dang / rgyal khams rnams sa thag ring yang thub bstan la dad snang dkar po chig thub kyi ngang tshul la ngo mtshar chen po thob byung. His Holiness probably did not expect anyone to catch this allusion.

20. The word simple as a noun is defined in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (Edinburgh: 1983) as "a simple person (also collectively) or thing: a medicine of one constituent: hence a medicinal herb." In Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary qf the English Language Unabridged,Second Edition (Cleveland & New York: 1971), the second definition for simple as a noun is: "a medicinal herb or medicine obtained from a herb: so called because each vegetable was supposed to possess its particular virtue and therefore to constitute a simple remedy." Some other dictionaries mark the medical meanings as archaisms.

21. dBang-'dus, Bod gangs can pa'i gso ba rig pa'i dpalldan rgyud bzhi sogs kyi brda dang dka' gnad 'ga' zhig bkrol tshig mdzod gyu thog dgongs rgyan, p. 157: chig thub sman/ sbyor sde dang grogs sogs la bltos ma dgos par gcig gis nad 'joms thub pa'i nus pa ldan pa'i sman gyi ming ste/. This information was drawn from De'u-dmar dgebshes, as dBang-'dus goes on to state (ibid.): de'u dmar dge bshes bstan 'dzin phun tshogs kyis mdzad pa'i gso rig skor gyi ming tshig nyer mkho 'i don gsallas /

chig thub ces pa brda rnying ste / / brda gsar rnams la gcig thub 'byung / / sbyor sde grogs sogs ma bltos par / /


gcig gis nad 'joms sman gyi ming I I zhes gsungs pa ltar ro I .

Thus the dkar po chig thub as a drug was some "simple,:' i.e., a medicine of on constituent: perhaps a medicinal herb or vegetable simple. e

22. Thu'u-bkwan Chos-kyi-nyi-ma, p. 171.4 (kha 26a.4): bka' brgyud gong ma rnams kyis phyag rgyachen po bsgom pa 1a dkar po chig thub ces gsungs pa yang mnyug sems bde ba chen po 'i ngo bor skyes pas gnas lugs bsgom pa gcig pus mthar thug gi 'bras bu thob par 'gyur pa la dgongs pa yin 1a I.

23. rDo-rje-shes-rab (fl. 13th c.), Khyad par 1ta bsgom spyod pa'i tshoms. [dGongs gcig 'grel pa rdo shes mal, dGongs gcigyig cha, vol. 2, p. 407 (22b): rje sgam po pas sman 1a dpe byas nas nga'i sems kyi ngo bo mthong ba 'di dkar po gcig thub bya ba yin gsung I de la mkhas pa chen po 'ga' zhig gi zhal nas I

khyed kyi dkar po gcig thub la I I sems bskyed bsngo ba dgos mi dgos I I dgos na cig thub gsum du 'gyur I I

gsung ste I dkar po cig thub las gzhan pa'i [b }sngo ba sems bskyed med par byas kyang chog khams gsum gyi 'khor ba las thar pa'i ngos nas I dkar po cig thub rkyang du byas kyang chog gsung I I .

A similar quotation is given by Shakya-mchog-ldan, Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma, Collected Works, vol. 7, p. 85 (43a). The points are basically the same, though they are worded differently: dgongs gcig tul rje sgam po pas I sman la dper mdzad nas I nga'i sems nyid rtogs pa 'di sman dkar po gcig thub dang 'rira I de la mkhas pa chen po gcig gis rgol ba na I khyod kyi dkar po gcig thub de la bsngo ba dang sems skyed dgos sam mi dgos zer ba la I gcig thub kyi ngos nas mi dgos byas kyang chog I 'khor ba las thar pa rkyang pa'i ngos nas gcig thub yin zer ba byas kyang chog.

24. Zhang Tshal-pa, Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug, p. 53 (3a): rang sems nges rtogs my a ngan 'das pa yi I I ye shes mtha'yas bde ba chen par shar I I de phyir ma 1us rang gi sems nyid las I I 'phros phyir rang sems chos nyid ngo shes na I I sems can kun gyi chos nyid shes par 'gyur I I de shes my a ngan 'dassogs chos kun shes I I chos kun yongs shes khams gsum kun las 'das I I gcig shes pas ni kun la mkhas par 'gyur I I rtsa ba 'gyel bas 10 'dab ngang gis 'gyel I I de phyir rang sems gcig pu gtan la dbab I I

Cf. Lhalungpa (1986), p. 212. On the similar stressing of the need to establish all appearances as mind (snang ba sems su sgrub pal as a preliminary stage of meditation in the Sa-skya-pa and other pre-dGe-lugs-pa schools, see D. Jackson (1987), p. 427, n. 144.

25. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 107.5 (30a.5): rang sems rtogs pa'i skad cig mar I I dkar po 'i yon tan ma 1us pa I I bsgrub pa med par dus gcig rdzogs I I

Probably there is a word play here, since the word dkar po appears once, and cig I gcig appears twice. Here the element dkar po is a quality of what comes to completion, instead of the agent effecting that, and cig I gcig forms a part of both the ideas of "an instant" skad cig ma and "simultaneous" dus gcig.

THE POLEMICIST 75

26. It is interesting to note that Sa-pal). in his sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 320.3.3 (na 48a.3), records the existence in the early 1200s ofa distinct tradition ofpractical instructions on the simultaneous realization of Buddhahood which had ·been formulated apparently in connection with this passage of the AbhisamqyiilaT[lkiira, referring to it as "skabs brgyad cig char bsgom pa."

27. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 1l0.5 (31b.5): ji srid bdag 'dzin yod kyi bar I I lta sgom spyod 'bras dam tshigyod I I las dang las kyi mam smin yod I I sdig spangs bsod nams" bsag pa gees I I 28. The question of whether this "Buddhahood" is in fact real Buddha

hood is addressed by sGam-po-pa in his Lam rim mdor bsdus, who teaches there that it is not yet actual Buddhahood but it is present as a full potentiality which is prevented from appearing by the presence of the body which is the fruit of previous karma. Nevertheless it will actualize in the intermediate stage (bar do) immediately after death. See his Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 240.3. (This "graduated" teaching also includes mention of the mal 'byor bzhi.)

sGam-po-pa explains this idea by making use of the metaphors of the lion cub or the eagle or garut/a chick (klryung phrug) that springs forth fully developed at birth, but which until its birth i"s kept sealed up by the womb or egg (240.4). See also his Dus gsum, Works, vol. 1, p. 407.3:yon tan thams cadnam mngon du byed ce na I lus rgya dang bral ba'i dus su'o I I. Later he qualifies and explains (p. 407.7): chos nyid rtogs pa'i phyir sangs rgyasyin par 'drayangyon tan mi mnyam tel ....

-sGam-po-pa on occasion does portray the rDzogs-chen as occupying a parallel doctrinal position to the Mahamudra as a practical instruction (man ngag) of the Mantrayana rdzogs rim, and on occasion even seems to identify the two. See his Tshogs bshad legs mdzes m.a, p.220.2 and his Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, p. 269.1. In the first source, p. 220.7, he characterized the Mahamudra as phyag chen dri med zang thal. On the other hand, in his Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan, p. 438-39, he distanced himselffrom what he portrays as the more extreme cig-carba doctrines of the rDzogs-pa chen-po. According to a characterization of the rDzogs-chen attributed to the dge-bshes brGya-yon-bdag appearing just before in the same work (p. 438.1), the rDzogs-chen-pa typically maintained: "If you attain realization (rtogs) in the morning, you awaken to Buddhahood in the morning; if you attain realization in the evening, you awaken to Buddhahood in the evening" (nang rtogs na nang sangs rgyal nub rtogs na nub sangs rgya). sGampo-pa maintains that there are three paths (Paramitayana, Mantra and Mahamudra), and also two individuals (rim-gyis-pa and cig-car-ba), but says that the latter approach is extremely difficult and that he considers himself a "gradualist" (rim-gyis-pa). He goes on to relate that once when Mi-Ia ras-pa was in the company of many people sGam-po-pa asked him what rDzogs-chen was like, to which Mi-la replied that his teacher Mar-pa had said: "Though some people say it is not the Dharma (chos men pa), that is not [so], but it is a dharma belonging to the sixth or seventh bhilmi and above." Then [Mi-Ia] pointed to a little boy of about five years of age and said, "The followers of the rDzogs-chen are like him. It is like this child saying that he has the powers of a twenty-five~ year-old [adult]. The followers of the rDzogs-chen too speak of 'Buddhahood now,' but it is not really meaningful.' (Chos men pa is apparently a misspelling


for chos min pa, and presumably not a corruption based on ston min pa, which Was the traditional Tibetan rendering of the Chinese equivalent for "cig-car", i.e tun men; see also Padma-dkar-po, Chos 'byung, p. 391 [ka cha 196a.5], where me~ occurs instead of min: de la rgya men bod men zer skyon gtong te / .)

The same image of the khyung chick in its shell is used by Zhang Tshal-pa in his Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug (p. 91 = 22a) in connection with the attain_ ment of sgom med, the fourth and ultimate stage in the fourfold system of the rnal 'byor bzhi. There he teaches:

The capacities of the khyung come to completion within the egg-shell. When it leaves the egg-shell, it flies in the heights of the sky. The excellent qualities of the three Bodies (kifya) are complete within the mind. The [powers of working] for the benefit of others arise after the [constraining] "seal" of the body has been destroyed [at death].

Zhang stresses the instantaneous nature of the attainmeni: of mahiimudrii through his use of the term chig chod, using the simile of a lamp in darkness (whose light instantly fills the darkness). He also uses the simile of the early morning Sun (103.5= 28a), saying that even though immediately upon the attainment of the realization of non-duality sufferings are not removed and the powers or capacities of the enlightened qualities do not arise, still one should not criticize it as not being the Path of Seeing. For even though in the morning immediately after sunrise the sun does not have the power capable of melting ice and does not warm the earth and stones, one should not deprecate it as not being the sun. Cr. the use of the example of the sun's sudden appearance in the morning but its gradual melting of the frost as the second example for sudden enlightenment followed by gradual cultivation used by the Ch'an master Kuei-feng Tsung-mi (780-841). See Gregory (1987), p. 286.

To stress that the mahiimudrii realization entails a radically altered view of causation and conceptually conceived reality, Zhang compares the instantaneously effective mahiimudrii to the fruit of the breadfruit tree (which arises simultaneously with the growth of the parent tree, and for which the standard categories of cause and effect thus do not apply), stating:

The instantaneously effective mahiimudrii, like the fruit of the breadfruit [tree], is simultaneous in cause and effect, and [in it,] phenomenal marks dissolve of themselves.

He goes on (p. 104 = 28b.4) to mention the metaphor of the sudden descent of the hawks (khra) from above, in contrast with the gradual limb-by-limb ascent of the monkeys from below. Elsewhere (p. 83.4) he uses the image of the monkey running up and down the tree as a symbol for mental activities against the background of the unchanging mind.

The 16th-century bKa'-brgyud-pa master bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal mentions the example of the lion cub and khyung chick while defending the notion that the appearance of enlightened qualities can be delayed, in reply to a criticism of this notion (by Sa-pal).). He similarly quotes lines from Zhang Tshal-pa. See Lhalungpa (1986), pp. 406f; bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, pp. 375b-376a. I have not yet been able to find a defence of this notion by Padma-dkar-po.

The criticism by Sa-pal). is found in the sDom gsum Tab dbye, p. 309.4.6 (na 26b), in connection with a criticism of those who would ident!fy minor medita-

THE POLEMICIST 77

tive attainments or realizations as the iirya's "path of seeing" (mthong lam), no doubt referring to the passage of Zhang just discussed. He denies that the explanation in terms of the garurja's egg is found in any [authentic] svira or tantra of 'the Mahayana, and finds the whole notion strange, like someone saying that the rays of the'sun which rises today will not come into being until tomorrow morning.

These images and notions entered Tibetan Buddhism at an .early stage, and according to gNubs Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes (10th c.?), they were accepted and used by the tantric tradition of the (rNying-ma) Mahqyogii, as well as by the early rDzogs-chen, apparently, In the bSam gtan mig sgron's chapter devoted to the Mahqyoga, the two ways of attaining nirvaTJa are discussed. After mentioning a number of early Tibetan. masters who attained enlightenment without leaving their body, Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes mentions the attainment of liberation immediately after death (p. 278 = 179b). The simile ofthe khyung and lion is said in a (later?) explanatory note to be "stated in numerous scriptures of the Mantra[yana]" (gsang sngags kyi bka' du ma las 'byung). The simile of the lion-cub alone is mentioned two folios later (p. 281 = 141a) in two quotations, in connection with the special points of superiority of the Mantra over the (szUra-based) Madhyamaka. The works quoted are the [nris lan] lNga bcu pa and the [Las kyi] Me long, which I have yet to identify.

A fundamental passage in which these similes are employed is quoted at great length by Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes in an earlier section of his work (p. 40 = 20b.6). Here not only the khyung chick and lion cub are mentioned, but also the metaphor of the kalavinka bird, which can sing while yet in its egg. In a (later?) explanatory annotation, this quotation is said to be from the 'Od srungs le'u, presumably referring to section 84 of the Kiifyapaparivarta Sutra where the kalavinka bird image is indeed employed in a related sense.

The khyung and lion are also used as images offearlessness by Sangs-rgyasye-shes. The 8th-century Tibetan Ch'an master sBa Shang-shing is also said in the rNying-ma gter-ma bKa' thang sde lnga to have used a lion simile similarly. See G. Tucci (1958), p. 73,1. 16-19 (Minor Buddhist Texts 11), as cited also by J. Broughton (1983), p. 54, n. 24. .

The example of the perfectly developed garurja or eagle (khyung chen) chick within the egg is also found in a rDzogs-chen tantra, lTa baye shes gting rdzogs kyi rgyud (p. 52), here explaining how Buddhahood is ,present in a full potential form but kept from manifesting by the present body: dus ni da lta byung ba lus kyi[s} sgribs/ dper na khyung chen sgong nga'i nang na gshog rgyas'kyang/ sgo nga ma chag [bar} 'phur mi nus pa bzhin/. (Cited by Karmay [1988], p. 185, n. 58.)

These specific images may well have entered early Tibetan Buddhist tradition through the writings and teachings ofCh'an masters such as Mo-ho-yen. In one of the Tibetan fragments of the latter's writings recovered from ~un Huang (Stein 709, second fragment, f. 9a), Mo-ho-yen uses precisely the similes of a lion cub and a special bird as two of the very few comparisons that are suitable for his method, which yields simultaneous and immediate realization (another acceptable simile being that of a panacea, as he states in another source). Gomez (1983), p. 116, has translated the relevant passage: "This may be compared to the lion cub that even before it has opened its eyes brings terror


to the other animals,.or to the young of the kalavinka bird who upon leaving their eggs are able to fly like their mother. The qualities of this contemplation cannot be easily compared with other things in this world." ,

29. Broido seems to understand the phrase dbyings las mi 'da' ba'i don as expressing' the idea "not going beyond completeness."· sGam-po-pa (Works vol. 2, p. 375.7) defines'the term dbyings as "the defining mark [or true nature] of all factors of existence" (chos thams cad kyi mtshan nyid) , i.e., what is known in the insight into ultimate reality. The term is here paired and contrasted with "gnosis" (ye shes), which he defines as "the pure nature of mind, which is lumin_ ous" (sems nyid rnam par dag pa 'od gsal ba).

The idea of "completeness" is of course an essential aspect of the notion of chig thub: it is something that suffices alone to effect the complete result. See also Broido (p. 32), who states: "The Tibetans emphasize the notion of 'not going beyond' as part of'seal.'" Cf. sGam-po-pa, Works, vol.~2, p. 103.7: rang gi sems ma bcos pa de nyid rtogs nal snang grags kyi chos thams cad de'i ngo bo las ma 'das pa'ol de rtogs nas de las gzhan pa'i chos [104] sku cigyang dag par rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas kyis rgyud rnams su I bla ma rje btsun grub pa thob pa rnams kyis kyang I de las ma gzigs pa yinl. Cf. also the idea of completeness expressed through the word zin in the rDzogs-chen system.

30. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 99.5 (26a.5): dam tshigji Itar bsrung zhe nail dang po'i las pa'i dus tshod dull so sor thar pa'i sdom pa sogs II bde gshegs bla ma'i bka' mi bcag II (1) rtsa rlung bsgom pa'i dus tshod du / I bde drod mi mthun phyogs rnams spang II mi rtog nyams myong shar gyur nas I I ting 'dzin 'gal rkyen thams cad spang II (2) rang sems ngo bo mthong gyur nas I I sems La gnod pa thams cad spang I I gnyis med rtogs pa shar nas ni I I ched du bya ba thams cad spang II (3) kun La rang sems dpang por zhog I I dbyings las mi [26b] 'da'i don rtogs nas II srung du med de dam tshig mchog I I dkar po gcig thub bya ba yin I I (4)

dam tshig le'u ste dgu pa'o II II

The first two verses of this short ninth chapter of Zhang's treatise could also be translated:

How are the pledges to be observed? At the time of [being] a beginner, one should not break the command of the Tathagata-Guru [regarding] the vows such as the pratimok.ra [monastic discipline]. (1) At the time of cultivating the "channels" (rtsa) and "winds" (rlung), one should abandon all things not conducive to bliss and heat. After the experience of non-conceptualizing (mi rtog) has arisen, one should avoid all factors inimical to meditative absorptions (samadhi). (2)

THE POLEMICIST 79

Zhang's comment thus occurs in a system of practice in which the monastic vows are taken to be mainly the concern of "beginners." The system includes the realization of: special tantric yogas, the experience of non-conceptualization, the nature of one's own mind, non-duality, and the "not going beyond the true nature of things" (dbyings las mi 'da' ba'i don).

31. C[ sGam-po-pa, Lam rim mdor bsdus, p. 240.2, whose explanation of the sgom med rnal 'byor would seem to correspond to the srung du med.referred to by Zhang: chos thams cad mnyam pa nyid du thag chad pas I spang bya spang du medl gnyen po [bJsten du medl sangs rgyas sgrub tu medl 'khor ba spang du medl bsgom bya sgom byed med par 'byung ste I de nyid sgam med kyi rnal 'byor bya ba yin no I I de tsa na rang gi sems kho nar 'dug pas . ...

32. This apparently derives from the famous analogy of the spiritual path as the searching for and finding of an elephant or ox (glang po), as mentioned by sGam-po-pa, rJe phag mo gru pa'i zhus lan, p. 489.3: glang po rnyed nas rjes mi btsal.

The way that he reached the second part of thesis C., namely that Padmadkar-po accepts the thesis "expressed by Zhang Tshal-pa," was thus apparently to look elsewhere in Zhang Tshal-pa to find something that accorded better with his understanding of Padma-dkar-po. The latter does also express elsewhere the idea of "self-sufficiency" or "single efficaciousness" and B. (p. 37) translates, for instance: "So at the time of understanding there is no need to consider any other dharma than mahiimudrii."

33. Zhang Tshal-pa, Writings, p. 711.7: gang gis bla [712] ma mnyes byed pal I gang la'ang mi ltos phun sum 'tshogs I I dkar po chig thub chen po yin I I

In this work Zhang stresses the need for the disciple's previous preparation and for the guru's grace, and says (p. 705.7-706.1) that when through those conditions one realizes the ultimate reality of one's own mind (rang gi sems kyis [= kyi] de kho na nyid rtogs par gyur na), one goes in that very moment to the highest level of all the Buddhas (dus gsum gyis sangs rgyas thams cad kyi go 'phang mchog skad cig de nyid la bsgrod par byed do I I). Others of less merit, however, will not understand this doctrine, and therefore it is important to keep it very secret, he adds.

Very similar teachings are expressed in his Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug, pp. 78.6-79.1 (15b-16a), though here two factors are stressed as necessary for the attainment of realization: the teacher's grace and the student's previously acquired merit. Later, on p. 96 (24b.1), he stresses the master's grace as the singly decisive factor: bla ma'i byin brlabs 'ba' zhigyinl I. Zhang devoted another brief treatise to the importance of the guru's grace: gNad kyi man ngag, Writings, pp. 696.7-703.5, and stresses the same point in his Mal dbu dkar la gdams pa, p.656.4.

34. One occurrence of the term in sGam-po-pa's writings is in the latter's reply to the questions of his learned Khams-pa disciple Phag-mo-gru-pa, rJe phag mo gru pa'i zhus lan, p. 471. 7. There he speaks of the realization he teaches as being utterly beyond the range of intellectual understanding (being "unknown even by a greatly learned man or pa7Jqita") and that it is only arises through the grace of the teacher who transmits it non-verbally. He adds: "When it is born, since this has become a White Self-sufficient Simple, i.e., full liberation through


knowing one thing, Buddha[hoodJ is acquired in oneself." The Tibetan reads: 'di mkhas pa par;tfitas kyang mi shes / shes rab kyis mi rtogs / rtog ge ba'i spyod yul ma

yin/ [po 472J [sgom don? (unclear)] rgyud la skye ba la bla ma rtogs ldan cig la slob mas mas gusbyas byin brlabs kyi stabs kyis tshig dang bral ba blo 'i yullas 'das pa las rab 'char te / ngo bo 'phags pa klu sgrub la sags pa mkhas pa mams kyang khas len dang bral ba yin te / ... [canonical quotations follow J

... de skyes pa'i dus na / dkar po cig thub cig shes kun grol du song bas / sangs rgyas rang la myed / .

On the subject of the limitations of the "par;tfita's" approach, which uses concepts and words, cf. also the Tshogs chos chen mo (included in sGam-po-pa's works but which was not set down in its final form until some generations after sGam-po-pa by dPal Shes-rab-gzhon-nu), p. 348.5 (re: tha mal gyi shes pa): de rtogs na par;tfita rig pa'i gnas lnga la mkhas pa bas kyang Yen tan chef par;tfita ni don spyi'i mam pa yul du byed / sgra mtshan nyid du byed pa yin / kun shes cig bdugs bya ba yin/ 'di rtogs na Gig shes kun la mkhas pa bya bayin/.

The term dkar po chig thub appears in sGam-po-pa's writings a second time in the latter's first words in his Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan, p. 376.7. Dus-gsum-mkhyen-pa had received the instructions from sGam-po-pa and had experienced after a few days of meditating an experience of great lucidity, and he had no idea where it had come from. sGam-po-pa advised him: "That is the 'White Self-sufficient Simple.' Such will always occur tomorrow, the next day, and later, and therefore you should use a warm curtain behind you, wear thin clothing, and so meditate. You will probably be able to bind consciousness (shes pal to your service." Tib.: de dkar po chig thub bya ba yin gsung / sang gnangs dang dus phyis rtag tu de tsug 'ong ba yin pas rgyab yol dro bar gyis / gas bsrab par gyis las [ = la?J bsgoms dang / shes pa [b] kol tu btub par 'dug gis gsung /

sGam-po-pa's third usage of the term is also in his Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan, p. 380.2. In this context Dus-gsum-mkhyen-pa has requested explanations of the Thabs lam. sGam-po-pa replies by stressing the sufficiency of what he always teaches (kun tu bshad pa des chog) , adding: "If you too are able to cultivate it still more, it will suffice to foster just that" (khyed rang yang da rung bsgom nus na de skyangs pas chog par 'dug). Dus-gsum-mkhyen-pa asks: "If I am able to cultivate [itJ, will that suffice?" (bsgom nus na des chog gam). rJe sGam-po-pa answers: "The 'White Self-sufficient Single' refers to that. I too have nothing besides that" (dkar po cig thub de la byed pa yin / nga la yang de las med). Cf. also his Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 327.5: nga la blta rgyu sems nyid gcig pu las med/ /.

The same conception, phrased as gcig shes kun la mkhas pa, is found in a song of Mi-Ia ras-pa as recorded in the biography by gTsang-smyon Heruka (1452-1507). See Karmay (1988), p. 198. For this term in sGam-po-pa, see also for instance his Tshogs chos chen mo, p. 348, as quoted previously in this note, and the Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan, p. 452.6.

The 13th-century 'Bri-gung bKa'-brgyud-pa commentator rDo-rje-shesrab, as quoted in note 23, specified in his dGongs gcig 'grel pa rd.o shes ma that the dkar po chig thub was identified by sGam-po-pa precisely with "seeing" or "realizing" the nature of mind.

35. Padma-dkar-po, Phyag chen gan mdzod, 48a.2: de bas na blo ngor sbyang gzhi sbyong byed sbyangs 'bras kyi go rim yang rigs la / gnas tshul la de lta bu gang yang

THE POLEMICIST 81

ma grub pas phyag rgya chen po 'di la dkar po chig thub ces gsungs so I I. In light of this statement, I wonder whether Broido's description (pp, 29f) ofPadma-dkar-po's view of the Mahamudra cig-car individual's path as being "a view about the path, and not the goal" is quite adequate. It would seem to be a special view about the relation of the path and goal. Cf. also ibid, p. 194.4 (4b.4): g::.hi dang laml lam dang 'bras bu gnyis su mi phyed pas cig car ba'i lam bstanl.

The term dkar po chig thub of course also occurs within the rubric or title De dkar po chig thub tu 'gro ba'i gnad bshad pa which Padma-dkar-po gives to the whole discussion and which is similar to Zhang's chapter title dKar po chig thub tu bstan pa'i le'u.

36. Much of what Broido presents in his broadened interpretation of the term is standard tantric theory acceptable also to Sa-palf and others. Tantric philosophy is based on a special approach to causation and soteriology; it is, after all, the "Resultant Mantra Vehicle" ('bras bu sngags kyi theg pa), as opposed to the "Causal Defining-mark Vehicle" (rgyu mtshan nyid kyi theg pa) where the normal theories of causation hold sway. In the Lam 'bras tantric precepts of the Sa-skya-pa based on the Hevajra cycle and traced back to the Indian siddha Virup a, one also finds similar instructions on "the path which includes its fruit" (lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i gdams ngag), "the fruit that includes its path" ('bras bu lam dang bcas pa'i gdams ngag), and "that by knowing a single thing, one knows many" (gcig shes pas mang po shes pa 'i gdams ngag).

37. Broido states, p. 62, note 3: "I shall make less use of this source [the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal]."

38. He did not identify in the bibliography which version of the work he consulted. In any case, it was not from the Derge edition of the Sa skya bka' 'bum (reprinted Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968), which is considered by the tradition to be the standard edition of the Sa-skya-pa masters' writings and which should, if possible, be cited in modern scholarship in the absence of a critical edition.

39. In his postscript, p. 48, Broido does, however, repeat one quotation from Sa-palf's sKyes bu dam pa rnams la spring ba'i yi ge, drawing it from van der Kuijp's article.

40. The insertion in square brackets is mine. It would have been better to have translated this phrase as: "this is (yin) the dkar po chig thub," i.e., clearly differentiating the verb yin pa from yod pa. Broido, p. 48, mistakenly explains the term ngo 'phrod pa as "to show the nature of a thing," citing Jaschke and Das. But he actually refers to the definition found for the verb ngo sprod pa and misses the fundamental distinction between that transitive and active verb and the former, which is the corresponding intransitive verb meaning "to have been introduced to" or "to recognize and understand [the nature of a thing]," i.e., the verb form in which the result or experience undergone by the grammatical "patient" is stressed.

41. Sa-palf, sDom gsum rab dbye, 34a.2: 'ga' ::.hig chig thub bsgom pa yi I I rjes la bsngo ba bya dgos ::.er I I '0 na chig thub gnyis su 'gyur I I de la'ang skyabs 'gro sems bskyed dang I I yi dam lha bsgom la sogs pa I I


dgos na chig thub du mar gyur I I des na chig thub 'di 'dra'i lugs I I rdzogs sangs rgyas kyis gsungs pa medl I ,

On the necessity of bodhicitta as a separately cultivated aspect of the path in KamalasIla's view, in contrast with the opposing view ofMo-ho-yen, see Gomez (1987), p. 112.

42. Cf. the different Phyag rgya chen po lnga ldan presented in sGam-po-pa's works, vol. 2, p. 380.2f.

43. See also sGam-po-pa, rJe phag mo gru pa'i zhus lan, p. 470.3, where Dags-po lha-rje advises the cultivation of bodhicitta with devotion to the guru and integrated gtum-mo and mahiimudrii. Cf. p. 488.5 where there is a reference to the bKa' -gdams-pa position that relative bodhicitta should be cultivated before ultimate bodhicitta: jo bo bka' gdams pa kun gy~zhal nas I stongpa nyid bsgom sngas na kun rdzob byang chub kyi sems ma 'byongs par stong pa nyid du bsgoms pas rryan thos sugol nas I ... Cf. also vol. 2, p. 113.7: rje rin po che'i zhal nas I byang chub kyi sems rnam pa grryis med na sangs mi rgya ba yin gsung ba I kun rdzob byang chub sems skye ba'i rgyu tshang bar byas nas smon 'jug kyi dam bca' byal ... don dam lhan cig skyes pa'i grryug ma yin no gsung I .

44. SM.kya-mchog-ldan, Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma, Collected vVorks, vo!' 7, p. 85: gzhung 'dir yang I la la gcig thub sgom pa yi I I rjes la bsngo ba bya dgos zer I I zhes sogs rnams kyang I rje dags po 'i [b Jrgyud 'dzin rnams la gsung ba yin pas so I I. In this section Shakya-mchog-ldan displays a familiarity with the dGongs gcig system, quoting it explicitly twice (pp. 84.2 and 85.1) in connection with sGampo-pa's views on the chen po gsum gyis ma reg pa and dkar po chig thub.

Karmay (1988), p. 199, states: "Although Sa-paI)'s chronic doubts about sGam-po-pa's Phyag chen had a lasting influence on later Tibetan Buddhist writers, his criticism has never really been accepted as valid. On the contrary his views are refuted even by eminent Sa skya pa scholastics, like Sakya mcho~ ldan .... " Actually Shakya-mchog-ldan agrees with Sa-paI) to a considerable extent when commenting on controversial passages in the sDom gsum rab dbye, saying for instance that little can be seen to distinguish the theory (lta ba) of the master Mo-ho-yen as better or worse than that of the (Mahamudra) exponents of this bKa'-brgyud (bka' brgyud 'di pal rgya nag mkhan po dang lta ba la bzang ngan mi snang yang I), though he stresses the superiority of the practice (spyod pal of the latter, and warns that it should not be falsely criticized. See ibid., p. 85.3. Before that, after specifying carefully (on p. 84) which particular unacceptable doctrinal statements of early bKa' -brgyud-pas he believed Sa-paI) had in mind when he criticized the "latter-day Mahamudra" as a "Chinese-tradition rDzogs-chen," he concludes: don de dag mi 'thad pa'i dbang du mdzad nas I deng sang gi phyag rgya chen po dang I rgya nag lugs kyi rdzogs chen gnyis don gcig tu mdzad nas 'gog parmdzad pa'i gzhung rnams gsungs pa yin no I I. Still later (p. 192) he explains Sa-paI)'s position without indicating any disagreement: '0 na ci zhe nal mid layan chad du nil nii ro pa'i [bJrgyud 'dzin dag la nii ro'i chos drug de las gzhanl lam 'bras dang I phyag chen gyi ming can dkar po chig thub sogs la goms par byed pa med la I rje dags po lha rjes I chos drug kho na rang [b Jrgyud la nan tan du goms par byed pa bor nas I phyag rgya chen po 'i ming 'dogs can gyi dkar po gcig thub la sgom du byas pa dang I phag mo gru pas lam 'bras goms pas gTub pa brnyes pa lta bill nii TO ta pa las gzhan gyi gdam

THE POLEMICIST 83

ngag sgom bz;hin dul brgyud pa gz;han de dag gsang nasi rje nii ro pa kho na'i [bJrgyud thin du 'dod pa ni rang gz;han gyi lugs gnyis dang 'gall z;hes bstan bcos mdz;ad pa 'dis nil .... And again in the next section (p. 194.6) he presents Sa-pa~'s position as being precisely: '0 na ci z;he nal rgya nag lugs kyi rdz;ogs chen la phyag rgya chen por ming btags pa de-sgom bz;hin dul nii ro'i brgyud pa 'ded na lugs g11J'is dang 'gal z;hes pa'i don tel ji skad dul gz;hung 'di nyid las I da lta'i phyag rgya 9hen po nil I phal cher rgya nag chos lugs yin I I ....

Shakya-mchog-1dan's attitude toward these criticisms by Sa-pa~ is thus hardly one of overt rejection in these contexts. It is mainly when he writes a treatise specifically in defence of the Phyag-chen and as a follower of the latter tradition that he expresses contrary opinions or tries to clarify the disagreements and misunderstandings. In his Phyag rgya chen po gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos tshangs pa'i 'khor los gz;han blo'i dregs pa nyams'byed, Collected Works, vol. 17, p. 344 (7b), for instance, he explains and justifies the dkar po chigthub notion:

The "white self-sufficient simple" refers exclusively to theory, but it is not an expression denying [the importance of] the preparatory accumulations of merit. Moreover, it means precisely that the mahiimudrii by itself alone is sufficient, there being no necessity to exert oneself in applying separate remedies to the individual klefas and thought-constructions. dkar po chig thub z;hes bya ba I I lta ba rkyang pd'i ldog cha nas I I yin gyi bsod nams tshogs dag la I I skur ba 'debs pa'i tshig ma yin I I de yang nyon mongs rnam par rtog I I so so'i gnyen po tha dad la I I 'bad mi dgos par phyag Tgya che I I gcig pus chog pa'i don nyid do I I

Just before (p. 344.2), he referred to the Hwa-shang comparison: lta ba yas babs hwa shang gi I I bsgom dang mtshungs z;hes gsungs mod kyang I I sngags lugs phal cher lta ba nas I I brtsams te lam la Jug par bshad I I

Then in his Phyag rgya chen po 'i shan byed [the first oftwo identically titled works], Collected Works, vol. 17, p. 365, he summarizes very clearly the opposing lines of argument ofSa-pa~, which had been introduced and discussed from another viewpoint on pp. 355-6. Also, in his gSer gyi thur ma las brtsams pa'i dogs gcod kyi 'bel gtam rab gsal rnam nges saml nges don rab gsal, Collected Works, vol. 17, pp. 529.5 and 541.5, he discusses the references to the "rgya nag lugs kyi rdz;ogs chen" within a larger exposition of the mentions of the rNying-ma-pa in the sDom gsum rab dbye, and he clarifies his own quoting of 'Bri-gung dPal-'dzin's criticisms in the gSer gyi thur mao

Moreover, within the Sa-skya-pa scholastic tradition, Shakya-mchog-1dan's attitude toward the Phyag-chen tradition (which incidentally stood him iIi good stead with his Rin-spungs-pa patrons) was a highly unusual-if not unique-exception; all other Sa-skya-pa sDom gsum rab dbye commentators to my knowledge accept and follow Sa-pa~'s position as they understand it without· such reservations or qualifications. (I doubt whether another example like.


, Shakya-mchog-Idan is to be found among eminent Sa-skya-pa scholars.) Thus, it is incorrect to assert that Sa-paJ.1's criticisms "have never really been accepted as valid," for that would ignore the main thrust of subsequent Sa-skya-pa scholarship and the writings of such influential masters as Go-rams-pa and the four great earlier commentators that Shakya-mchog-Idan had based his own sDom gsum rab dbye studies on. For a listing of the extensive commentatorialliterature on the sDom gsum rab dbye by some twenty-seven Sa-skya-pa scholars who followed Sa-paJ.1's interpretations more or less faithfully, see D. Jackson (1983), pp. 12-23.

In other contexts Karmay (1988) does admit, albeit somewhat grudgingly, that' certain of Sa-paJ.1's critical comments in the sDom gsum rab dbye are found to be not lacking in basis when one investigates the earlier sources and traditions in more detail. For example on p. 148 he states: "His [Sa-paJ.1'sJ contention [regarding the theg pa dguJ is not simply philosophical pedantry as it may seem." And on p. 200: "It is therefore this particular version of the account of the debate containing the question of dKar po chig thub and the two terms on which Sa-paJ.1's criticism of Phyag chen, however misleading it sounds, is based."

45. It is a little curious that Padma-dkar-po quoted the next two lines of the sDom gsum rab dbye out of context. This lack of clear context has completely thrown off Broido's translation (p. 39). The words begin the discussion of another point, and they read:

thub pas stong nyid bsngags pa ni / / dngos por 'dzin pa bzlog phyir yin / / "The Muni's celebration of voidness was for the purpose of averting the postulation of existing entities."

46. Padma-dkar-po, 50b.5: 'di ni byis pa'i klan ka ste/ 'thad na rang nyid la'ang rim gnyis rim gnyis su bzhag rgyu mi yong / 'di yang don dam pa'i phyogs su long gtam ste / kho bo cag gi lugs [51 a] la 'di ka don dam pa'i sems bskyed yin pas / .

47. Padma-dkar-po then goes on to quote various scriptures, in order, according to Broido (p. 40), to show that each of the five aspects of mahiimudrii of the lNga ldan system is treated as standing for the whole. It hardly needs mentioning that Sa-paJ.1 would have accepted these scriptures in their respective Mantrayana or Paramitayana contexts, and it does not necessarily follow that for him all these Indian sources were "foolishly confused" (cf. Broido, ibid.). Doctrinal confusion in Sa-paJ.1's opinion does not subsist in the scriptures, but rather in their erroneous interpretation, as he goes on to discuss explicitly in the following verses of the sDom gsum rab dbye.

48. In another context, Padma-dkar-po carefully specifies in his Klan ka gzhom pa'i gtam, p. 556.5 (zha nga 2b) that he does not accept a cultivation of merely non-discursiveness (mi TtOg pal as being by itself sufficient, contrary t~ what the Hwa-shang is said to have held, and here he enumerates rnam par ml TtOg pa as just one of many stages of practice entailed in the. practice of the Mahamudra. . .

49. See van der Kuijp (1987),p. 132, who cites 'Jam-mgonA-mes-zhabs's biography ofKun-dga'-rin-chen, pp. 112-113.

THE POLEMICIST 85

50. See M. Goldstein, Tibetan-English Dictionary if Modern Tibetan (Kathmandu: 1975).

51. bKa' brgyud gser phreng chen mo: Biographies if Eminent Gurus in the Transmission Lineage if Teachings if the 'Ba'-ra dKar-brgyud-pa Sect, p. 343.2 va phag gru 5a.2):

de nas yar byon nas 'on gyi tshal sgang du bzhugs I bsgom chen 'ga' re yang skyangs I gsung rabs rgyas pa la sags pa'i bsnyen bkur yang dpag tu med pa byung I rgyas pa de sa skya ru spyan< drangs nas I sgom bsod la sags pa'i slob ma bgres po khrid nas I slob dpon rnams dbang gi bzhi po yang zhus I 'bul ba skur bas chog pa yin te I bla ma chos 'dri ba la dgyes pas I nga sgam par phyin nas shiel s rab [b }rgya 'gyur du song I rtogs pa skyes I chos thams cad ni nam mkha' la mdung skor ba dang 'rira ba 'riil bla ma 'riri tsam nal lan gdab

dgossnyam pa la sngar bzhin 'ririr ma byung I nga'i bla ma la sku tshe ring po mi yongs par 'dug I spyan rtsa 'gyur song chos mi 'dri bar chad de 'grongs [344] ltags [better: ltasJ yin gsung tsa nal lo phyed tsam Lon pa dang 'das so I I The parallel passage in the sTaglung bKa'-brgyud-pa gSer phreng omits this episode. See Chos 'byung ngo mtshar rgya mtsho (Tashijong: 1972), vol. I, p. 251.

52. See also the account of dPa'-bo gTsug-Iag-phreng-ba, vol. I, p. 815, which concludes: bla ma sa skya pa sngon nas nga la chos 'dri zhing mnyes pa la da kho bo chos thams cad nam mkha' la mdung bskor ba ltar song ba 'rii la bla ma'i lan tshul bzhin gdab dgos snyam nas 'bul ba rnams skyel pa dang sgres pa 'ga' dbang bskur zhu 'riod dang bcas byonl ... da res chos kyang mi 'dril spyan rtsa'ang 'gyur 'dug ste 'grongs ltas ma lags sam gsungs te myur du grongs I. I t might be useful to trace this episode in the oldest and longest biographies ofPhag-mo-gru-pa, such as that by 'Bri-gung skyob-pa 'Jig-rten-mgon-po or the one by Chos-kyi-ye-shes entitled dPal phag mo gru pa'i rnam thar rin po che'i phreng ba which was published in The Collected Works of Phag-mo-gru-pa rDo-rje-rgyal-po (Gangtok: 1976), pp. 5-62.

53. More light on their relation may be shed by the text rJe btsun sa skya pa dang dpal phag mo gru pa gnyis kyi zhus lan, which is included in the list of Phagmu-gru-pa's works in the bibliographical compilation: Grags-pa (ed.), Bod kyi bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan byang dri med shel dkar phreng ba (mTsho-sngon: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985), p. 159.

Zhang Tshal-pa was similar in holding a non-Mahamudra teacher, rGa lo-tsa-ba, in the highest respect. He also honored the memory of Sa-chen Kundga'-snying-po, who had been the teacher of his master rJe-btsun gShen-pa. In his [b}rGyud pa sna tshogs, p. 442.1, Zhang mentions Sa-chen with the following words: "He who was like the crest-jewel from among many people in the Kaliyuga, the lord Sa-skya-pa, master of a treasury of instructions" (rtsod pa'i dus skye bo mang po 'i nang nas gtsug gi nor bu lta bur gyur pa rje sa [s) kya pa gdams ngag gi mdzod mnga' bal. The same rje-btsun gShen-pa was a teacher of the Lam 'bras to Dus-gsum-mkhyen-pa.

54. See Padma-dkar-po, bKa' brgyud kyi bka' 'bum gsil bu rnams kyi gsanyig, Collected Works, vol. 4, pp. 460-464 (nga na 76b-78b).

55. Padma-dkar-po, bKa' brgyud kyi bka' 'bum gsil bu rnams kyi gsan yig, Collected Work,s, vol. 4, pp. 461.5 (nga na 77a.5): bde gshegs chen po 'di'i slob ma'i mkhas shos mthong lam gyi TtOgS pa thob par gsung pa))inl phyis sgam par byonl de nas bla ma'i spyan sngar byon dus spyan sprin 'gyur ba gzigs pa lal gzhan dag sgam po pa'i slob ma byas pa la ma m71:yes so yang snyam I gleng yang gleng ngo I mtshan nyid [77bJ


dang ldan pa'i bla ma dag la de 'dra ga la srid / gang gis 'dul ba dang / gang las sems can: la phan thogs che ba la de dag ched du sbyor ba mdzad pa'i phyir ro / / bla ma spong len lta bur sem[sJ pa nijo gdan chang bzi'i gtam dpe nyid do / / de yang phag gru nyid kyis bla ma yun ring du mi bzhugs pa'i mtshan mar gsungs pa ltar thog tu bab bo / / .

In the passage just before this, Padma-dkar-po sharply rejects a similar negative and sectarian interpretation regarding the relation of Sa-chen and Phag-mo-gru-pa as "the words of a fool" (blun po'i tshig).

56. I am not familiar with the maxim or saying jo gilan chang bzi. The wordjo gdan is evidently not correctly defined in any dictionary to which I have access, but the simi~ar word jo stan apparently refers to a monk of a strict monastic discipline, andjo gdan may be an alternative spelling for it. Except in a few. exceptional circumstances,jo gdan does not refer to a Jo-nang abbot (jo nang gic gdan sa pa), as some dictionaries suggest when they list the word at all.

Regarding the termjo stan, it is presumably the abbreviation ofjo bo stan gcig pa. The gDan-gcig-pas or sTan-gcig-pas were strict monastic adherents who kept "the discipline of a single mat" (stan gcig gi brtul zhugs), and a commu" nity of them known by this name was based in 'Phan-po at the Jo-stan tshogspa ofJo-stan-thang. Some teachers of the "Female gcod" (mo gcod) tradition such as bla-ma sTan-gcig-pa gZhon-nu-tshul-khrims (fl. c. 1200), who was also known as Jo-stan-thang~pa, were based there. See the Blue Annals, p. 993. In the reproduction of the Tibetan text, see p. 955 (pa 7a). Note that here folios 7 of fascicles pa and ba have been exchanged in the reprint edition. Thus pp. 955-6 and pp. 881-2 appear in the wrong places. See also the far klungjo bo'i chos 'byung (Chengdu: 1988), pp. 77 and l79f, where the monastic communities founded as' a result of Sakyasrlbhadra's activities are referred to as jo gdan tshogs pa andjo dansde (sic).

57. Broido (p. 62, n. 3, and p. 66, n. 67) has misinterpreted Sa-pal). as calling his opponents "outsiders" [i.e., non-Buddhists] by the word phyi rabs, not realizing that the word means "later or recent generation" (cf. phyi pa or phyi rol mu stegs pa). Sa-pal). does however say (Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, 4~b.4) that he considers the traditions he criticizes there to be "neither Sravaka nor Mahayana but which is held [by the opponent] to be the Buddha's Doctrine" (nyan thos dang theg chen gnyis ka ma yin pa sangs rgyas kyi bstan par 'dod pa). That a teaching must fit in somewhere within the usual doctrinal classes, such as Buddhist or non-Buddhist, Mahayana or non-Mahayana, tantric or non-tantric was accepted by nearly everyone. Although in some extreme interpretations the Mahamudra was proposed to be a third (or even fourth) class of teachings outside of both non-tantric Mahayana and tantra (see for instance Lhalungpa transl. [1986], pp. IIO-II2, quoting sGam-po-pa), others have not rriaintained such a threefold scheme because of the unacceptable doctrinal difficulties it would entail. See for instance 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, p. 45 (23a): mdo sngags gnyis las tha dad pa'i lam zhigyod na l'dzogs pa'i sangs l'gyas kyis ma gsungs pa'i lam du thal bas, and rDo-rje-shes-rab, vol. I, p. 396.1 (~ga 25a.1). S~e also Broido, pp. 46 and 50, who in formulating his final arguments sharply dIStinguishes between Vajrayana and non-Vajrayana Mahayana as a mutually exc-' lusive pair. According to him, a Mahamudra doctrine must be either one or the other. See also his theses Gand H, p. 30.

THE POLEMICIST 87

For sCam-po-pa's three-fold division of the path, see for instance his Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan, pp. 418 and 438. In the first passage he gives two alternatives: 1) ryes dpag lam du byed pa = mtshan nyid

2) byin brlabs lam du byed pa = sngags 3) mngon sum lam du byed pa = phyag chen

or-1) gzhi spong ba'i lam = phar phyin 2) gzhi sgyur ba'i lam = sngags 3) gzhi shes pa 'i lam = phyag chen

In other contexts he follows the more standard classifications. See for instance his Tshogs chos legs mdzes ma, pp. 172.1, where he contrasts the Paramitayana as tshogs kyi lam with the Mantrayana which is thabs kyi lam. Cf also ibid., pp. 219-220 where he enumerates the usual pairs: drang doni nges don, theg chen I theg chung, phar phyinl 'bras bu sngags, bskyed rim I rdzogs rim, and finally rdzogs chen I phyag chen.

58. One of the "four reliances" (rton pa bzhi) was that one should rely not on the person but on the doctrine. Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje suggested that critics of the Mahamudra (such as Sa-paJ;!) have deviated from this principle through "hostility." See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1262; Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. 15 (8a.5): rton pa bzhi la rton pa na chos la rton gyil gang zag la mi rton par zhal nas gsungs pa la sdang dbang gis de las bzlog pa'i phyir ro I I.

59. bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, for instance, attributes the criticisms of SapaJ;! to a sheer wish to criticize, questioning whether Sa-paJ;! was dispassionate in his criticism or uninfluenced by personal feelings, jealousy, etc. See Lhalungpa (1986), pp. 105f et passim; bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, p. 93b.6:smra 'dod pa tsam du zad, p. 94b.1: rang gi zhe 'dod bden par sgrub pa'i rdzun rib kho nar snang stel, p. 94b.4: ma nges bzhin du bsnyon nas smra ba gzur gnas rnams kyi spyodyul ma yin pa'i phyir I, p. 97a.6: phrag dog gis sgo nas sgro btags kyi skur 'debs smra bar mi rung, etc. As mentioned above, Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje takes a similar tack. See the translation ofSeyfort Ruegg (1988), pp. 1257 and 1262, and Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, pp. 11 and 15 (6a.3 and 8a.5). Padma-dkar-po too becomes on occasion quite exuberant in his criticisms, terming Sa-paJ;!'s comments "a madman's words" (smyon pa'i tshig) in his Phyag chen gan mdzod, pp. 580.1 (198b) or as "bod sm)lon mchong," ibid., p. 589.3 (203a). In his Klan ka gzhom pa'i gtam, p. 563 (zha nga 6a) he states that the mere objections (klan ka) of a biased ordinary individual (so so skye bo) cannot disprove anything because such people praise their own side and dispraise the positions of others: so so sk)le bo dag ni rang gi la bstodl gzhan phyogs la smod pas I de dag gis klan ka tsam g)lis ci la gnod I and adds that there is no use gazing with the blind eye of bias: phyogs 'dzin zha1"ba'i mig des bltas kyang cil I.

60. Sa-paJ;!, sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 320.3.6 (na 48a.d): de phyir chos rnams phal cher thos I I des na bdag la phyogs lhung medl I de phyir gzu bos dpyad pa 'di I I blo ldan rnams kyis 'di !tar zung I I 61. Ibid., p. 319.4.4 (46b.4): bdag ni sems can kurda byams I I gang zag kun la bdag mi smod I I blgya la mT'.yam par ma bzhag pas I I


smad pa srid na'ang sdig de bshags / / 62. Ibid., p. 320.1.2 (47a.2): chos log pa dang ma log pa'i/ / rnam par dbye ba byas pa la / / sdang dang phrag dog yin zer na / / '0 na 'khor ba'i rgya mtsho las / / sems can rnams ni ji ltar bsgml/ /

Cf. also ibid., 46b. 63. sGam-po-pa in his Tshogs chos legs mdzes ma, p. 187, advises his follow

ers to avoid sectarianism and not to indulge in criticisms of other religious traditions, specifying the great faults this would entail for both followers of sutra and tantm. He does allow as an exception criticisms through which one rejects a lower philosophical theory and enters a higher one, as is mentioned in the Bodhicaryiivatiim. Cf. Padma-dkar-po, Phyag chen gan mdzod, p. 189.3-6 (3a), who accepts the legitimacy of doctrinal criticisms and exhorts others not to get angry when their own traditions are criticized!

64. See Steinkellner (1988), pp. 1441-43. See also the discussion in SapaI).'s mKhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo, III 12-13 (D. Jackson [1987J, p. 329) and the references in the same publication, p. 378, n. 27. Sa-pan stresses there the fundamental motivation as being to maintain one's own doctrines honestly.

65. The situation was of course far more complicated in actual practice, because both sides could maintain some scriptures which one of them interpreted for instance to be of only "provisional meaning" (dmng don). To avoid a selfcontradiction, they could interpret the contradictory scripture as not having "definitive meaning" (nges don).

66. This was stated by Dharmaklrti in the opening verse of his Viidanyaya. Seefor instance D. Jackson (1987), p. 324 and n. 11.

67. Sa-paI)., sDom gsum mb dbye, p. 34a.l: kha eig dkar po chig thub las / / 'bras bu sku gsum 'byung zhes zer / / gcig las 'bms bu 'byung mi nus / / gal te geig las 'bms bu zhig / / byungyang nyan thos 'gog pa bzhin/ / 'bms bu de yang gcig tu 'gyur / /

68. Padma-dkar-po, Phyag chen gan mdzod, p. 49a: tshig bar ma phyi ma gnyis kyis bkag pas na mng la gnod do / / rgyu mtslzan/ gcig las 'bras [49bJ bu ma 'byung bar kha tS/lOn bead nas / yang rryan thos kyi 'gog pa rgyu gcig las 'byung ba'i 'bms bur bslzad pas 50/ /

69. For a similar traditional response to these criticisms by Padma-dkarpo (which I located after completing the rest of this article), see also Ngagdbang-chos-grags, sDom pa gsum gyi mb tu dbye ba'i rnam bshad legs par bshad pa zla 'ad nor bu (New Delhi: 1978), p. 376 (188b): sprul sku mchog padma dkar pos/ 'di la snga phyi 'galla zhes pa'i sun 'byin gnang ba ni mi 'tlzad del gal te zhes dang / 'byung yang zhes pa'i tshig nus kyis rtag pa mtlza' bzung tsam gsungs pa yin raj ei ste de la sun 'byin gnang na gzhung lugs chen po kun la '0 brgyal 'byung ngo / 77yan tlios 'gog pa bzlzin zhes pa yang / spyir 'bms bu gcig gi dpe tsam ma gtsogs rgyu gcig las byung ba'i 'bras bu gcig gi dper 'd;:.in pa ma yin no / / .

THE POLEMICIST 89

For Sa-palf, incidentally, there are no chig thub methodso The nirodha of the arhat arises from a number of causes and factors, one of which being the generation of the intention (sems bskyed) to attain arhatshipo For a mention of this sems bskyed, see his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, po 5.3.1 = tha lOa: "For generating the Thought [of Awakening] (bodhicitta), there are two main traditions: that of the Sravaka schools and that of the Great Vehicle schoolso In the Sravaka schools, one produces the thought of attaining one of three goals: Arhatship, Pratyekabuddhahood, and perfect, complete Buddhahood:'

700 Padma-dkar-po, Phyag chen gan mdzod, po 27903 (nga 48a): 10 tsa ba chen po'i brtag pa gnyis pa'i rgyud 'grel dul phra ba nas g:'yO ba'i bar gyi chos thams cad rang rgyud par grub pa med do I I

lhan cig skyes pa'i rang bzhin nyid de ltar Ita ba rtogs par byas nas bsgom pa ni mnyam nyid la sogs pa ste I bsgom pa yang mnyam gzhag rjes thob med par lhan cig skyes pa 'i ye shes su mtshungs par bzhag go I I

de Ita bu'i phyag rgya chen po rtogs pa'i gang zag gis bltas na 'khor ba dang my a ngan las 'das pa'i chos thams cad de las byung zhing de'i mam [48b] par 'khrul [ = 'phrul] pa yin te I nga la sogs pa gsungs so I I

de ltar na Ita sgom spyod pa thams cad phyag rgya chen por shes nas dus yun ring por bsgoms na bsod nams chung ba'i mis kyang 'grub nagzhan Ita ci smos zhes bstan pa nil de ltar la sogs pas bstan to I I

7L Hevajra Tantra, part I, chapter viii, verses 39-420 See Snellgrove (1959), vol. 2, po 31:

gang mams de mams brtan dang g:'yo I I 'di lam zhes bya nga nyid de I I mnyam nyid mtshungs par 'dod pa nyid I I ro mnyam de nyidbsgom pa nil I (39)

mnyam zhes bya ba mtshungs par brjod I I de yi 'khor 10 ro zhes brjod I I sgom pa TO gcig mnyam pa nyidl I 'dis ni don gyis brjod par bya I I (40)

nga las 'gro ba thams cad 'byung I I nga las gnas gsum po yang 'byung I I nga yi 'di kun khyab pa ste I I 'gro ba'i rang bzhin gzhan ma mthong I I (41)

de ltar mal 'byor pas shes na I I shin tu mnyam gzhag gang goms pa I I bsod nams chung ba'i mi yis kyang I I deyi 'grub pa the tsom medl I (42)

Cf the translation of this passage, vol. 1, po 770 720 Padma-dkar-po, Ph)!ag chen gan mdzod, po 280 (nga 48b03): rtogs pa'i tshe·

phyag rgya chen po las gzhan pa'i chos ci yang mi 'dod pas so I I 730 Jfianaklrti, Tattvavatara, Peking Tanjur, rgyud 'grel58 [nu] 46a = voL 81,

po 12604: de nas de la goms pa nyid 'bras bu ma Ius pa yongs su rdzogs pa yin te I de ltar na 'di ni phyag rgya chen po gnjis su med pa'i sgom pa nyid 'bras bu ma Ius pa thob par byed pa [P reads: par] mal 'byor pa thams cad kyi thun mongyin no I I


Broido has rendered this: "Thus, its cultivation leads completely to countless results. Accordingly, the cultivation of non-dual mahiimudrii is what all yogins who attain countless results have in common."

It is essential in Tibetan to distinguish carefully the active, transitive verbal forms (which enter into the ergative construction), such as sgom "to cultivate," from the corresponding non-active forms, in which the result of such actions is stressed, namely here: goms "to have gained mastery [through cultivation]" or "to have internalized something [as the result of cultivation]'''

74. Sa-pa~, sKyes bu dam pa, na 73b (= 3b) summarized this point: ''And as it is said in the Vairocaniibhisambodhi Tantra:

The teaching [by the Buddha] of disciplines and gnosis which possess no 'means was expounded by the Great Hero for the sake of introducing the friivakas into that. Those who are the Buddhas of the past, present and future attained the unconditioned highest vehicle having trained in that [path] which possesses methods and discriminative knowledge.

''And likewise it is not taught in any sutra, tantra or great treatise that one can awaken to Buddhahood by a White Self-Sufficient Simple as distinct from [through] the perfectly replete possession of methods and discriminative knowledge. It is indeed taught in [some] siltras and tantras that one can gain Buddhahood by merely respectfully saluting or circumambulating, and by offering one flower, or by reciting a single rjhiiraTf'i, or by reciting just the name of the Buddha, or by a single act of worshipful reverence, or by the arising of a single thought of bodhicitta, or by the mere understanding of emptiness. Yet one should understand those as being [statements with special] intention (dgongs pal or allusion (ldem dgongs) , but they are not direct expression."

75. On KamalaSIla's similar rejection of anyone segment of the .. bodhisattva's path as sufficient for yielding the highest Buddhahood, see Gomez ., (1987), pp. 116f.

76. Go-rams-pa (ta 138b.3): zhang tshal pa la sogs pa kha cigl dkar po chig thub zhes bya bal stong 11:JIid kho na bsgom pa las 'bras bu sku gsum 'byung zhes zer ba.

n See Sa-pa~'s remarks in the sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 303.3.2 (na l4a): la la rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas kyil I gsung rab tshig don zab mo dang I I grub thob rnams dang mkhas rnams kyil I shin tu legs par bshad pa'i chos / I tshig gi na ya yin pas na / I dgos pa med pas dor zhes zer / I ....

This point of view is attributed by Go-rams-pa in his commentary (p. 152a) to "zhang tshal pa dang I bka' phyag pa la la." ..

78. The same terms and ideas as well as the related gcig shes and gcig grot also appear as aspects of a fundamental concept in the rDzogs-chen, which· Karmay (1988), p. 48, terms "singleness" or "oneness." See also ibid., pp.49. and 198, where in the former citation chig chod is translated as "enough by ~elP'

For an occurrence of chig chod in a Mahamudra context, see dPa' -bo gTsuglag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, p. 799f: sems kyi ngo bo ston pa phyag rgya chen po chig chod. See also Lhalungpa (1986), pp. 402 and 404, who translates occurrences ofthe,

THE POLEMICIST 91

term in Zhang and bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal (p. 37lb) as "attainable in one stride" and "all-in-one." Cf sGam-po-pa, Works, vol. 1, pp. 421. 7-422.1.

bKra~shis-rnam-rgyal, p. 201 (lOla.3), also characterizes this doctrine as: mdo sngags kyi gzhung lam la ma bltos par phyag rgya chen po'i lam gcig chod kyis grol bar bzhed pa yin lal , cf. Lhalungpa (1986), who translates, p. 112: "the onlY path of instantaneous realization, which does not depend on the paths of the sl1tras and tantras" (italics mine).

79. The Tibetan text: phyag rgya chen po chig chod lal I sa lam brtsi ba'i rmongs pa 'khrull I The word chig chodhere is apparently adjectival instead ofverbal, and the la not a verbal particle. Cf the translation of Lhalungpa (1986), p. 402. The same quote appears at least twice elsewhere in Sa-pa~'s bka' 'bum, in minor works. The first is the bKa' gdams do kor (p. 403.4.5), where it is said:

phyag rgya chen po chig chod la I I sa lam brtsi ba'i rmongs pha [sic] 'khrull I de skad zer ba bstan pa yi I I bdud tshigyin pas rna ba dgab I I

The second occurrence is in the work rTogs ldan rgyan po'i dris lan, p. 335.3.l (na 79b), which is attributed to his disciple Bi-ji.

80. Thu'u-bkwan, p. 165.2 (kha 23a.2): phyag rgya chen po gcig chod lal I rmongs pas sa lam brtsi ba 'khrul I I 'on kyang rmongs pa dga' ba'i phyir I I mtshan nyid theg pa'i sa lam rnams I I 'dir yang dod po rtsi bar bya I I

sGam-po-pa, Lam rim mdor bsdus, pp. 239f, taught the four yogas in connection with a path of graded practices leading to mahamudrii.

81.' Lhalungpa (1986), p. 402: "The great seal is attainable in one stride. It is deluded ignorance to divide it into grounds and paths." bKra-shis-rnamrgyal, p. 371b, quotes Zhang favorably here and follows his views. The text reads nearly the same as in Thu'u-bkwan. The same translator (ibid.) translates chig chod in the immediately following passage as "all-in-one."

82. Padma-dkar-po, Klan ka gzhom pa'i gtam, p. 561.6 (zha nga 5a.6). 83. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 103.3 (28a.3): . phyag rgya chen po chig chod la I I rmongs pa sa lam rtsi ba 'khrul I I 'on kyang rmongs pa dga' ba'i phyirl I mtshan nyid theg pa'i sa lam rnams I I 'dir yang 'dod pas rtsi bar byal I

Cf also p. 28b.3. 84. See also Shakya-mchog-Idan, Collected Works, vol. 17, p. 361.6-7,

Who quotes two of these lines as a preliminary to his discussion of the Mahamudra in this tradition.

Cf 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, dGongsgcig rnam bshad nyi ma'i mang ba [composed 1633], 'Bri-gung-pa Texts, vol. 2, p. 45 = 23a.l, who speaks out in favor of the oppo&ing opinion, in defence of the statement by 'Bri-gung skyob-pa 'Jig-rten-mgon-po: gal te mtshan nyid theg par sa lam rim bgrod du mthun kyang sngags bla med kyis lam brtsi mi dgos par skad cig mar 'dod na I sngags lam gyi rtsa


ba smingroLLas gzhan med Lal .... Cf. the parallel passage in rDo-rje-shes-rab, vol. 1, p. 395.7 (nga 24b. 7).

Zhang Tshal-pa held to the contrary that such gradualist teachings were not the ultimate intent of the Buddha but were taught rather with provisional meaning for ignorant disciples (p. 104 = 28b):

sa dang Lam gyi rim pa dang I I drod rtags khyad par so so kun I I rim Jug gduL bya drang don dul I thub pas Ldem por gsungs pa La I I rmongs rnams nyi tshe'i phyogs char zhenl I

gduL bya'i mtho dman bsam mi khyab I I sangs rgyas gsung rabs bsam mi khyab I I rang rang gzhung dang ma mthun yang I I smad cing spang bar mi bya zhing I I nam zhig go bar smo~ Lam thob I I

See also sGam-po-pa, Tshogs bshad Legs mdzes ma, p. 234.5, where the siltras and tantras (as opposed to direct instructions, man ngag} are said to degenerate or fall to the level of conceptualization (don spyi'i rnam pa La shor). Among man ngag, the rim-gyis~pa gradualist teaching is said there to be of provisional mean-" ing (drang don) and the cig-car-ba is of definitive meaning (nges don). Cf. his Tshogs~ chos yon tan phun tshogs, pp. 265 and 268.2, where it is specifically the Paramitayana method which is said to be limited to grasping the subject as a conceptually conceived universal, and not the Mantrayana.

The last lines in the above quote from Zhang seem to be intended to ward':' off criticisms from adherents of other systems: "Though it may not accord with~ your own basic texts, you should not disparage and abandon it, but rather you " should make a formal resolution [or prayer] that you at some future time will . understand it." .

Zhang wrote a small treatise on the four yogas, the Nyams rnaL 'byor rnam pa':> bzhi (Writings, pp. 499.5ff.), in which he states that this was given for the rim- . gyis-pa individual ('on kyang rims kyis pa'i gang zag rnams La dgongs nas [510] dampa .gong mas sgom chen rnams kyi 11:J!ams rnaL 'byor pa [sic] rnams [= rnam] bzhir phye bayin).

85. He bases himself on the article ofG6mez (1983), who surveys the con-tributions of Japanese scholars. •

86. One of the reasons that Sa-pal). may have tended to link these doc~ trines with China and with earlier Tibetan tradition, in addition to the "typo-c' logical" similarities, was that the Mahamudra as presented in the [han cig ~kyes' sbyor and related systems was apparently not well known or widely recogmzed as an established Indian Buddhist doctrine by the Indian scholars with w~o~ he had contacts. He may have reasoned that ifit was not known from IndIa, It, must have come from elsewhere. . d

The junior pal).c,iita Vibhilticandra, with whom Sa-pa9- had studle , together under SakyaSrlbhadra, is said to have criticized the Mahamudra ofthe. early 'Bri-gung-pa in particular (in. c. 1207, before Sa-pal). rejoined the grou~ and received ordination at Myang-smad in 1208), saying their Mahamudra doctrine was a "great lie" (nor 'bri klzung ba che zer te plryag rgya chen po ba 'di rdzun

THE POLEMICIST

ehe ba yin zer byas pas). This account given in the biogr·aphy of Sa-paJ:.l's teacher Sakyasribhadra (1127-1225) by bSod-nams-dpal-bzang-po, would not seem to be a later fabrication for the purpose of discrediting the Mahamudra, for if anything, it is meant to show that in spite of Sakyasribhadra's refusal to visit 'Brigung though he was twice invited, the great Kashmiri master respected and approved of the 'Bri-gung-pa (,Jig-rten-mgon-po), saying he was an emanation of Nagarjuna. The reason he is said to have given for not coming is that some among his Tibetan followers (specifically certain bKa'-gdams-pa and gDangcig-pas) might possibly accrue demerit in relation to the 'Bri-gung-pa if he accepted the invitation there [because of their lack offaith in that bla-ma] (de nas 'bri khung pa rnams la ehas rje'i zhal nas nga'i 'khar la bka' gdams pa dang gdan geig pa la sags pa mang bas / khyed la las phyin ei lag bsags pa srid). See bSod-nams-dpalbzang-po, Sa'i steng na 'gran zla dang bral ba kha ehe par;¢i ta shiikya shrf bhadra'i rnam thar, p. 45a-b. 'Gos lo-tsa-ba (Roerich, trans!., Blue Annals, p. 1070) also mentions Sakyasrlbhadra's refusal of two invitations to 'Bri-gung, though he gives no further details. It is interesting to see that Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje cites Sakyasribhadra as one of the Indian sources (besides Mitrayogin) of the Mahamudra teachings received and transmitted by Khro-phu lo-tsa-ba. See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1261; Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. 15 (8a.2). .

Sa-paJ:.l was thus by no means the first to question the origins and validity of certain Mahamudra teachings followed in the Dwags-po bka'-brgyud, though that is a common misconception (see for instance Lhalungpa [1986], pp. 434f, n. 73). In fact, resistance to this or similar teachings is said to have gone back a long ways among the Tibetans. The bKa'-gdams-pa tradition, beginning with the master 'Brom-ston rGyal-ba'i-'byung-gnas, is said from the beginning to have objected to the Mahamudra's being taught (he was concerned in general about the suitability of tantra-based doctrines for the Tibetans), and later some bKa' -gdams-pas took a more neutral attitude of non-approval, saying the Mahamudra should neither be practiced nor criticized. See the Blue Annals, pp. 268 (ca 13b) and 843-4 (da 3a-b), andSeyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1273, n. 98. Moreover Zhang Tshal-pa, writing sometime in the period ca. 1160-ca. 1190, already mentions in one of his autobiographies (rNam thar shes rab grub ma, p. 49.3) the criticisms of others who doubted that certain points of the Mahamudra doctrine under discussion were possible, and who in this way abandon the Buddhist teaching (Hi mi srid zer nas / dam pa'i chas spang du 'ang pa yin). But he had tried to show the reverse by quoting statements from a tantra and from the sayings of Saraha, and he then replied himself: "As for whether it is possible or not, look at the mind!" (srid dam mi srid pa sems la ltas I). A little later (p. 50.1) he mentions that the same opponents (who are said to imagine themselves to be learned though they merely mouth words like a parrot) call this teaching an erroneous doctrine (lag chas). See also his similar remarks On p. 52.5. The same opponents are addressed in his sNa tshags zhi gnas, Writings, p.623.3.

In his Mal dbu dkar la gdams pa (Writings, p. 657.5), which was evidently addressed to a dge-bshes <;>f a non-bKa' -brgyud-pa tradition who had asked him to be frank, he also mentions those who were repelled by his doctrine of a sudden realization which arises from within through the guru's grace (which he


says can occur only very rarely), and who were especially troubled by the notion that this alone was the decisive thing: 'di cig phu yin ;:::,er ba 'di shin tu mi 'thad ;:::,er nas I [s] kyug log log song ba mang du byung I da sun nas dang po ;:::,er ba 'di 'tsher . ba gda'i dge bshes pa nyid kyi gsung nas ngo bsrung ma byed gsungs pas drang par bgyispa lags II

Even the approach of sGam-po-pa and that of his successor sGom-tshul are said to have been criticized by others, who included dialectically trained scholars (mtshan nyid pal. The former is said to have incurred the criticism of certain great scholars of scholasticism and Buddhist philosophy by introducing young monks directly into mahiimudrii insight without their having received any prior religious educational training, and thus "wasting" many bright young monks. (Blue Annals, p. 460; Tibetan text p. 400.5 = nya 25b): thos bsam sngon du ma song ba'i btsun chung mang po yang rtogs pa la bkod pas I mtshan nyid pa'i dge ba'i bshes gnyen chen po 'ga' ;:::,hig gis I blo gsal mang po sgam po pas chud ;:::,os su bcug ces 'bar ba la I gsung gis I mtshan nyid pa rnams nga la bka' bkyon te I ... The great master Gro-Iung-pa (fl. early 1100s) of gSang-pu is also said to have criticized certain amanasikiira doctrines of Maitrlpada as not being the Madhyamaka, which the later bKa'-brgyud-pas took to be the starting point for various criticisms of their central doctrines by Sa-pal,l and a number ofbKa' -gdams-pas. See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1257, translating Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. II (6a.2): lugs 'di dbu mar 'chad pa la rigs par smra ba gro lung pa sags dpyod ldan mang pas ma rangs nas a ma na si pa sags ci rigs kyi lugs dbu ma pa'i lugs dang mi mthun ;:::,hes 'gags par md;:::,ad lal tshig 'di tsam la brten nas sa skya par;. chen dang I bka' gdams pa ci rigs pa ;:::,hig gis I rje btsun mai tri pa'i chos rnam par dag pa a ma na sa'i skor thams cad la sdang ;:::,hen byed pa dang I. sGom-tshul, too, was criticized by some who had never met him but who had nevertheless reviled him from afar, as alluded to in a verse of praise composed in his honor by gTsang-nag-pa, one of Phywa-pa's main students (Blue Annals., p. 465; Tibetan p. 405 = nya 28a.2): skal med skye bo ring nas ngan brjod kyangll.

Thus, by the mid-to-Iate-12th century these doctrines and their upholders had already come under fire, notably from dialectically trained scholars (rtog ge pa or mtshan nyid pal who in that period in Central Tibet probably belonged to the circle ofPhywa-pa Chos-kyi-seng-ge (1109-1169) and his disciples or successors, i.e., to the gSang-phu Ne'u-thog tradition. But as just mentioned, the criticisms were not unanimous. The great scholar gTsang-nag brTson-'grus-sengge, for instance, is said to have renounced such a negative attitude after meeting sGom-tshul personally. Moreover, a bKa'-gdams-pa dge-bshes who honored sGom-tshul was Phyag-sor-ba: see ibid., p. 456; nya 28a.2.

Already by sGam-po-pa's time the dialectically oriented scholars (mts/zan nyid pal of rNgog and Phywa-pa's tradition were thus recognized as a distinct significant trend in the religious life of Tibet. sGam-po-pa in Dus gsum, p. 453.3, mentions the bKa'-gdams, mTshan-nyid-pa and sNgags-pa traditions as distinct from the Mahamudra. Elsewhere in the same work (p. 437.7) he repeats an enumeration of traditions attributed to the dge-bshes brGya-yo'n-bdag:

1) r Dzogs-chen 2) mTshan-nyid-pa, who dissolve false conceptions through reasoning 3) Pha-rol-tu-phyin-pa, who stress method and wisdom

THE POLEMICIST

4) sNgags-pa . 5) bKa'-gdams-pa, whose special instructions utilize the threefold division of personality types into great, middling and lesser

Cf. his biography, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 112.5, where mTshan-nyid-pas are distinguished from bKa'-gdams-pas.

One of the above-mentioned opposing scholars may have been the "later dialectician who hates the profound meaning" (phyis kyi rtog ge pa zab don la ldang ba) suspected and accused by dPa' -bo gTsug-lag-phreng-pa of concocting and inserting the account which relates the reasoning involving the garuq.a or khyung simile-i.e., the account that is found in some sBa bzhed histories in which KamalaSIla is said to have refuted the Hwa-shang by this argumentation and that is repeated by Myang-ral and by Sa-pa9- in his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal. See dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. I, p. 397 Ua 122a): hwa shang gi dpe don dgag pa de dag kyang nus pa dman te nam mkha' lding gcig char du 'dab gshog rdzogs pa los yong ste 'jig rten gdags pa las nam mkha' lding brdzus skyes bshad pa'i phyir don yang ma khegs te rnam par mi rtog pa sgom pa ni rang lugs la yang 'dod dgos la de'i tshe sngar gyi thal tshur ldog na 'khor gsum ga la lan gyis dben pa'i phyir ro I I des na rgya gar gyi mkhas pa nyi zla lta bu la de 'dra'i rigs pa'i mu ge gar ldang I de dag ni phyis kyi rtog ge pa zab don la ldang ba chos spong la mkhas nyams dang phrag dog la khyad nor re ba rnams kyis bcug par go sla'o I I. Zhang himself used the swooping hawk example in his Phyag chen zab lam mthar thug (p. 104.1 = 28b) as will be quoted below.

87. Sa-pa9-, sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 309.3.4 (na 26a.4). A few lines before, he typifies this "Chinese tradition" as a "Chinese-tradition rDzogs-chen" (rgya nag lugs kyi rdzogs chen). See p. 309.2.5 (na 25b). This linking of the rDzogs-chen with Chinese teachings propagated in 8th-century Tibet was taken to be a fantastic if not sacrilegious absurdity by certain later bKa'-brgyud-pa scholars. See for example bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal (f.94a, Lhalungpa trans!' [1986], p. 105), who criticizes this on the grounds that Sa-pa9- is here saying the Chinese system is the same as the tantric Atryoga rDzogs-chen. Padma-dkar-po, Phyag chen gan mdzod, p. 579 (nga 198a) interprets Sa-pa9- as making this same identification, and says that the slUra-based refutations by KamalasIla would not have held water had they been directed toward a tantric system such as the Atryoga rDzogs-chen. He challenges upholders of Sa-pa9-'s views to cite the specifics: where did this Chinese tradition spread and into whose hands in Tibet did it first come? See also his dGe bshes mar yul pa'i dris lan legs par bshad pa'i gzhi, vol. 21, p. 582 (zha da 15b): rabdbye ba rang la 'di thad du tig tig med del rgya nag [16a] lugs kyi rdzogs chen zhes smros pas so I I sgom rim gyi lo rgyus rting mar theg chen mdo lugs kyi gdams ngag ston pas 'od srungs la gnang ba rgya gar ba bcu I rgya nag po pa bcu I bod du 'ongs pa'i hwa shang ma hii yan nar bcas pa la gtad I gal te 'di rdzogs chen pa yin na de ni theg pa rim pa dgur 'dod pa'i rtse mo yin pas ka ma la shZ las mdo lung gi dgag pa sun 'byin ltar snang du 'gro I. See also Broido, p. 64, n. 34. Probably the first discussions of the above sDom gsum rab dbye passage in the Western literature are in Stein (1971), p. 9, and (1972), p. 23, n. 3. A recent discussion is Karmay (1988), p. 198. For references to other discussions, see D. Jackson (1987), pp. 47-8.

96 JIABS VOL. 13 NOo 2

In spite of the strong denials of many, within the rDzogs-chen tradition itself such a link was nevertheless sometimes admittedo See for instance K10ngchen rab-'byams-pa, gNas lugs kyi mdzod, po 33b, as cited by Seyfort Ruegg (1988), po 1257, note 370 See also Karmay (1988), po 93, no 42, who lists the rDzogs-chen masters A-ro Ye-shes-'byung-gnas (11 th Co) and Sog-zlog-pa (1552-1624) as having asserted that the rDzogs-chen received one of its transmissions through a succession of seven Chinese masters (though Sog-zlog-pa predictably denying the specifically Ch'an connection) 0 Kal;-thog rig-'dzin Tshe-dbang-nor-bu (1698-1755), however, states that the lineage of seven emanated [Chinese] teachers (sprul pa bdun brgyud) of the bka' thang is precisely the Ch'an lineage down to Mo-ho-yen, and certain other rNying-ma masters such as 'Jigs-med gling-pa (1728-1791) defended the Chinese cig-car-ba teachings, as Karmay also notes (ibido,.and po 96, no 60)0 Karmay (1988, passim) contributes importantly to the question by distinguishing the early rDzogs-chen from some of the other distinct strands of early (ioeo, 9th-10th Co) Tibetan Buddhis~, espe, cially from the Tibetan cig-car-ba tradition descending from Mo-ho-yeno In this he follows the bSam gtan mig sgron of sNubs Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes (10th Co?)o He therefore also (ppo 89f) discounts the ready identifications of the r Dzogs-chen with Ch'an made on two occasions by Go Tucci (1958), Minor Buddhist Texts 11, based for instance on a passage in the Blon po'i bka' thang, and in this Karmay accords with the cautious stance ofF Kvaerne (1983), ppo 368, 384, and 386, no 50 But Karmay goes a bit too far at one point (po 91) in asserting: "The author of [the Blon po'i bka' thang] therefore had no access to documents comparable to those of Tun-huang as has been assumed 000," for other research has uncovered some striking overlaps by comparing the relevant sections of the Blon po'i bka' thang and the bSam gtan mig sgron with Pelliot Tibo 1160 See Broughton (1983), po 51, no 7, who refers to the findings ofOkimotoo

As noted above, sGam-po-pa sometimes portrays the rDzogs-chen as occupying a parallel doctrinal position to the Mahamudra as one of two practical instructions (man ngag) of the Mantrayana rdzogs rim, and on occasion even seems to identify the two as being the same ultimate third path beyond the Paramitayana and Tantrao See his Tshogs bshad legs mdzes ma, po 22002: rdzogs pa'i rim pa gdam[s 1 ngag ston I de la gnyis I rdzogs pa chen po'i man ngag dang phyag rgya chen po gnyis yod pa las 10 And his Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, po 269.1: [gsum pal Tryon mongs pa ye shes chen po'i gzhir shes pa ni gsang sngags bla na med pa phyag rgya chen po'i don dam I rdzogs pa chen po'i don tel 0 On the other hand, sGam-po-pa also sometimes distanced himself from what he portrayed as the more radical and unrealistically extreme cig-car-ba doctrines of the rDzogs-pa chen-poo See his Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus lan,ppo 438-39, as translated above, note 280

880 As Sa-pal]. also said in the sDom gsum rab dbye, po 3090205 (na 25b05): The present Mahamudra and the Chinese tradition of rDzogs-chen are in substance (don la) the same, except for their substituting the terms "descent from above" and "ascent from below" for "gradualist" and "simultaneist."

da lta'i phyag rgya chen po dang I I rgya nag lugs kyi rdzogs chen la I I

THE POLEMICIST

yas 'bab dang ni mas 'dzegs gnyis / / rim gyis pa dang cig char bar / / ming 'dogs bsgyur ba ma gtogs pa / / don la khyad par dbye ba med / /

97

89. In Chinese Buddhism, and especially in Ch'an, it was by no means uncommon to propound such a teaching; in fact, "see the nature and achieve

. Buddhahood" became the paradigmatic statement of Ch'an gnoseology, according to Buswell (1987), p. 34l. The idea is also expressed in the concise saying on Ch'an practice traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma: ''A separate transmission outside the scriptures, / No reliance upon words and letters, / Directly pointing to the human mind, / See the nature and achieve Buddhahood." See Buswell (1988), p. 250, note 1, who refers to further discussion of this saying in D. T. Suzuki's Essays in Zen Buddhism (London: 1958), vol. 1, p. 176. The first Chinese master to state "see your own nature and become a Buddha" was apparently Seng-liang, who flourished in the early 6th century and was inspired to that statement by a passage in the NirviiTfa Sutra. See Chap-pell (1983), p. 123, note 19. .

The Ch'an master Wu-chu (714-774) openly and at all times taught his doctrine of no-thought, encouraging his students simply to see their nature and become a Buddha. See S. Yanagida (1983), p. 34. Some of the teachings of Ma-tsu Tao-i (709-788) would also be familiar to Tibetan followers of radical simultaneist approaches. According to him, it is the encounter with the words

. of the master-who directly points to the mind-that is able to awaken the student to enlightenment. Awakening to the essence of mind occurs instantaneously; cultivation means .simply to let the mind act spontaneously. And "since cultivation is just the functioning of that essence, it is also instantaneously perfected, leaving nothing further either to develop or to be overcome." See Buswell, Jr. (1987), p. 340. By the Sung dynasty (960-1279), Ch'an hadjustified itself as "first, an independent transmission of Buddhism separate from the doctrinal teachings, and second as an abrupt approach to spiritual attainment that involved nothing more than the direct vision of the enlightened nature of the human mind" (ibid., pp. 321f.). Sa-pa~ could well have come into direct contact with late-Sung exponents of Ch'an while at the court of the Mongol prince Kaden in ca. 1250, though his criticisms of the dkar po chig thub were probably formulated before this.

90. It would be most useful to know more about the relation between these two scholars and their works. Padma-dkar-po writes in his author's colophon that he had written his own work in response to a request to do so from bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal that he had received along time before. Had bKra-shisrnam-rgyal in the meantime already completed his own treatise?

9l. Padma-dkar-po in his Chos 'byung, p. 382 (ka cha 191 b) mentions that the entire scholastic tradition of Tibet for a time in the late-14th/ early-15th century became "Sa-skya-pa" owing to the great influence of g.Yag-ston Sangsrgyas-dpal (1348-1414) and Red.mda'-ba gZhon-nu-blo-gros (1349~14l2) who were teaching, so to spea.k, "competitively" at Sa-skya in those days: 'gran bshad mdz:.ad pa'i stobs kyis mdo slob 'dod thams cad der tshogs pas kun sa skya par song / . They in turn had received important lineages from the old seminary of gSang-phu,


and indeed g.Yag-ston and his chief disciple Rong-ston both were active as teachers also at the latter establishment.

92. Padma-dkar-po in his Chos 'byung bstan pa'i padma rgyas pa'i nyin byed, p.381 (ka eha 191a.2) respectfully acknowledges the indebtedness of the whole later Tibetan learned tradition to Sa-skya Pal).<;Iita, especially through the latter's disciple 'U-yug-pa (who had also studied under Myal-zhig at gSang-phu) with the following words: 'uyug pa bsod nams seng ge sa skya/ khong gis 'jam pa'i dbyangs kyi sprul pa'i sku sa par;rf.ita kun dga' rgyal mtshan la rnam 'grel gsan de bshad pas / da lta'i tshad ma thams cad kyi thug sar gyur pa yin/ . See also Padma-dkar-po's bKa' brgyud kyi bka' 'bum ... , p. 431.3, where he records receiving another lineage from Sa-pal). and refers to him as: 'jam pa'i dbyangs par;rf.i ta kun dga' rgyal mtshan.

Padma-dkar-po composed two major treatises on pramiir;a, which were included at the end of the first volume of his collected works in the gNam 'Brug Se-ba Byang-chub-gling edition: the Tshad ma mdo dang sde bdun gyi don gtan la phab pa'i bstan beos rye btsun 'jam pa'i dbyangs kyi dgongs rgyan and Tshad ma mdo dang beas pa'i spyi don rigs pa'i snying po.

93. I have not yet been able to trace Padma-dkar-po's tshad ma and phar phyin lineages precisely, but no doubt the main ones passed through Rong-ston (1367-1449) and (for Phar-phyin at least) probably also Bu-ston (1290-1364). Padma-dkar-po describes the important contributions of these two and others in his Chos 'byung, pp. 381f (ka eha 191a-b). Some of his scholastic lineages link up with the traditions ofgSer-mdog-can and Shakya-mchog-ldan (1428-1507), who had studied under Rong-ston as a youth and who was mainly a student of Rong-ston's disciple Don-yod-dpal-ba (1398-1483?). Others come from the school of (,Bras-yul) sKyed-tshal near Rin-spungs, a continuation of Rongston's tradition through the activities of his student Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa Sangs-rgyas-'phel (1412-1485) and the latter's students such as Go-rams-pa (1429-1489). Padma-dkar-po's autobiography, Sems dpa' chen po padma dkar po'i rnam thar thugs rye chen po'i ;dos gar, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 410 (ga nya35b.2), mentions his youthful studies of some of Shakya-mchog-ldan's writings on pramiir;a. On p. 404 Padma-dkar-po speaks very highly of Shakya-mchog-ldan's immediate disciple (Bya Pal)<;Iita) bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, whereas his teachers preferred 'Bum rab-'byams-pa from sKyed-tshal. Elsewhere he records receiving certain other non-tantric lineages of 'Bum rab-'byams-pa Rin-chen-chosdbang from the latter's disciples Brag-sle-ba and 'Thel mkhan-chen Chosrgyal-lhun-grub. See Padma-dkar-po, bKa' brgyud bla ma, pp. 459.2, 464.1, and 467.2.

94. The great importance of the experiential component for Sa-pal). can be witnessed even in his most "scholastic" and "gradualist" writings, such as in his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, p. 31.4.3 (62b.3) where in his discussion of the twO truths, his ultimate position is not that of the scholastic philosopher (he explicitly rejects here the scholastically worked out Svatantrika and Prasangika systems) but rather that of the meditator of the Mantrayana.

95. See for instance dPa' -bo gTsug-lag-phreng-pa, vol. 1; p. 815, who identified this trend as having been continued by Phag-mo-gru-pa, including the heavy emphasis on the Vinqya: rje dwags po'i lugs bka' phyag ehu bo gnyis 'tires kho nas bskyangs shing 'dul ba la gtso bor mdzad / . Cf. Roerich trans!' (1975), p. 560,

THE POLEMICIST 99

Tib., nya 69a.5). Phag-mo-gru-pa is said to have preferred ordained disciples, Gling Ras-pa being one of the notable exceptions to this preference. He used to avoid visiting inside the houses and villages oflay people. Like Zhang, he had previously also studied some under rGwa-lo, though in temperament and approach he and Zhang were strikingly different. According to the Blue Annals (p. 557f; Tib. p. 487 = Irya 68a.5) the two of them knew each other and went together as companions to sGam-po for their first time (in the early 1150s). There is no record of Zhang's ever having met sGam-po-pa,but rather his connections were with the latter's nephew and successor sGom-pa Tshul-khrimssnying-po, who had been appointed monastic leader by sGam-po-pa in 1150.

96. Sa-paJ? held as a general principle the importance offollowing a doctrine which was known and widely acknowledged in India as genuine, and which had been transmitted, taught and translated in a recognized lineage. See his mKhas 'jug II 3 (p. 94.4.6=28b.6), and D. Jackson (1987), pp. 4f. This approach was held to have been officially decreed after the bSam-yas debate, as mentioned in dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-pa, vol. 1, p. 380:

lo tsiis ma bsgyur pa1Jq.itas ma bshad I I . rgyal pos bka' btags sqyin bdag ma qyas pa'ill chos la spyad du mi gnang bka' khrims bsgrags II. 97. Sa-paJ?'s procedure is a common one in critical scholarship. He

began from a sense that something was anomalous or out of place doctrinally in a text or teaching, which led him to suspect that the doubtful doctrines had been later introductions into the tradition, for which he believed he had found convincing proof in some of the available historical sources .and other writings. dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-pa similarly sensed that something was amiss with the alternative sBa b;:;hed historical account which Sa-paJ? had probably used, alleging that it was obviously a later insertion by a scholar hostile to his tradition. Even among modern scholars such a line is not uncommon. It was used for instance by R.Jackson (1982), who sensed that historically and methodologically there might be something amiss in Sa-paJ?'s account in the Thub pa'i

- dgongs gsal, and hypothesized by way of explanation that its author had modified and introduced new elements into the historical tradition.

98. These writings of Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho were the· three works: 1) Phyag chen rtsod spong, 2) Phyag chen rang lugs, and 3) Phyag chen rtsod spong giyang lan. The third would seem to be the secondary reply entitled Yang lan mkhas pa'i mig thurwhich was printed at 'Dar Grang-mo-che. See D.Jackson (1983), p. 20. For a subsequent response to some of Padma~dkar-po's replies, see also Ngagdbang-chos-grags, sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i mam bshad legs par bshad pa ;:;la 'od nor bu (New Delhi: 1978), p. 376 (188b), as quoted above, n. 69.

99. Sa-paJ? received three traditions of the Nii ro chos drug as well as various doha teachings, including those of Maitrlpada, as he himself records near the end of the sDomgsum rab dbye (p. 320.3.4= na 48a.4). As he said in a previous passage, any criticisms he made of this Phyag rgya chen po tradition could only be made through pointing out contradictions with what Naropa had taught (p. 317.l.2 =na 41a.2):

de b;:;hin phyag rgya pa yang ni II no ro pa la mos qyed cing I I


nil ro'i gzhung dang 'gal gyur na I I phyag rgya pa la gnod pa yin I I

This is an instance of the general rule that only internal contradictions have any force to disprove when criticizing another tradition through scriptural citation. A little later he cites the authority of Mar-pa's lineage of the Nil ro chos drug (p. 317.1.6 = na 4Ia.6).

To this, the later bKa' -brgyud reply would seem to be that this special transmission of the Mahamudra was not transmitted by Naropa but rather by Maitripada, it being the quintessential sense of the Mahamudra (phyag rDa chen po snying po'i don) realized by Sarahaand transmitted to Nagarjuna and then to the latter's student Savari, who was Maitripada's master. See dPa'-bo gTsuglag-phreng-pa, vol. 1, p. 772. See also bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal's account in Lhalungpa transl. (1986), p. 117; Tib. p. 106a. Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje too portrayed the ((Yid la mi byed pa'i dbu ma" of Maitripada as that "Madhyamaka" which Mar-pa, Mi-la and sGam-po-pa were teaching. See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), pp. 1256-58; Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, pp. 10-11 (5b-6a).

On the other hand, Sa-pal).'s tracing of the lineage through Naropa was not unfair, 'because this is precisely what Zhang Tshal-pa himself did in his own lineage record, [b }rGyud pa sna tshogs, Writings, p. 439.2: phyagrgya chen po dang I nil ro pa'i chos drug 'di'i dbang du byas nal bcom ldan 'das rdo rye 'chang gis sprul pa te lo pas I nil ro pa la byin gyis brlabs I des mar pa lo tsha ba la byin gyis brlabs I mar rngog rnam gnyis kyis rye btsun mi la ras pa la bshad I des bla ma dags po nyid sgom pa la bshad I des bla ma dags po sgom tshul la bshad I des bdag la gnang ba '0 I I . The Lam cig char ba is also considered by Zhang to be a teaching ofNaropa. See his Bla ma sna tshogs kyi tho byang, p. 427.3: rye btsun rin po che yer pa ba las I lam cig char ba la sags pa nil ro pa'i gdams ngag sna tshogs I thogs bab la sags pa mi tri pa'i gdams ngag sna tshogs I .... The lineage for the Lam cig char ba is given as follows ([b}rGyud pa sna tshogs, 436.4): lam cig charba dang I rims kyis pa dang I kha 'thor ba'i dbang du byas nal bcom ldan 'das dpal dgyes pa rdo ryel sa bcu pa'i byang chub sems rdo rye snying po la bshadl des sprul pa'i sku te lo pa la bshadl des nil ro pa la bshadl des rye btsun mar pa lho brag pa la bshadl des rye btsun [r}ngog ri bo ba la bshadl mar pa rngog gnyis kyis rye btsun mi la ras pa la bshad I des rye btsun gling ka ba 'bri sgom ras chen la bshad I des rnal 'byor chen po mal yer pa la bshadl des zhang gi sbrang ban bdag la gnang ba'ol I. sGam-po-pa too stressed Naropa as the main source of the lineage (Works, vol. 1, p. 445.6), though elsewhere he sometimes coordinates Naropa's teachings (as bsgomyod and lam dus su) with Maitripada's (as bsgom med and 'bras bu'i dus su). See also the discussion of Shakya-mchog-Idan in his Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma, Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 187-194; and Go-rams-pa's answers, Collected Works, vol. 14, pp. 268.4.5-269.2.2 (ta 57a-58a).

The thog bab[sJ ("Thunderbolt Strike") specifically is identified by Zhang (Writings, p. 427) as having been one ofMaitrlpada's instructions which Zhang had received from rJe-btsun Yer-pa. A brief instruction by this name is also found in the collected works ofsGam-po-pa (voL 2, pp. 215. 7ff), and it contains a formulation of several key principles of the cig-car-ba approach. The title there, is given as Chos rye dags po lha lje'i gsung I thog babs kyi 'rtsa ba, and it begins with the phrase: phyag rgya chen po'i gdams ngag thog babs yas thog tu gdab pa 'di Za: .. "With regard to this instruction of the Mahamudra, the Thunderbolt Stnk~, which is applied on top from above ... .'~ To begin with, before the actual.practI-

THE POLEMICIST 101

cal instruction, five erroneous notions are refuted: 1) Maintaining the attainment of a later excellent gnosis after one has gotten rid of the evil mind one presently has (because as the root of all dharmas, the mind is not to be abandoned in this system). 2) Maintaining the purification of the five poisons or klefas (because in this system the poisons are to be: assimilated and incorporated into the path). . 3) Maintaining that realization (rtogs pa) is reached after three long aeons (because in this system realization is maintained to be right now). 4) ·Maintaining that realization is reached through intelligence (rig pa) or discriminative understanding (shes rab), (because in this system realization is said to be reached through the direct, practical instruction [gdams ngag)). 5) Maintaining there is a qualitative distinction of better or worse between a Buddha and an ordinary sentient being (because in this system, there is no difference between them, beyond the presence or absence Of realization [rtogs pa] ) . .

The gCig car ba'i lam gtso bor bton pa Thog babs instructions are classified within Padma-dkar-po's gsan yig as belonging to the section gdams ngag nyams len gyi skor. See Padma-dkar-po, bKa' brgyud pa, pp. 376 and 377.2.

The tradition of stressing the role ofMaitrIpada's teachings (especially the amanasikiira) as paramount and of tracing the origin of the key Mahamudra teachings through him back to Saraha (and to Nagarjuna) apparently occurred at a stage of the tradition after the time of sGam-po-pa and Zhang, approximately during the life ofSa-paIJ. (perhaps as a response to his criticisms or those of others). According to later bKa'-brgyud-pa historians, this was asserted especially by rGod-tshang-pa (1l89-1258?) (and his chiefdiscip1e). See 'Gos 10-tsa-ba as translated by G. Roerich, p. 841 (Tib. p. 745 = da 2a.5): 'dir chos rje rgod tshang pa'i zhal nas / rgyal ba shiikya thub pa'i bstan pa 'di la plryag rgya chen po zhes lam phul du byung bar mgo 'don mkhan bram ze chen po sa ra ha pa gda' ba bu [?] / de'i lugs 'dzin pa rgya gar narje ri khrod zhabs yab sras yin/ /. Cf. Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje as translated by Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1260; Tib. p. 14 (7b.2): don 'di la dgongs nas rgyal ba rgod tshang pa chen po yab sras kyis kyang / phyag rgya chen po 'i chos 'di mgo 'don mkhan bram ze chen po dang / klu sgrub gnyis yin / . For a recent study of the life ofMaitrIpada, see M. Tatz (1987).

100. Quoted from Gomez (1983), p. 125, who translates from Pelliot 21. 101. Quoted from Gomez (1983), p. 90, who translates from the Cheng li

chueh, p. 134a. 102. Quoted from Gomez (1983), p. 99, who cites five passages in the

Cheng li chueh. . 103. In his own words (Lam zab mthar thug, 20a.4):

gnyis med rtogs pas zin byas la / / 'di bya 'di mi bya med par / / spyod lam gar dgar btang bar bya / /

There is nothing wrong with this statement from the point of view of the doctrines of the siddhas and the anuttarayoga tantras. But there do remain potential problems in its actual application. Even in the great master bla-ma Zhang's Own life this type of siddha-like conduct caused certain difficulties, according to


the bKa'-brgyud-pa historians. He is widely acknowleclged within the tradition to have reached the highest realization, and he himself professed to that. Therefore he did not have to concern himself with conventional morality and could justifiably conduct himselflike a siddha. According to the Blue Annals of'Gos 10-tsa-ba, p. 137b, after he attained realization, he involved himselfin a number of religious building projects in which he used force aggressively to achieve his aims. Moreover (Roerich transl., p. 714): "Against those who did not obey his orders, he used to dispatch repeatedly soldiers, and fought them." In other words, though he was an enlightened monk, he forcefully pursued ambitious projects, holding that his detachment and extraordinary realizations made him exempt from the normal consequences of his deeds. As he once said (ibid., p. 715): "I have given up the World in my Mind. The link between me and the World has been completely severed ..... Many people may doubt me, judging me after my exterior works, except for some stout-hearted disciples." The Tibetan text, p. 624 = rrya 137b.

dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, p. 808, explains a little of the historical background of this and mentions the beneficial consequences for a number of Zhang's students who participated in these martial exploits: spyir de'i dus bod. rgyal khrims med pa sil bur song ba'i skabs yin pas thams cad la ri rgya klung rgya lam rgya mdzad / rgya 'og tu mi 'du ba rnams la dmag g.yul ngo sogs drag po 'i 'phrin las mdzad pas slob ma rnams la'ang 'khrug gral du phyag rgya chen po'i rtogs pa skyes pa tnang du byung zhing dpon dar ma gzhon nus 'khrug gral du bde mchog zhal mthong /. Zhang is said (dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, p. 810) to have taught Mahamudra also to the Ti-shri Ras-pa, a realization having awakened in the latter through his' teacher Zhang's words: "However you may do [or act], that is the mahiimudrii" (zhang rinpo chesji !tar byas kyang phyag chen yin gsungs pas ngo 'phrod pas). Cf. his Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug, p. 99.1 (26a.1-3).

Zhang's well-travelled and widely experienced contemporary Grub-thob O-rgyan-pa (see dPa'-bo, ibid.) is said to have remarked that Zhang's "violent enlightened activities" (drag po'i 'phrin las) had never been exceeded by anyone before him in Tibet, like the unsurpassed activities of Birwapa in India: spyir ngan song gsum b gral ba'i zhing du bshad kyang drag po 'i 'phrin las mngon sum du mrk;ad pa rgya gar du birwa pa dang bod du zhang rin po che las. ma byung zhes grub thob 0

r[gyJan pas gsungs /. This approach of Zhang'S, which was similar in certain respects to that of

some religious madmen (ohos smyon pa) or siddhas (except for instance that he wielded considerable temporal power), did not go over very well with some of his fellow influential bKa'-brgyud-pa masters. The Karma-pa Dus-gsum-mkhyen-pa (1110-1193), for instance, who evidently saw himself as acting in part on behalf of Zhang's master sGom-tshul (sGom-pa Tshul-khrims-snyingpo [1116-1169], sGam-po-pa's nephew and successor who was a known peacemaker), is said to have stated once (cf. Blue Annals, p. 715, Tibetan text p. 479 = nya 34a.3): '''The purpose of my coming to dBus is.to fulfill sGom-tshul's co~mand, who had told me "Regardless of what situation you find yourself Ill. Khams, return west!" and to establish monasteries ... , and to offer a hundred volumes written in gold to Dags-lha sGam-po, and to make a request to bla-ma Zhang not to engage in fighting, because people are unhappy with his fighting.

THE POLEMICIST 103

I have come for these purposes.' When he beseeched Zhang not to engage in fighting, Zhang consequently grasped his [Karma-pa's] finger, danced about a lot, and henceforth did not engage in fighting."

Zhang's approach contrasts vividly with the pacific teachings that Mi-Ia ras-pa is recorded to have given sGam-po-pa. These included the instruction to continue to train oneself in serving the guru and to observe even small meritorious and moral matters even though one has already understood one's mind as the Buddha, even though ultimately there is nothing to be cultivated or purified, and even though one has understood that the connection of moral causation is from the ultimate point of view empty like the sky, respectively (dPa;bo, vol. I, p. 797). See also bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal and the latter's quotations of sGom-tshul in Lhalungpa (1986), pp. 107 and 391; Tib. 96b and 362b. Cf. ibid., p. 372 (Tib. p. 345b), where sGam-po-pa is quoted as stating that moral cause and effect cease to function after the realization of the dharmakiiya. Cf. also gNubs Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes, bSam gtan mig sgron, p. 47.2, on no longer needing to observe moral discipline to attain enlightenment once the theory has been realized (lta ba rtogs nas). Zhang elsewhere in his Phyag chen lam zab mthar thug, p. 88 (20b), taught that the practitioner should completely avoid strife: skad cig tsamyang 'khrug mi bya//.

According to one source, the controversies surrounding Zhang had started. even before he met sGam-po-pa, and it seems that sGam-po-pa avoided meeting Zhang on the occasion that Phag-mo-gru-pa and Zhang went to sGam-po for the first time specifically to see sGam-po-pa and to ask his help in settling some dispute involving Zhang. Phag-mo-gru-pa, by contrast, was privately summoned, accepted as a student and instructed then by sGam-po-pa. See the Blue Annals, p. 558; Tib. nya 68a.5.

Bla-ma Zhang is one of the most colorful and intriguing of the 12th-century bKa'-brgyud-pa masters. He founded Tshal Gung-thang in ll87, near the end of his life, though he had assumed an important position in Central Tibet already by the late ll50s when he was entrusted to oversee the Lha-sa temples by his teacher sGom-pa Tshul-khrims-snying-po after the latter had pacified some severe political unrest there and had done extensive restorations (see dPa' -bo, vol. I, p. 801). For Zhang's biography, see the Blue Annals, pp. 711-715 (nya 136a-137b), and Dpa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, pp. 806-809. His tradition had died out by the 16th century according to ibid., vol. 1, p. 811. Many of his writings, including numerous autobiographical reminiscences, are preserved in a modern reproduction: Writings (bka' thor bu) qf Zhang g. Yu-brag-pa brtson-'grus-grags-pa (Tashijong: 1972). Zhang has mentioned the role he played and his attitude toward the above-mentioned activities for instance in the brief autobiographical poem sNa tshogs zhi gnas, Writings, pp. 620.7-623.6, which he composed in a bird year at bSam-yas. Some of his songs and poems are classics of ruthless arid sardonic self-criticism that is so extreme that the overall effect it produces on the reader becomes ironical and humorous. See for example his pompously and ironically entitled Bla ma zhang ston gyis / bla ma zhang ston rang l'f'Yid la shin tu ngo mtshar,ba'i sgo nas bstod pa, Writings, pp. 666.6-673.2.

Sa-pa~ probably had first-hand experience with Zhang'S tradition and followers, for he visited dBus more than once, and in the 1220s he spent quite a

104 lIABS VOL. 13 NO.2

long time in bSam-yas, where Zhang had stayed and which had been a strong" hold of Zhang's support a few decades before-the bSam-yas ruler brTsad-po Khri-seng having been one ofbla-ma Zhang's most ardent supporters (dPa'-bo 1810). During the years ofSa-pal).'s visit to Central Tibet, the head of Zhang's main temple was one Sangs-rgyas":'bum, who was expelled from his position (for reasons that are not specified by 'Gos lo-tsa-ba) in 1231 by sGom-pa Yeshes-ldan, and only allowed to return in 1242 to found a meditation center (sgom sde). See the Blue Annals, p. 716; Tib. nya l38b. According to dPa'-bo (1809) his expulsion was because of a dispute between religious and secular ieaders.

104. The statement of Mo-ho-yen as presented by Broido (p. 43) was: G. When conceptualizations are given up, there is an automatic attainment of all virtues.

The opening verse of this chapter of Zhang (p. 30a) as translated above was: In the moment of realizing [the true nature of] one's own mind, all white (i.e., excellent, virtuous) qualities without exception are effortlessly completed simultaneously.

L. Gomez (1983), p. 99, cites five places in the Cheng li chUeh where Mo-ho-yen "claims that there is an automatic or all-at-once attainment of all virtues when one gives up all conceptualizations." See furthermore ibid., p. 114, Gomez's translation of Stein 709, p. 7b: '~ mind that is free from examination accomplishes the six perfections simultaneously in an instant," and further, p. 100, where Gomez expr~sses reservations about such an "automatic practice," which would have been classified by Mo-ho-yen as the "internal" perfections or practice.

See also Gomez (1983a), p. 424, who seems to come to the conclusion that KamalasIla was attempting to refute the claim of soteriological self-sufficiency for a single method, and that this was at the heart bf the controversy in the Bhiivaniikramas and not "subitism," thus according with the general thrust of Sa-pal).'s critique of the dkar po chig thub and his assertion of its identity as the main doctrine refuted by KamalaSila: "The question is not whether enlightenment is sudden or gradual, but rather whether the different elements of the path should be analyzed, defined and practiced separately." "[If KamalaSi1a is right,] ... it is obvious that upqya, the altruistic aspect of Buddhahood, is not merely an automatic fruit of understanding or enlightenment, and that it should be practiced separately."

This accords remarkably well also with the comments of Go-rams-pa on the dkar po chig thub controversy in his dBu ma'i spyi don (rGyal ba thams cad kyi thugs kyi dgongs pa ;:;ab mo dbu ma'i de kho na nyid spyi'i ngag gis ston pa nges don rab gsal) (vol. 5, p. 345.1; ca l73a.1):dkar po chig thub ces bya bastong nyid kho narbsgoms pas thams cad mkhyen pa sgrub par 'dod pa la ni mkhas pa ka rna la ski: la dang / dpal ldan sa skya par;rjita la sogs pa don rna 'khrul par g;:;igs pa rnams kyis thabs kyi cha ma tshang bas rd;:;o'gs pa'i -sangs rgyas sgrub par mi nus so / / ;:;hes lung dang rigs pa du ma'i sgo nas sun phyung ;:;in pas 'dir 'bad pa ma byas so / /

105. See Gomez (1983), pp. 121-123, translating Pelliot 116. Compare this with the seventh through tenth verses of Zhang's dKar po chig thub tu bstan pa chapter, Broido's transcription, p. 54 (Tib. text, pp. 30b-3la). Cf. the parallel lines attributed to the early Tibetan Lo-tsa-ba Ka-ba dPal-brtsegs, as quoted

THE POLEMICIST 105

by gNubs Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes in his bSam gtan mig sgran in the chapter on the approach of the stan-min or cig-car (p. 132.2 = 66b):

Jig rten thams cad yangs btang ste / / rdul tsam 'dzin pa'i sems med pas / / sbyin pa'i pha ral phyin pardzags / / (1) n;yes pa rdul tsam yang mi 'byung bas / / tshul khrims pha ral phyin pa rdzags / / (2) chas kyi dbyings la bzad pas na/ / bzad pa'i pha ral phyin pa rdzags / / (3) de n;yid dan la mi g:ya bas /. brtsan 'grus pha ral phyin pa rdzags / / (4) mn;yam nyid mi g.ya bdag med pas / / bsam gtan pha ral phyin pa rdzags / / (5) dmigs med dan la rang rig pas / / shes rab pha ral phyin pa rdzags / / (6)

In the early rDzogs-chen a similar cqnception was expressed through the term zin pa, and gNubs in the bSam gtan mig sgran (pp. 344-345) lists twenty ways in which the path and its attainments are "already complete" (-zin) in rDzogschen. On this term and that passage, see S. Karmay (1988), pp. 49f, note 42, and p.54.

106. The occurrence of the notion of a single, self-sufficient medicine or panacea among the teachings of Mo-ho-yen (in the Cheng-li chueh) has been known since the classic study of Demieville (1952), who translated and discussed it on pp. l22f. Here Mo-ho-yen responds to the question of whether more than one "medicine" are or are not necessary to remove separately the three distinct "poisons", i.e., klefas. The translation of the question concludes:

S'il en ·est ainsi, comment done voulez-vous extirper les passions en cultivant 1'abstention des notions de l'esprit? Les rendre temporairement invisibles, ce n'est pas un moyen de les extirper radicalement.

[Mo-ho-yen's reply begins:] D'apres Ie NirvaTfa-siltra, il y a medicament, nom me agada, qui guerit de toute maladie les etres auxquelles il est administre. 11 en est de [po 123] meme du sans-reflexion et du sans-examen. Toutes les fausses notions dues au triple poison des passions sont des produits nes, par transformation, de l'imagination particularisante associee ala reflexion.

See also the translation of Gomez (1983), p. 92. An obscure passage occurs later, summarized by Demieville, note 8:

Le sens general est qu'il ne s'agit pas d'operer la deliverance par une serie purgatifs graduels, mais de 1'assure·r d'un seul coup par 1'expurgation totalitaire des "fausses notions".

Mo-ho-yen concludes as follows: Veuillez done, nous vous en prions, vous debarrasser des fausses notions, et, par la meme, etant absolument sans reflexion, vous pourrez vous delivrer, en une seule fois et de fa<;on totale, de toutes les impregnations de fausses notiol}s dues au triple poison des passions.

Demieville (1952), discusses the agada notion at more length in note 8, commenting at one point (p. 122): "On comprend cependant que 1'image de l' agada


ait pu venir it l'esprit des avo cats du subitisme: une panacee est, en effet, essentiallement totalitaire, unitaire, 'subite'." See also G6mez (1983), who characterized the Mo-ho-yen's doctrine with such words as (p. 90): "The sole effective method of spiritual cultivation is an allopathic prescription, an antidote .... " and (p. 92): "Mo-ho-yen leaves no room for doubt regarding the superiority of his method of liberation-it is the only effective method, and the only one that is required, a true panacea."

Broido, pp. 51f, minimizes this similarity: "Agada means simply 'medicine' or 'medical treatment,' and this metaphor no doubt applies both to the Hvashang's doctrine and to the later bKa' -brgyud-pa one. Nevertheless there seems to be no reason to think that the two doctrines have more in common than this general typological similarity."

Cf. the occurrence of a mention of a "great medicine" of the instantaneous method becoming a great poison for the gradualist, and vice versa the medicine of the gradualist for the simultaneist, as quoted twice from a work entitled Ka dpe gsar rnying by bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, pp. 112b and 132b (cf. also Lhalungpa trans!' [1986], pp. 123 and 144):

cig car payi sman chen del / rim gyis pa yi dug tu 'gyur / /

!O7. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. !O4.l (28b): phyag rgya chen po chig chad ma / / pa na se yi 'bras bu bzhin / / rgyu dang 'bras bu dus mtshungs shing / / mtshan ma rang sar gTol ba yin / /

spre'u rnams mas 'dzegs shing thog len/ / khra rnams thog babs kho nas len / / kh[rJa rnams yal ga ma mthong ste/ / shing thog len la smraT ci yod / /

de bzhin gcig char gang zag gis / I sa lam drod rtags ma mthong yang / / chos sku mthong ba smrar ci yod / /

!O8. Mo-ho-yen uses a special bird simile for simultaneous realization, though not that of the hawk or khyung or garutj.a. As translated by G6mez (1983), p. 116, Mo-ho-yen compares his method to: " ... the young of the kalavinka bird who upon leaving their eggs are able to fly like their mother." As I have described above in note 28, here Mo-ho-yen (Stein 709, second fragment, f. ga) also uses the image of a lion's cub. In rDzogs-chen sources too the images of the khyung, kalavinka, and lion's cub appear singly or together as symbols for the "innateist" awakening.

The account of the alternative sEa bzhed tradition was rejected as a late: addition by dPa' -bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, who said that the criticism attrIbuted to KamalaSi:la of the garutj.a simile was unworthy of a great Indian pa~<;lita and was unfounded because garutj.as are taught in scripture to be miraculously born (rdzus te skyes pa) and not born from eggs. By contras~: Padma-dkar-po in the course of presenting an objection in his Klan ka gzhom pa z

gtam, p. 558.2 (zha nga 3b.2) portrays the Hwa-shang's views similarly as part

THE POLEMICIST 107

of a purvapak.ra and does not reject this characterization itself as false: hwa shang gis bya byed kyi chos kyis 'tshang mi Igya bas! rnam par mi rtog pa bsgoms nas sems rtogs

pa [gJnyis kyis 'tshang rgya ste/ khyung nam mkha' las shing rtser 'bab pa ltar yas babs kyi chos yin pas dkar po chig thub yin no / / zer ba . ... Cf. also the mention of the khyung-chen image of the rDzogs-chen by 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, p.272.3.

Broido, p. 64, n. 24, in this connection erroneously links the termsyas 'bab ("descent from above") and mas 'dzeg ("ascent from below") which occur in this historical account with the internal heat practices.

109. When Broido says that Sa-paJ;l's "attacks" "stand convicted of polemic," he apparently implies that polemical controversy is some sort of blameworthy deed. Nevertheless, he also seems to acknowledge that there can be both malignant and relatively benign or even salutary forms of controversy, for he mentions (p. 42) that Padma-dkar-po too indulges in "attacks" on Sa-paJ;l and has written at least one "polemical" work of his own.

llO. One ofthe statements attributed to sGam-po-pa about his mahiimudrii method was that it was distinct from and superior to the "three great [traditions]" (chen po gsum): i.e. the Madhyamaka, the tantric Mahamudra, and the rDzogs-pa-chen-po. This statement is discussed by Karmay (1988), p. 197, based on its occurrence in the dGongs cig commentary of rDo-rje-shes-rab (pp.403-404) [which Karmay attributes to Shes-rab-'byung-gnasJ. The same quotation appears in Shakya-mchog-ldan, Legs bshad gser thur, Collected Works, vol. 7, p. 84, and elsewhere.

bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, quoting sGam-po-pa, likewise views the Mahamudra as belonging to a third vehicle or path distinct from both sutra and tantra, and wants to deny specifically that it is based on tantric mysticism. In his view, the integration of the teachings into the sutra and tantra systems was a developm~nt introduced later by followers of the tradition. See Lhalungpa (1986), pp. llO-ll2; bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, pp. 99a-lOla. For the threefold classifications in sGam-po-pa, see also his Dus gsum, Works, vol. 1, pp. 418 and 438. In the first he gives two alternatives, as described above, note 5 7. See also his Tshogs chosyon tan phun tshogs, pp. 268.6 and 283.5.

Cf. the traditional characterization of the rDzogs-chen as "the doctrine that transcends all those of Sutrayana and Vajrayana" quoted by S. Karmay (1988), p. 19.

Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje took exception to the view expressed by certain others that the l\1ahamudra linked to tantric mysticism was inferior to non-Tantric Mahamudra. See Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1261, and Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. 15.5 (7b.5): mdo sngags so so'i dgongs par byas nas / phyag chen phyi ma las snga ma bzang ba bka' brgyud rin po che'i bzhed pa yin ces bris gda' ba ni ches mi 'thad pas gzhan du bkag zin to / /.

lll. Zhang holds, incidentally, (ll b.l) that even for the gradualist practitioner, abhi~eka is sometimes received without its having been conferred. Cf. Sa-paJ;l, sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 307.3.6 (na 22b.6): la la dbang bzhi mu bzhi 'dod/ / dbang bskur byas kyang ma thob dang / / ma byas kyang ni thob pa dang / /, etc. This presentation of the four possibilities (mu bzhi) is said by Go-rams-pa, sDom gsum rnam bshad, p. 166b, to have been maintained by such masters as Ti-phu-pa and


Ras-chung-pa. By contrast, Sa-pa~ himself maintains that for it to be Mantrayana there must be the conferment of abhis~ka, and that without receiving the fourth empowerment, such things as mahiimudrii should not be cultivated. See the sDom gsum rab dbye, p. 310.2.6 (na 27b.6): dbang bskur bzhi pa ma thob pari I phyag l;gya chen po sogs bsgom dang I I.

112. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 70.3 (lIb): cig char ba yi gang zag gis I I lus srog dngos po ci yod kyis I I [bJ rgyud ldan bla ma mnyes par bya I I dbang ngam byin brlabs ldan pa yis I I byang chub sems kyis rab 'phang lall lha yi rnal 'byor dang ldan pas I I thog ma nyid nas nges pa'i doni I phyag rgya chen po bsgom par bya I I rtogs pa'i bcud ldan bla ma yis II rang la yod pa'i ye she5 de I I lag mthil gter bzhin ngo sprod la II bsgom bya bsgom byed med mod kyi I I bsgom med ngang las g .yengs mi bya I I

113. Zhang Tshal-pa, p. 116.5 (34b), warns at the end of his work that it will entail demerit if someone from outside the tradition is shown this treatise: phyi mir [bJ stan na sdig pa sog II. A similar warning occurs at the end of one of his autobiographies. See his Writings, p. 57.5: gzhan la bstan na sdig pa sog.

114. The same ideas are expressed in various other part& of the treatise, such as on p. 104.6 (28b):

gnyug ma rtogs pa'i skad cig nas II my a ngan 'das pa'i rgyal srid 'thob II thob med sems nyid dag pa [29a] 'di II 'bras bu yin par da gdod shes II

115. As mentioned above, many of his wrItmgs, including numerous detailed autobiographical reminiscences and biographical works, are preserved in a modern reproduction of his incomplete oeuvre: Writings (bka' thor bu) of Zhang g. Yu-brag-pa brtson- 'grus-grags-pa (Tashijong: 1972). In a brief poem written at Bral-dro'i Mon-pa-gdong, he lists his main writings and where he wrote them, concluding on a regretful note. See his Writings, pp. 600.1-601.1. The works he lists there are:

(1) rNal 'byor lam ring (2) Phyag rgya chen po 'tshang 'bru (both at Bhe-brag?) (3) Bum pa'i 'phreng ba, at Gong-dkar-mo (4) Cal cal ring mo, at 'Brog-bu lkug-pa (5) gNy.en poyig chung, at Bya mKhar-rtse (6) Mas 'dzeg go rim, at Yud-bu'i gad-pa (7) gSang sngags lag len, at sTod-lung mTshur (8) Kha 'thor sna tshogs, at Byang Byi-'brong (9) Lam mchog mthar thug, at Thul~gyi-brag (10) Kha na 'thon tshad, at Mon-pa-gdong

THE POLEMICIST 109

A more complete listing is given by Padma-dkar-po in his record of teachings received, bKa' brgyud kyi bka' 'bum ... , Works, vol. 4, pp. 453-456 (nga na 73a-74b).

116. Extracted from Broido, pp. 50-51, who quotes the corresponding passage approvingly from R.Jackson (1982), pp. 95-96.

117. Bla-ma Zhang studied under a total of thirty-six masters, from among whom he considered these four as especially important:

(1) rGwa lo-tsa-ba (2) Mal Yer-pa-ba (3) dNgul-chu Be-ro-ba (4) rJe sGom-tshul

In addition, two more teachers were added to these to make up those he considered his six rtsa ba'i bla ma:

(5) 'Ol-kha-ba (6) gShen-pa rDo-rje-seng-ge

See dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, p. 807. See also Zhang's own composition, rTsa ba'i bla ma drug gi gsol 'debs, Writings, pp. 445-447. The full list of his teachers is given by Zhang in his [bJrGyud pa sna tshogs kyi tho byang, Writings, pp.426-433.

118. Zhang received a number of important bKa'-brgyud-pa instructions also from Mal Yer-pa, who was not a disciple of sGam-po-pa, but rather of Gling-ka-ba 'Bri-sgom ras-chen who had studied directly under Mi-las ras-pa and was one of the "Eight Cotton-clad Brothers" (ras pa mched brgyad). Zhang has written a fairly extensive biography ofYer-pa. See his Writings, pp. 393-

, 426. For the teachings Zhang received from him, and their lineages, see pp. 427 and 436. Another bKa' -brgyud-pa master who influenced him was 'Ol-kha-ba.

119. The original lines of 'Jig-rten mgon-po can be found contained in Shes-rab-'byung-gnas, dBon-po (1187-1241), Dam chos dgongs pa gdg pa'i rtsa tshig rdo 'lje'i gsung brgya lnga bcu pa, vol. 1, pp. 158.2: 13 mtshan nyid pha rol tu phyin pa'i theg pa'i lam ni sa bcus bgrod la gcig char 'jug pa rnams la de ltar mayin par 'dod pa yin mod kyil 'dir ni lam thams cad sa bcus bgrod par bzhed do I 14 rims kyis 'jug pa dang gcig char 'jug pa gnyis su 'dod payin mod kyi I 'dir ni lam thams cad rims kyis 'jug par bzhed dol/.

120. 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Dam pa'i chos dgongs pa gcig pa'i rnam bshad lung don gsal byed nyi ma'i snang ba, p. 23a.4: 'on te phyag rdzogs pa rnams kyang rtogs pa skad cig mas sangs rgyas thob par 'dod pa yang sngar gyi dpe ltar myur bul las gzhan pa'i mdo sngags grryis las tha dad pa'i lam zhig yod na rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas kyis ma gsungs pa'i lam du thal bas de 'dra ba'i lam gyi mdo ni blos gzhal bar dka'o I I des na rdzogs byang thob pa ni rgyu dang 'bras bu'i tshogs gnyis rdzogs pa'i mthus grub pa'ol I. See also the same source, p. 25a.5: zhib tu brtags na myur ba la skad cig ma'i brjod bya btags pa tsam las cung zad rim gyis ldang ba kho nar nges lal. Though the phrase blos gzhal bar dka'o in the first quote would thus seem to indicate the author's intellectual rejection of that doctrine, it should also be kept in mind that the "simultaneist" doctrine of Mahamudra is never taught as being something accessible to conceptual understanding. Cf. rDo-rje-shes-rab, vol. 1, p. 397.3 (nga 25b), for the parallel explanation of this passage.


bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal represents sGam-po-pa as having held precisely that the Mahamudra was a doctrine independent of the sutras and tantras. See his Nges don, p. lOla; L. Lhalungpa transl., p. 112.

121. Zhang, like 'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, was aware of certain basic doctrinal parallels between the Mahamudra and the rDzogs-pa chen-po. I have not been able to trace any record of formal studies of the rDzogs-chen by Zhang, but there is no doubt that he was familiar with it, and saw it as having a fundamental similarity with Mahamudra, the two occupying in his opinion the parallel ultimate positions within the New ·and Old Tantric teachings. He discusses this at some length in his Mal dbu dkar la gdams pa, where in contrast to the bKa' -gdams-pa teachings and the Madhyamaka reasoning and meditations which are don spyi'i mam pa tsam las mos pa yul du byed pa, the Mahamudra and rDzogs-chen are tantric paths of the guru's sustaining spiritual power: phyag rgya chen po dang / rdzogs pa chen po la sogs pa sngags gsar mying mthar thug mams kyang / gsang sngags byin brlabs kyi (655) lam yin pa la / (see his Writings, p. 654.7). In this Zhang agreed with certain statements ofsGam-popa, who as cited above sometimes portrayed the Mahamudra and rDzogs-chen as occupying a similar doctrinal position and indeed as being from some points of view identical. See the latter's Tshogs bshad legs mdzes ma, p. 220.2, and his Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, p. 269.1. See also the characterization of the rDzogs-chen as "[a doctrine authoritatively] maintained to be the ultimate of Mantra teachings, the :Atryoga'" (rdzogs chen ni a ti yo ya zhes pa gsang sngags kyi mthar thug tubzhed pa) by bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, p. 93b.6; Lhalungpa transl., p.105.

122. dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, vol. 1, p. 799f, places this development in sGam-po-pa's teaching in the latter part of sGam-po-pa's life: sku tshe smad la sems [800] kyi ngo bo ston pa phyag rgya chen po chig chod kho na gtso bor mdzad de /. Zhang (Writings, p. 550.2) mentions the important role ·of the ngo sprod in sGam-po-pa's method by characterizing the Dags-po system briefly as: dags po ba'i lugs kyi p!l)!ag rgya chen po ngo sprod, contrasting it with the other lineages of phyag rgya chen po'i man ngag. A little later (p. 557.4) he characterizes it as: gnyug ma'i ngo sprod dags pos gcer mthong byed. Speaking of how sGom-pa transmitted these teachings to him, he says: spyir skyes bu dam pa 'dis / tshig la ma rten pa'i byin brlabs 'ba' zhig gis / klzo bo'i rgyud la lhan cig skyes pa lhag gis shar bas . ...

On the subject of sGam-po-pa's innovations, Broido writes (p. 30): "For example, if anything in Buddhism is ever invented by anyone, sGam-po-pa was the inventor of the lhan-cig skyes-sbyor (sahajayoga) system of mahiimudra. (While the idea of a goal common to both sutras and tantras goes back to Naropa, sGampo-pa was the first person to teach them both on a parallel basis.)" Cf. Roerich transl. (1975), pp. 46lf.

Cf. Dorje Loppon Lodro Dorje Holm in Lhalungpa, transl. (1986), p. xlvii: "Gampopa unified the mahamudra and tantric teaching he received with his background in the Kadam tradition, and founded many monasteries. Prior to his time, mahamudra seems to have been presented primarily ·in a fruitionteaching, oral-instruction style. From Gampopa's time onward, this perspective was integrated, at least in his writings, with a gradual, 'stages of meditation style' .... "

THE POLEMICIST 111

123. Thu'u-bkwan, p. 168.4 (kha 24b.4): mnyam med dwags po rin po ches phar phyin theg pa'i lugs la stong nyid la phyag rgya chen por gsungs pa yod tshul indo lung mang po drangs nas bsgrubs pa'i bstan bcos mdzad pa la I 'ga' zhig gis I mdo tshig de 'dra bka' 'gyur na mi snang zhes zer modi rgya nag tu 'gyur ba'i bka' 'gyur khrod na mdo de dag snang lal tshig ris ji lta ba bzhin min kyang don gcig pa da ltar gyi sangs rgyas mngon sum du bzhugs pa'i mdo sogs bod du 'gyur ba'i mdo gzhan 'ga' zhig na'ang snang ngo I I.

Cf. the question of apocryphal Chinese siltras in Tibetan translation or their use by Chinese debaters in Tibet. On this, see the article of H. Obata, mentioned by Ueyama (1983), p. 333; G6mez (1983a), p. 395; and Broughton (1983), pp. 48f, n. 6 and p. 57, n. 36.

124. bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, p. 216 (108b): 'on kyang rje btsun chen po yan gyi sgrub brgyud lo, gsang sngags kyi man ngag rnams gtso bor sgom zhing I gtum mil dang 'ad gsalla sogs pa'i skabs ci rigs su phyag rgya chen po'i gdams pa ston par mdzad pa las I rje sgam po pa de tshad med pa'i thugs rjes kun nas bslang ste I gdul bya mchog dman thams cad kyis rtogs sla ba'i ched dul snying po don gyi gdams pa phyag rgya chen po 'di nyid rtsal du phyung ste bstan pas shin tu 'phel zhing rgyas pa dang I skal pa can thams cad kyis bgrod pa gcig pa'i lam du gyur payin nol I. Cf. Lhalungpa transl., p. 119.

125. Sa-pal) in his Thub pa'i dgongs gsal (p. 25.3.4= tha 50a) states that the writings of the aefeated Chinese tradition were gathered and cached away at bSam-yas after the debate (rgya nag gi dpe rnams bsdus nas bsam yas su gter du sbas sol I). In his sDom gsum rab dbye (p. 309.3.4=na 26a) he states that later after the decline of the Tibetan polity, based merely on the texts of the Chinese master's basic works, these doctrines were secretly reintroduced:

phyi nas rgyal khrims nub pa dang I I rgya nag mkhan po 'i gzhung lugs kyi I I yi ge tsam la brten nas kyang I I de yi.. ming 'dogs gsang nas ni I I phyag rgya chen por ming bsgyur nas I I

The survival of texts for two or three centuries in hidden caches was not at all unknown in the dry climate of Tibet. But it should also be noted that the earlier Chinese-influenced traditions may not have been as thoroughly suppressed as the traditional accounts followed by Sa-pal); and upon which he based this hypothesis, would have us believe.

126. Karmay (1988) has reve~led the complexity of such studies and has demonstrated the need to isolate early states of the tradition and to trace the discrete lineages and doctrines that later all came to be lumped together under single school names such as "rNying-ma-pa." As the study of the history of Tibetan Buddhism in these centuries proceeds, modern scholars with their access to the Tun Huang texts may not be convinced by Sa-pal)'s simple thesis of direct doctrinal descent via the unacknowledged influence of texts that had been suppressed and then later recovered from caches. The influence ofCh'an on early Tibetan Buddhism was more complex, and it persisted after the time of Mo-ho-yen, as shown for instance by Kimura (i981); cf. Ueyama (1983), p. 349, n. 30. Nevertheless, the existence of important and striking doctrinal parallels between the Phyag-chen and similarly oriented earlier Tibetan traditions makes the question of possible cross-fertilization (in one or both directions) between the rDzogs-chen for instance and the ·Mah1imudra definitely


worth investigating further. According to Broido too (p. 47), Padma-dkar-po is also "not unsympathetic to the possibility of some parallelism or mutual influence between Chinese ideas and those of the bKa'-brgyud-pas." Broido also asserts there that "the non-vajrayana parts of the rNying-ma doctrine do seem to have undergone Chinese influence, recorded, for instance, in the bSam gtan mig sgron."

Another line of possible inquiry would be into the Zhi-byed tradition, whose founder Dam-pa Sangs-rgyas (who was in Western gTsang from 1097 until his death in 1117) is said to have taught seemingly parallel. doctrines such as those suitable for the byin brlabs kyi lam pa, gang zag rim gyis pa, and gang zag cig char ba, etc. For rDzong-pa, who was of the latter type, he taught the Phyag rgya chen mo [sic] as dbang chig mo. See 'Gos lo-tsa-ba, p. 812 (na 22b), Roerich trans!., p. 914. Some of his other instructions included (ibid.): blo bral sems kyi me long la brten nas phyag rgya chen po'i don la ngo sprodll zha ma lcam sring la do ha'i gzlzung la brten nas rim cig char gnyis su ngo sprodl. See also Seyfort Ruegg (1988), p. 1261 (quoting Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, p. 8a.l), and the Blue Annals, p. 976 (na 49a), in which the "later" Zhi-byed (especially the Plryag chen dri med tlzigs pa practices) is identified with Maitripada's Mahamudra.

To put Sa-pa~'s own position in broader terms, what he believed he had detected was an influx of certain previously absent doctrines into the Mar-pa bKa'-brgyud-pa after Mi-la ras-pa, some of which were radically "simultaneist" in content and bore significant resemblances to doctrines associated with the rDzogs-chen and to teachings which had already been identified by previous Tibetan historians as the doctrine of the Hwa-shang. He believed this doctrinal influence had occurred through the reading and unacknowledged influence of previously concealed early texts. (It s40uld be remembered that in the traditional context, similar doctrines, terminology and doctrinal formulations normally indicated a common origin.) . What is needed at this stage is a carefully framed study of the early Mahamudra, based on a critical evaluation and historical ordering of sources. At present one cannot accept for example even all that one finds in sGam-popa's "Collected Works" as coming from his hand for much of it has obviously been transmitted through subsequent oral retelling or later editing (cf. lCangskya Rol-pa'i-rdo-rje's comments on such textual problems, translated by Lopez [1988], p. 266). Until such a study had been made, one should give due consideration to the opinions of all the traditional historical authorities such as 'Gos lo-tsa-ba, dPa'-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba, sGam-po-pa bKra-shis-rnamrgyal and Padma-dkar-po (and even Sa-pa~, as broadly understood) on the origins of the Mahamudra teachings and their doctrinal development, but final judgment should be reserved.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge with thanks the comments of Prof. D. Seyfort Ruegg and Mr. Burkhard Quessel, who read the first draft of this paper. I am likewise obliged to Mr. Jonathan Silk for his suggestions at a later stage. I would also like to acknowledge gratefully the support received from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung which made possible the writing of this paper at Hamburg University in 1988-89.

Bibliography

A. Western Language Sources

M. Broido (1987). "Sa-skya Pal.l<;lita, the White Panacea and the Hva-shang Doctrine," The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 10, pp. 27-68.

J. Broughton (1983). "Early Ch'an Schools in Tibet," in P. Gimello and P. Gregory (eds.), Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen. Studies in East Asian Buddhism, No. 1. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press. pp. 1-68.

R. E. Buswell, Jr. (1987). "The 'Short-cut' Approach of K'an-hua Meditation: The Evolution of a Practical Subitism in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism," in p. N. Gregory ed., Sudden and Gradual Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought. Studies in East Asian Buddhism. No.5, pp. 321-377.

-- (1988). "Ch'an Hermeneutics: A Korean View," in D. Lopez ed., Buddhist Hermeneutics. Studies in East Asian Buddhism. No.6, pp. 231-256.

D. Chappell (1983). "The Teachings of the Fourth Ch'an Patriarch Tao-hsin (580-651)," EarTy Ch'an in China and Tibet. Berkeley Buddhist Series. No.5, pp.89-129.

P. Demieville (1952). Le concile de Lhasa. Bibliotheque de l'Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises. Vol. 7. (reprinted 1987)

A. Ferrari [et. al.] (1958). mK)en brtse's Guide to the HoTy Places of Central Tibet. Serie Orientale Roma. Vol. 16.

L. O. G6mez (1983). "The Direct and Gradual Approaches of Zen Master Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen," in P. Gimello and p. Gregory (eds.), Studies in Ch 'an and Hua-yen. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism, no. 1.

-- (1983a). "Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlightenment," EarTy Ch'an in China and Tibet. Berkeley Buddhist Series. No.5, pp. 393-434.

-- (1987). "Purifying Gold: The Metaphor of Effort and Intuition in Buddhist Thought and Practice," in P. N. Gregory ed., Sudden and Gradual Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought. Studies in East Asian Buddhism. No.5, pp. 67-165.

P. N. Gregory (1987). "Sudden Enlightenment Followed by Gradual Cultivation," in P. N. Gregory ed., Sudden and Gradual Approaches to Enlightenmen in Chinese Thought. Studies in East Asian Buddhism. No.5, pp. 279-320.

David Jackson (1983).' "Commentaries on the Vhitings of Sa-skyaPal.l<;lita: A Bibliographical Sketch," The Tibet Journal. Vol. 8-3, pp. 3-23.


-- (1987). The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III): Sa-skya Par;riita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramiir;a and Philosophical Debate, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vo!' 17,2 parts.

-- (1989). The "Miscellaneous Series" of Tibetan Texts in the Bihar Research Society, Patna: A Handlist. Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies, voL 2. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag ItViesbaden.

--. (1990). Two Biographies of Siikyafrzbhadra: The Eulogy by Khro-phu lo-tsii-ba and its Commentary by bSod-nams-dpal-bzang-po. Texts and 1kzriants from Two Rare Exemplars in the Bihar Research Society, Patna. Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies, vo!' 4.

Roger Jackson (1982). "Sa skya paJ?<;lita's Account of the bSam yas Debate: History as Polemic," The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. VoL 5, pp. 89-99. _

Samten G. Karmay (1988). The Great Peifi;ction (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching in Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden, E.]. Brill.

R. Kimura (1981). "Le dhyana Chinois au Tibet ancien apres Mahayana," Journal Asiatique. Vol. 269, pp. 183-192.

L. van def. Kuijp (1983). Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 26. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag.

-- (1986). "On the Sources for Sa-skya PaJ?<;lita's Notes on the bSam-yas Debate," The Journal qfthe International Association qf Buddhist Studies. Vo!' 9, pp. 129-137.

-- (1987). "Further Marginalia to Sa-skya PaJ?<;lita's Oeuvre," Berliner Indologische Studien. Vo!' 3, pp. 129-137.

P Kvaerne (1983). "'The Great Perfection' in the Tradition of the Bonpos," Early Ch 'an in China and Tibet. Berkeley Buddhist Series. No.5, pp. 367-392.

L. P Lha1ungpa, trans!' (1986). Mahiimudrii The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, by Tagpo Tashi Namgya!. Boston and London, Shambha1a.

D. S. Lopez, Jr. (1988). A Study qfSviitantrika. Ithaca, N.Y., Snow Lion Publications.

G. Roerich, trans!' (1976). The Blue Annals. (reprint) Delhi, Moti1a1 Banarsidas. Originally published Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1949, 1953_

D. Seyfort Ruegg (1988). "A Karma bKa' brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditions of the Indo-Tibetan dBu rna (Madhyamaka)," Orientalialosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, Serie Orientale Roma. Vo!' 56, part 3, pp. 1249-1280.

-- (1989). Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem qfGradualism in a Comparative Perspective. London, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

D. L. Snellgrove (1959). The Hevajra Tantra, A Critical Study. London, Oxford University press. 2 parts.

R. A. Stein (1971). "Illumination subite ou saisie simultanee. Note sur la terminologie chinoise et tibetaine," Revue de l'histoire des religions. Vo!' 179-1, pp.3-30.

-- (1972). Vie et chants de 'Brug-pa Kunclegs le yogin. Paris, G.-P Maisonneuve et Larose.

-- (1987). "Sudden Illumination or Simultaneous Comprehension: Remarks on Chinese and Tibetan Terminologie," in P. N. Gregory ed., Sudden and

THE POLEMICIST 115

Gradual Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought, Studies in East Asian Buddhism, no. 5, pp. 41-65.

E. Steinkellner (1988). "Remarks on NiscitagrahaJfa," Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, Serie Orientale Roma. Vol. 56, part 3, pp. 1427-1444.

M. Tatz (1987). "The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher MaitrIgupta," Joumal qf the American Oriental Society. Vol. 107, pp. 695-71l.

D. Ueyama (1983). "The Study of Tibetan Ch'an Manuscripts Recovered from Tun-huang: A Review of the Field and Its Prospects," Early Ch'an in China and Tibet. Berkeley Buddhist Series. No.5, pp. 327-349.

A. Vostrikov (1970). Tibetan Historical Literature. Indian Studies Past and Present, Calcutta. Completed in 1937; first Russian edition, 1962.

S. Yanagida (1983). "The Li-tai fa-pao chi and the Ch'an Doctrine of Sudden Awakening," Early Ch 'an in China and Tibet. Berkeley Buddhist Series. No.5, pp. 13-49.

B. Tibetan Sources

bKa' brgyud gser phreng chen mo. Biographies qf Eminent Gurus in the Transmission Lineage qfTeachings qfthe 'Ba'-ra dKar-brgyud-pa Sect. Dehra Dun, Ngawang Gyaltsen and Ngawang Lungtok, 1970.

bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal, sGam-po-pa (1512/13-1587). Nges don phyag rgya chen po'i sgom rim gsal bar byed pa'i legs bshad zla ba'i 'od zeT. rTsib-ri spar-rna. Kagyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1984. Vol. 3, pp. 1-759 (ga 1a-380a).

Go-rams-pa bSod-nams-seng-ge (1429-1489). sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i mam bshad rgyal ba'i gsung rab kyi dgongs pa gsal ba. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Tokyo: Taya Bunko, 1969. Vol. 14, pp. 119.1.1-199.3.6 (ta la-161a).

sGam-po-pa bSod-nams-rin-chen (1079-1153). rJe phag mo gru pa'i zhus lan, Col· lected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-po-pa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Delhi, . Khasdup Gyatsho Shashin, 1975. Vol. 1, pp. 469-496.

--. Dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhus Ian. Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-popa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Vol. 1, pp. 376-469.

--. Tshogs chos chen mao Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-po-pa bSodnams-rin-chen. Vol. 1, pp. 326-360.

--. Tshogs chos legs mdzes mao Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-po-pa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Vol. 1, pp. 171-258.

--. Tshogs chas yon tan phun tshogs. Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-popa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Vol. 1, pp. 258-293.

--. [Shel gyi bdud rtsi thun mong ma yin pa] (title as listed in table of contents). Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-po-pa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Vol. 2, pp. 101-136.

--. Lam rimmdor bsdus. Collected Works (gSung 'bum) of sGam-po-pa bSod-nams-rin-chen. Vol. 2, pp. 237.6-240.7. .

'Gos lo-tsa-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481). Deb ther sngon po. The Blue Annals. Sata-pitaka Series (New Delhi, 1974). Vol. 212.

Thu'u-bkwan Chos-kyi-nyi-ma (1737-1802). Grub mtha' thams cad kyi khungs dang 'dod tshul ston pa legs bshad shel gyi me long. Collected Works. New Delhi, 1969. Vol. 2, pp. 5-519. ..


rDo-rje-shes-rab (fl. 13th c.). Khyad par lta bsgam spyad pa'i tshams. [dGangs gcig 'grel pa rda shes ma], dGongs gcig yig chao Bir: D. Tsondu Senghe, 1975. Vol. 2, pp. 364-456 (ta la-47a).

--. Chos kyi 'khar la'i gnad bsdus kyi tshams. [dGangs gcig 'grel pa rda shes maJ, dGongs gcig yig chao Bir: D. Tsondu Senghe, 1975. Vol. 1, pp. 348-456 (nga la-55a)

Padma-dkar-po, 'Brug-chen (1527-1592). Klan ka gzham pa'i gtam, Collected Works, vol. 21, pp. 553-584 «-ha nga 1 a-16b).

--. bKa' brgyud kyi bka' 'bum gsil bu mams kyi gsan yig, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 309-496 (nga na la-94b).

--. Chas 'byung bstan pa'i padma rgyas pa'i nyin byed. Sata-Pitaka Series (New Delhi: 1968). Vol. 75.

--. Phyag rgya chen pa'i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba'i gan mdzad. rTsib-ri sparrna. Darjeeling, 1978. Vol. 4, pp. 185-621 (nga 1-219).

dPa' -bo gTsug-Iag-phreng-ba (1503/4-1566). Dam pa'i chas kyi 'khar la bsgyur ba mams kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa'i dga' stan. Beijing, Mi-rigs-dpeskrun-khang, 1985. 2 vols.

dBang-'dus. Bod gangs can pa'i gsa ba rig pa'i dpalldan rgyud bzhi sags kyi brda dang dka' gnad 'ga' zhig bkral tshig mdzad g.yu thag dgangs rgyan. Pe-cing, Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1982.

'Bri-gung rig-'dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa (fl. 17th c.). Dam pa'i chas dgangs pa gcig pa'i mam bshad lung don gsal byed rryi ma'i snang ba, 'Bri-gung-pa Texts, Miscellaneous Writings by Eminent Masters of the Drigung Kargyudpa Tradition. Leh, S. W. Tashigangpa, 1972. Vol. 2, pp. 1-397.

Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, Zhwa-nag Karma-pa VIII (1507-1554). dBu ma la 'jug pa'i mam bshad dpalldan dus gsum mkhyen pa'i zhallung dwags brgyud grub pa'i shing rta. Rumtek, 1975.

Zhang Tshal-pa (1123-1193). Phyag rgya chen po lam zab mthar thug zhang gi man ngag. rTsib-ri spar-rna. Darjeeling, 1978.Vol. 4, pp. 49-117 (nga 1-35).

--. Writings (bka' thor bu) qf Zhang g. Yu-brag-pa brtsan- 'grus-grags-pa. Tashijong, The Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel Parkhang, 1972.

Shakya-mchog-Idan, gSer-mdog pal).-chen (1428-1507). rNgag la tstsha ba chen pas bstan pa ji ltar bskyangs pa'i tshul mdo tsam du bya ba nga mtshar dad pa'i ral mtsha. Collected Works. Thimphu, Kunzang Topgey, 1975. Vol. 16, pp. 443-456.

Shes-rab-'byung-gnas, dB on-po (1187-1241). Dam chas dgangs pa gcig pa'i rtsa tshig rda lje'i gsung brgya lnga bcu pa. dGongs gcig yig chao Bir: D. Tsondu Senghe, 1975. Vol. 1, pp. 154ff.

Sa-skya Pal).<;iita Kun-dga'-rgyal~mtshan (1182-1251). sKyes bu dam pa mam la spring ba'i yi ge. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Tokyo, Toyo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 5, pp. 330.4.1-333.4.2 (na 70b.l-76a.2).

-. Thub pa'i dgangs pa rab tu gsal ba. SKKB. Vol. 5, pp. 1.1.1-50.1.6 (tha 1 a-99a). --.sDam pa gsum gyi rab tu dbj'e ba. SKKB. Vol. 5, pp. 297.1.1-320.4.5 (na

la-48b.5). bSod-nams-dpal-bzang-po. Sa'i steng na 'gran da dang bral ba kha ehe par;¢i ta

shiikya shrz bhadra'i mam thar. Xylograph, 66 ff. Bihar Research Society, Patna, bundle no. 591. See D. Jackson (1989) and (1990).

Vajrayana Deities in an Illustrated Indian Manuscript of the AJtasiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii*

by John Newman

Among the treasures contained in Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata-the three volume collection of essays in honor of the late Professor Giuseppe Tucci-a brief article by Sadashiv Gorakshkar and Kalpana Desai deserves the special attention of students ofIndian Vajrayana Buddhism and its art history. Entitled "An Illustrated Manuscript of Ashtasahasrika Prajiiaparamita in the Asiatic Society of Bombay" (Gorakshkar and Desai 1987), the article describes and discusses Asiatic Society Acc. No. 210, and contains ten black-and-white plates reproducing the manuscript's eighteen illustrations. No information is given about the Society's acquisition of the manuscript, but it ultimately originated in eastern India around the end of the 12th century: it was produced frfmad-gouindapaladeuasyatitariiJjasainuat 39-i.e., in the 39th year subsequent to the beginning of the defunct reign of the Pala king Govindapala (rg. ca. 1161-65).1

This brief article will not attempt to address all of the issues raised by the manuscript and its illustrations, and we will only be directly concerned with six of the eighteen illustrations. The eighteen illustrations appear "on the first two (f. 1 rev.-2 obv.) , middle two (f. 106 rev.-107 obv.) and the last two (f. 221 rev.-222 obv.) folios" (Gorakshkar and Desai 1987:562). The six we will discuss are on folios 106 rev. and 107 obv., each of which contains three illustrations. In other words, when folio 106 is turned we encounter two sets of three illustrations, one set above the other. The illustrations on 106 rev. depict male deities; those on 107 obv. portray female. deities. Upon closer examination it becomes clear that we are dealing with three divine couples: a male deity on the viewer's left of

117


106 rev. above his female counterpart on the left of 107 obv., a male in the center of 106 rev. above his female counterpart in the center of 107 obv., etc.

Table A indicates the locations of the illustrations of these six figures and their identifications as proposed by Gorakshkar and Desai (1987:563). Table Bproposes some refinements and alternative identifications that will be discussed below.

Folio 106 rev. 1.: Dvibhuja-Sambara This form of Sambara is described, for example, in verses 4-7 of the Dvibhuja-sambaropadefa contained in the Siidhanamiilii: 2

"(v. 4) [The sadhaka] should assume the form (dhiirayet) [ofVajra<;laka] with [a diadem of] skulls placed at his forehead and a half-moon at his crown. He has the six mudrii,3 a garland of heads, the crossed-vajra [on his head], and three eyes. (v. 5) His feet are placed in the iili:rjha stance.4 He is surrounded by the syllables of the universe, and mounted on Kalaratri together with Bhairava. He is clad in a tiger skin, (v. 6) with Ak~obhya at his crest. He is dark blue [read kU1Jo for kubjo] , endowed with a vajra and bell, and hair in twisted locks. That hero [is embraced by] Vajravarahi:, .who holds a vajra and a skull full of blood. (v. 7) She has a khatviiizga and a mekhalii. She is red, has three eyes, a garland of heads, and the five mudrii. 5 Her hair is free-flowing; she is naked, and has a Buddha at her crest." (Siidhanamiilii #255; 504.1-8; Bhattacharyya 1958: 160-161; cf. de Mallmann 1975:50, 187-189).6

The major discrepancy between the manuscript illustration and the siidhana description is that the illustrated figure stands in pratyiilfcJha whereas the siidhana prescribes iilfcJha. 7 In all other respects they are remarkably similar.8

Folio 107 obv. 1.: Vajraviiriihf This form ofVajravarahi is described, e.g., in the Vajraviiriihfsiidhana of Advayavajra:

"[The siidhaka] should think of himself as Bhagavati: Vajravarahi:, [red] like a pomegranate flower, with two arms. She appears to menace with the vajra in her right hand; she holds a skullcup and khatviiizga in her left. She has a single face and

VAJRAYANA DEITIES I 119

Table A

FOLIO 106 rev.l. 106 rev. c. 106 rev. r.

PLATE Va Vb VIa

I.D. Vajrapal).i Mafijusri Nairatmya

FOLIO 107 obv. I. 107 obv. c. 107 obv. r.

PLATE Vlb VIla VIlb

I.D. Sarvabuddha Female deity Female counter-:Qakil).i with the same part of (Naro mkha- attributes as Nairatmya spyod-ma) (sic) Mafijusrl

Table B

FOLIO 106 rev. I. 106 rev. c. 106 rev. r.

I.D. Dvibhuja- Pil).<;likrama- Trai1okyak$epa-Sambara Ak$obhya Heruka/Hevajra

FOLIO 107 obv. I. 107 obv. c. 107 obv. r.

I.D. Vajrav3,rahi Spadavajra Nairatmya


three eyes; her hair is free-flowing. She is marked with the six mudrii, and is naked. She consists of the five gnoses, and has the nature of connate joy. Standing in pratyiilfr/ha, she treads on Bhairavaand Kalaratri. Her body is ornamented with a garland of moist heads. She drinks a stream of blood." (Siidhanamiilii #217, 425.5-11; Bhattacharyya 1958:218; cf. SaT[lvarodaya 13.22-24; de Mallmann 1975:77-79, 425-429, 431-433).

Again, the single major discrepancy between the figure and the siidhana description is that their stances seem to be inverted. 9 In the plate the khatvii:hga is barely visible, but one can easily discern a stream of blood flowing from the skullcup to Vajravarahl's lips. Her hair fans out behind her, and she is clad only in a mekhalii. lO

Folios 106 rev. c. & 107 obv. c.: PirjJjzkrama-Ak~obhya and Sparfavajrii

These figures are best treated together. Iconographically they are virtually identical: only the breasts of the figure in 107 obv. c. distinguish it from the male in 106 rev. c. lI These deities are described in Nagarjuna's Pi1Jej,zkrama-siidhana vv. 27 & 30, 53-54, 107-110:

madhyamal).<;lalake dhyayad atmanarp. mudraya yutam I trimukharp. ~a<;lbhujakaram indranllasamaprabham I I (27)

sthitaiva sparsavajra tu vajrasattvasamayuta I (30cd)

ak~obhyanupraveSena trimukharp. ~a<;lbhujojjvalam I indranIlaprabharp. diptarp. vajrasattvarp. vibhavayet I I (53)

vajrarp. cakrarp. tatha padmarp. savyahaste~u bhavayet I ghal).tarp. ratnarp. tatha kha<;lgarp. vamahaste~u bhavayet II (54)

svamantrak~arani~pannarp. trivajradhiHhitasvakam I padmamadhye tu ni~padya dve~avajro bhavet punal; II (107)

vajradhrgmantrani~pannarp. pasyed ak~obhyavajril).ain I j atamukutadhararp. natham ak~o bhyakrtasekharam II (108)

nrpavartakasarp.kasarp. kr~l).araktasitananam I sarvalailkarasampurl).arp. ~a<;lbhujarp. tu vibhavayet II (109)

vajrarp. cakrarp. tatha padmarp. savyahaste~u dharayet I ghal).tarp. cintamal).irp. kha<;lgarp. tasya vame~u bhavayet 1/ (110)

VAJRAYA.NA DEITIES 121

"(v. 27) [The siidhaka] should think of himself in the middle malJrfala, joined with [his] mudrii, in a three-faced, six-armed form having the radiance of a sapphire. (v. 30cd) ... and Sparsavajra sits joined with Vajrasattva. (v. 53) With the entrance of Ak~obhya [into himself, the siidhaka] should imagine [himself] as Vajrasattva, three-faced, radiating six arms, blazing with the radiance of a sapphire. (v. 54) He should imagine a vajra, wheel, and lotus in his right hands, and a bell,jewel, and sword in his left hands. (v. 107) Having effected his completion of the mantra syllables, and being blessed as the three vajras in the middle of the lotus, [the siidhaka] should become DVeSavajra again. (v. 108) He should see Ak~obhyavajrin produced from the mantra vajradhrk. He should imagine [himself as] the lord beating twisted locks of hair and a diadem, with a crest formed by Ak~obhya, (v. 109) resembling a king, with dark blue, red, and white faces, fully endowed with all ornaments, and six-armed. (v. 110) He should hold a vajra, wheel, and lotus in his right hands, and imagine a bell, wishing-gem, and sword in his left hands."

Here Vajrasattva, DVeSavajra, and Ak~obhyavajrin are all names or epithets of this form of Ak~obhya. This description fits the figure in 106 rev. c. precisely. We can glean additional details about this divinity from the "Pi1J.<;lIkramokta-ak~obhyama1J.<;lala" of Abhayakaragupta's Nifpanna;yogiivalZ:

"In the middle of the kii{iigiira is Ak~obhya: dark blue, wrathful, [left] face white, the rIght red, radiating a kula [i.e., vajra] , wheel, and lotus with his right hands, and a bell, wishing-gem, and sword with his left, embraced by Sparsavajra in his own likeness." (Ni-!pannayogiival'l 5.3-4; cf. English precis p. 35; see also de Mallmann 1975:43,91-93; 351-353).12

Folios 106 rev. r. & 107 obv. r.: Trailokyiikfepa-Heruka/ Hevajra and Nairiitmyii

Again the male and female figures depicted in these illustrations are virtually identical: only the breasts of the female and, perhaps, the treatment of the faces serves to distinguish them. This form of Heruka / Heva j ra is called IJ-ailokyak~epa (cf. Hevajra I.ii.7, I.iii:1-16; Siidhanamiilii 474.1, 476.16; Nifpanna;yogiival'l 14.4-7; Bhattacharyya 1935; Bhattacharyya 1958:157; de Mallmann 1975:46, 48, 182-190, 380).


Trailokyak~epa IS described in the Sarrtk~ipta-dvibhuja-herukasiidhana vv. 3-6:

"(v. 3) [The sadhaka] should imagine himself as [Heruka], standing on a corpse in the ardhaparyanka stance, well-clad in a human skin, his body smeared with ashes. He flourishes a vajra in his right [hand], (v. 4) has a khatviinga with a waving banner [on his left arm], and a skullcup full of blood in his left [hand]. He has a delightful necklace made from a garland of fifty heads. (v. 5) He slightly bares his fangs, his eyes are red, he frolics, his hair is tawny and stands erect on his head. He has an Ak~obhya diadem, earrings, (v. 6) and he is decorated with bone ornaments. His head [is crowned] with five skulls. He bestows Buddhahood, and protects the world from the Maras." (Siidhanamiilii #244,473.10-17; Bhattacharyya 1958: 155-156).13

Nairatmya is described in the Kevala-nairiitmyii-siidhana:

"Nairatmya stands dancing in ardhaparyanka on the heart of a corpse on a moon. She is dark blue, with one face, tawny hair flowing upward, an Ak~obhya diadem, bared fangs, and a lolling tongue. She bears a cleaver [kartri]I4 in her right [hand], and a skull and khatviinga in her left [hand and on her left arm] . She has three red, round· eyes, and is adorned with the five mudrii." (Siidhanamiilii #230,451.2-6; cf. Hevajra I.viii.l8-19; de Mallmann 1975:47, 27l-272).15

* * * Having established the identities of these six deities, we can

consider them and their iconographic configuration in more general terms. First, these are worshipped deities (i~tadevatii) of three of the most important anuttarayogatantra traditions: the Sambara (or Cakrasarpvara), Guhyasamaja, and Hevajra tantras. All three of these tantras are headed by Ak~obhya, chief of the vajrakula, bu.t the Guhyasamaja is classified as an upifJa tantra, a tantra that emphasizes the production of the mifJiideha, whereas the Sambara and Hevajra tantras are the two main members of the prajiiii tantra class that emphasizes the realization of the prabhiisvara. 16

The Pir;¢Zkrama-siidhana of Arya Nagarjuna teaches the utpattikrama siidhana of the Arya tradition ofGuhyasamaja prac-

VAJRAVANA DEITIES 123

tice and exegesis. It looks back to the explanations of the Guhyasamiija-tantra found in the Vajramiilii, a Guhyasamaja l!Yiikhyii-tantra (cf. PilJJ!zkrama-siidhana 230). Thus the manuscript illustrations of Ak~obhya and Sparsavajra depict a form of Guhyasamaja that a siidhaka visualizes and becomes through the Arya tradition practice of the Guhyasamaja utpattikrama.

Even a cursory examination of the CakrasaIP-vara and Hevajra tantras reveals that these two traditions are very closely related. 17 Further study may show that Bhattacharyya was essentially correct in his claim that "Heruka in no way differs from the famous Buddhist deity Hevajra" (Bhattacharyya 1935:23); "Sambara ... is only another form ofHevajra'; (Bhattacharyya 1958: 160). The manuscript illustrations of these divinities represent sa'f[l}annakrama forms.

If we assume the six illustrations as a group depict a p.ierarchy we can hypothetically "read the text" of this configuration as follows: In the center is Ak~obhya and his consort Sparsavajra representing the utpattikrama of upqya tantra. To their right are Sambara and Vajravarahi of the Cakrasarpvara tantra, and to their left are Trailokyak~epa and Nairatmya of the Hevajra tantra--these two pairs represent the sa'f[l}annakrama of prajfiii tantra. In other words, Ak~obhya, the lord of the vajrakula, is flanked by his progeny. If we follow this line of reasoning one step further, we can conjecture that the "author"18 of this iconographic scheme imagined upqya tantra in some sense giving birth to prajfiii tantra, similar to the way the utpattikrama gives birth to the sa1!lpannakrania.

In this note we will not attempt to discuss the role these and similar images played in Indian Vajrayana Buddhist cult practice. Although great strides have been made in the iconographic and stylistic categorization of Vajrayana icons, the study of their religious symbolism and cultural context lags far behind. Among the questions that need to be addressed we might pose the following: To what extent is Vajrayana Buddhism indebted to the classical natyafiistra tradition? That is, what does it mean that erotic blood-drinking deities such as Sambara and Hevajra are "endowed with the nine rasas of niitya?" (See, e.g., ,Sa1!lvarodaya 13.22; Hevajra II.v.26; Ni.fpannayogiivalz 2.0.4-5, 26.9. For the Guhyasamaja cf. Guhyasamiija p.29.l7and vv.lO.l3, 12.55; Pradzpoddyotana17, 90, 93, 114;

124 . JIABS VOL. 13 NO.2

Wayman 1977:326-328.) An earlier generation of Western scholars reacted to the imagery ofVajrayana Buddhism with horror and disgust. We should consider the possibility that the Indian Buddhists who practiced these teachings had a more sophisticated aesthetic appreciation of the deities they created and strove to become. Indeed, as the study of Vajrayana Buddhism progresses it is becoming every more apparent that we must examine the relationship between aesthesis and gnosis that lies at the foundation of this mystery tradition.

Gorakshkar and Desai are to be congratulated for discovering and publishing these fine representatives of the once flourishing tradition of Indian Vajrayana Buddhist painting. These manuscript illustrations number among the few surviving Indian painted images of anuttarayogatantra deities. 19 As such their value to the study ofVajrayana Buddhist art history can hardly be overestimated. We hope these paintings will be reproduced again in the high resolution color enlargements that are a necessary condition for thorough study of their stylistic and iconographic content.

NOTES

*The author and editor are grateful to the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente for the photographs reproduced below, and to Professors Sadashiv Gorakshkar and Kalpana Desai, and the Asiatic Society, Bombay, for permission to reproduce them.

1. The Sanskrit is given following Gorakshkar and Desai (1987:562); a few of the ak{aras and numbers in Plate Ia (which contains the colophon) are difficult to read. Govindapala's regnal period is given according to D.C. Sircar (1977:968). Note that Asiatic Society of Bengal MS No. G.9989A is dated Govindapala 18, which would extend Govindapala's reign (Saraswati 1977:LXXV) .

2. This siidhana is as.cribed to "Mahapal).<;Iita Ratnakaragupta" in the colophon of the Siidhanamiilii text, but a somewhat shorter version is attributed to "*SrI Vajraghal).ta" (dPal rDo rje dril bu) in the Tanjur (Peking 2155; Toh. 1438). I suspect Vajraghal).ta composed the basic siidhana, Ratnakaragupta produced a new redaction, and the latter was then credited with composition of the text by the textual tradition of the Siidhanamiilii.

3. On the six mudrii see Bhattacharyya (1935:24; 1958:438-439). 4. Alfq.ha and pratyiilfq.ha are two postures used in dh(lnurveda, nii!ya,

and-most important for our purposes-iconography. These terms have created confusion among students of Indian iconography, and it is perhaps worthwhile to review the issue. All agree that both stances entail one leg being bent at the knee and the other held straight, but scholars have arrived at contrary conclusions as to. which knee is bent in a particular stance (see Harle

VAJRAYANA DEITIES 125

1971: 10; cf. Bhattacharyya 1958:432). This problem is not new. Agn.ipuriiIJa 249.13 (treating dhanurveda) clearly prescribes the left knee bent iri pratyiilfq.ha, which is the "inversion" (viparyasta) of the iilfq.ha stance described in 249.12:

etad eva viparyyastan;t pratyiilfrfham iti smrtam / tiryyagbhilto bhaved viimo dak{iIJo 'pi bhaved rJu~ / / (249.13)

However, Niityasiistra 1O.70cd-7Iab (describing niitya stances) just as' clearly prescribes the opposite:

kuficitan;t dak{iIJan;t krtvii viiman;t piidan;t prasiirya ca / / (1O.70cd) iilfq.haparivartas tu pratyiilfq.ham iti smrtam / (10. 7I ab)

In Niityasiistra 1O.67cd-68ab iilzrfha is described as stretching the right leg out from the previously described maIJrfala stance. [Note: Niityafiistra 1O.68d prescribes iilfq.ha to depict vfra and raudra behavior.] This obviously creates difficulties for scholars attempting to identify images based on these stances. Fortunately, for Vajrayana Buddhist images we are given some help by the concise Tibetan glosses contained in the tantric terminology section of the Mahiivyutpatti (#4266 & 4267):

iilfq.ham: g:yas brkyang ba, "right extended"; pratyiilfrfham: g:yon brkyang ba, "left extended."

In this essay we will follow the Niityasiistra and the Mahiivyutpatti even though, as we will see, this creates certain problems. Abhayakaragupta's Vajriivalf (f. 25-26), discussing the stances portrayed in Vajrayana iconography, agrees with the Niityasiistra and the Mahiivyutpatti in its description of iilfrfa and pratyiilfrfa. See I)hfh 9( 1990) 72.

5. For the five mudrii see Hevajra Liii.13-14, ILv.3, II.vi.l-4. 6. My translation is indebted to the pioneering work ofBenoytosh Bhat

tacharyya. 7. See note 4. A Tibetan scholar, Gen Losang Namgyal, informs me that

VajraghaJ;lta wrote that both stances are used, and that this is connected with . the relationship between the prajfiii and upqya modes of anuttarayoga tantric practice. Note also that all the Indian stelae and metal sculptures of the 12-armed form of Sambara listed below are standing in iilfq.ha, i.e., left leg bent, ri~ht leg extended.

8. Another manuscript of the A{tasiihasrikii, dated GovindapaIa 18, containsa similar illustration of what appears to be Dvibhuja-Sambara standing in pratyiilfrfha (Saraswati 1977:XCV, fig. 273). For a closely related six-armed form of Sambara (called "Heruka" in the text) see San;tvarodaya 13.15-22. A twelve-armed form is described in the Ni{pannayogiivalf's "SambaramaJ;l9-ala" 26.3-9 (cf. Bhattacharyya 1958:161-162). Several Indian stelae of this twelvearmed form have been found: (I) Ratnagiri, Cuttack Dt., Orissa (Chanda 1930: 12, plate IV fig. 3; Mitra 1960:43-45, plate I; Mitra 1981 :429-430, plate CCCXXVII A; Benisti 1981: 116-117, fig. 139). (2) Cuttack Dt. [almost identical to (I)] (Banerji 1931:plate facing 409). (3) North Bengal (Majumdar 1937:80, plate XXIV,c; cf. Mitra 1960:46; Mitra 1981:430, n.4). Several Indian metal sculptures of this form have also been found: (I) Patharghata, Bhagalpur Dt., Bihar (Banerji 1933~93, plate XXXVII (c); Mitra 1960:45-46, plates II & III; Huntington 1984:153, fig. 195). (2) Northeast India (Uhlig 1981:140, fig. 37). (3) Northeast India [with consort] (Uhlig 1981:138, fig. 35). (4) Kashmir (Pal 1975:173, fig. 64a & 64b; Uhlig 1981:120, fig. 16).


9. See notes 4 & 7. As with Sambara above, the seeming inversion of the stance is puzzling. The figure in folio 107 obv. 1. is almost identical to the Na ro mkha' spyod form of rDo rje mal 'byor rna (NagogakinI-VajrayoginI) (cf. Chandra, L. 1976: 1333), which, to my knowledge, is only depicted in the iilf¢ha stance. The only major iconographic difference between the Vajravaram of the illustration and siidhana and NagogakinI is that the former wields a vajra in her right hand whereas the latter holds a cleaver.

10. An iconographically identical figure appears in another Indian manuscript of the A{tasiihasrikii (Pal 1988: 87, 89, fig. 28a). A stone stele ofVajravarahlwas found in Chauduar, Orissa: "a two-armed goddess (14-3/4/1 by 8/1) standing in archer's attitude [viz. iilf¢ha] with vajra in her right hand and a cup (upper half of a human skull) held up by her left hand" (Chanda 1930:22, plate VIII, fig. 1). A very similar stele was found in Bihar (Saraswati 1977:LXI, fig. 174) ..

11. In fact the treatment of the faces also appears to distinguish male and female, but the smallness of the plates makes it difficult to be certain.

12. Closer examination of a small stone image found at Bodh Gaya (or Nalanda?) may lead to its identification as Pi1fglkrama-Ak~obhya and Sparsavajra in the "yuganaddha" pose (Huntington 1984:101, fig. 111; cf. Saraswati 1977:LXII, fig. 175).

13. Trailokyak~epa also appears in another Indian manuscript of the A~!asiihasrikii (Pal 1988:85, pI. 18). Five stone stelae of this form of Heruka have been discovered: (1) Subhapur, Tipperah Dt., East Bengal (Siidhanamiilii II. clxi-clxii, plate X; Bhattasali 1929:35-37, plate XII; Lad 1956:317, fig. 37; Huntington 1984:172-173, fig. 215). (2) Ratnagiri (Chanda 1930:12, plate V, fig. 2; Mitra 1981 :443, plate CCCXXXVI B; Uhlig 1981: 115, fig. 10). (3) Sarnath (Saraswati 1977:LVIX-LX, fig. 171). (4) Nalanda (Saraswati 1977:LX, fig. 172). (5) Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh (Murthy 1988:37, 42-43, pI. II). The same figure fills niches in two "miniature stupas" found at Ratnagiri (Mitra 1981: 126, plate LXXIII B; Benisti 1981: 115, fig. 138). Three Indian metal sculptures of this form of Heruka are known to exist: (1) Achutrajpur, Orissa (Mitra 1978:85-86, fig. 77). (2) Unknown provenance, now apparently in the Baroda Museum (Siidhanamiilii 11. clxiii, plate XI). (3) Eastern India (Sotheby's 1985 :lot # 138). Several Indian sculptures of 16-armed forms of Hevajra have also been discovered: (1) Paharpur, Raj shahi Dt., Bengal [stone, in the round, with Nairatmya] (Chandra, G.C. 1936: 122, plate LV(c-d); Uhlig 1981:138-140, fig. 36; Huntington 1984: 164, fig. 202). (2) Bengal [stone stele, with Nairatmya] (Lad 1956:314, fig. 97). (3) Bengal [metal lotus mar;¢ala sculpture, with Nairatmya] (Pal 1978:96-97, no. 57). (4) Dharmmanagara, Tippera State, Bengal [inscribed metal sculpture, 4-legged, without Nairatmya] (Bhattasali 1929:270-271, plate L).

14. Note that the female figure in folio 107 obv. r., like the male in 106 rev. r., appears to be holding a vajra in her right hand, not a cleaver. Also, the iconography of Nairatmya fits a generic ardhaparyaizka yoginf/ ¢iikinf type: compare Nairatmya with the eightyoginfs surrounding the extraordinary Hevajra-Nairatmy a ''y~ganaddha'' stele from Bengal (Lad 1956:314, fig. 97), and with the ¢iikinfs illustrated in the Bris sku mthong ba don ldan (Chandra, L. 1976:289, 291-293, 294-295,300, etc.).

VAJRAVANA DEITIES 127

15. A stone stele of Nairatmya was discovered in Bihar (Nalanda?) (Sadhanamiilii II.clxix-clxx, plate XV; Lad 1956:317, fig. 40; Saraswati 1977:LX, fig. 173). A figure, in a manuscript illustration apparently synthesizes icono- ' graphic features ofNaid.tmya and VajravarahI (Pal 1988:72, pI. 11).

16. This is according to mKhas grub rje's rGyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa 260-266. Other Tibetan scholars subdivide the anuttarayogatantra class differently.

17. The archaeological evidence reviewed above indicates the Sambara and Hevajra cults specially flourished in eastern India, i.e., Bihar, Bengal, and Orissa. This coincides with the impression one gets from the contents of these tantras, and from their Indo-Tibetan hagiographies.

18. We assume this arrangement of these six deities is deliberate, although we do not know when or by who it was originally devised.

19. As noted above, there are quite a few Indian sculptures of anuttarayogatantra deities, but they invariably lack the coloration that is such an important part ofVajrayana symbolism.

The corpus of Indian painted images of anuttarayogatantra deities may be expanded if an illustrated manuscript of the Vimalaprabhii can be relocated. The manuscript, noticed by H.P. Shastri in 1897, was produced at the Sri Dharmadhatu vihiira in Nepal by two Bengalis in the year 1818 of a nirvii1J.a era (i.e., ca. 1274 CE). Shastri notes: "There are numerous illustrations in this work representing Buddha as Upaya, as male, and Dharma, otherwise praJfiii, as female. The Kamakala is represented as producing the Sarp.gha represented by the bodhisattvas. The MS. and the illustrations are in excellent preservation" (Shastri 1897:316). Unfortunately, this MS., along with other illustrated MSS., is missing from the National Archives in Kathmandu (cf. Pal 1988:36, n. 32).

REFERENCES

Agnipurii1J.a: Baladeva Upadhyaya (ed.), Agnipurii1J.a of Maharfi T!eda1!Jliisa' (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1966) [Kashi Sanskrit Series 174].

BaneIji (1931): R.D. Banerji, History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period vol. II (Calcutta: R. Chatterjee, 1931).

Banerji (1933): R.D. Banerji, Eastern Indian School of Mediaeval Sculpture (Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1933) [Archaeological Survey ofIndia, New Imperial Series vol. XLVII].

Benisti (1981): Mireille Benisti, Contribution a l 'etude du stiipa bouddhique indien: les stiipa mineurs de Bodh-gayii et de Ratnagiri 2 vo1s. (Paris: Ecole Fran9aise d'Extreme-Orient, 1981) [Publications de l'Ecole Fran9aise d'Extreme-Orient vol. CXXVJ.

Bhattacharyya . (1935): Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, "Iconography of Heruka" Indian Culture 2.1 (1935) 23-35.

Bhattacharyya (1958): Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, The Indian Buddhist Iconography: Mainly Based OT! the Siidhanamiilii and Cognate Tantric Texts of Rituals 2nd ed. (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1958).

Bhattasali (1929) : Nalini Kanta Bhattasali, Iconography oj Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures in the Dacca Museum (Dacca: Dacca Museu~ Committee, 1929).


Chanda (1930): Ramaprasad Chanda, Exploration in Orissa (Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch, 1930) [Memoirs of the Archaeological SurveyofIndia no. 44].

Chandra, G.C. (1936): G.C. Chandra and K.N. Dikshit, "Excavations at Paharpur" Annual Reports qf the Archaeological Survey qf India Jor the Years 1930-31, 1931-32, 1932-33 & 1933-34 Part One (Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1936) pp. 113-128.

-Chandra, L. (1976): Lokesh Chandra, Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Company reprint, 1976).

de Mallmann (1975): Marie-Therese de Mallmann, Introduction a l'iconographie du t8.ntrisme bouddhique (Paris: Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1975) [Bib-1iotheque du Centre de Recherches sur l'Asie Centrale et 1a Haute Asie vol. I].

Gorakshkar and Desai (1987): Sadashiv Gorakshkar and Kalpana Desai, '~n Illustrated Manuscript of Ashtasiihasrikii Prajiiiipiiramitii in the Asiatic Society of Bombay,'? in G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti (ed.), Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata (Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1987) pp. 561-568, 12 plates [Serie Orientale Roma LVI,2].

Guhyasamiija: Yukei Matsunaga (ed.), The Guhyasamiija Tantra: A New Critical Edition (Osaka: Toho Shupp an, 1978).

rGyud sde spyi'i mam par gzhag pa: mKhas grub dGe legs dpa1 bzang po, in F.D. Lessing and A. Wayman, Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass reprint, 1983).

Harle (1971): J.C. Harle, "Remarks on iil'iq.ha," in William Watson (ed.), Mahayanist Art After A.D. 900 (London: University of London Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, 1971) pp. 10-16 [Colloquies on Art & Archaeology in Asia no. 2].

Hevajra: D.L. Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1959) [London Oriental Series vol. 6].

Huntington (1984): Susan L. Huntington, The "Piila-Sena" Schools qf Sculpture J (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984) [Studies in South Asian Culture vol. X].

Lad (1956): P.M. Lad, The Way qf the Buddha (Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry ofInformation and Broadcasting, Government ofIndia, 1956).

Mahiivyutpatti: Sakaki Ry6sabur6 et al. (ed.), Mahiivyutpatti (Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation reprint, 1962).

Majumdar (1937): N.G. Majumdar, "Indian Museum, Calcutta" Annual Report qf the Archaeological Survey qf India 1934-35 (Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1937) pp. 78-83.

Mitra (1960): Deba1a Mitra, '~n Image of Sam bar a in the Patna Museum" The Orissa Historical Research Joumal9.3 (1960) 43-46.

Mitra (1978): Debala Mitra, Bronzes from Achutrajpur, Orissa (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakasha,n, 1978).

Mitra (1981): Deba1a Mitra, Ratnagiri (1958-61) 2 vo1s. (New Delhi: Archaeological Survey ofIndia, 1981 & 1983) [Memoirs of the Archaeo1ogi-cal Survey ofIndia no. 80]. .

Murthy (1988): K. Krishna Murthy, Iconography qf Buddhist Deity Heruka (Delhi: . Sundeep Prakashan, 1988).

VAJRAYANA DEITIES 129

Niityafiistra: Madhusudan Shastri (ed.), Natyashastra qf Bharatamuni 2nd part (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1975).

Ni~pannayogiivalf: Benoytosh Bhattacharyya (ed.), Ni~pannayogiivalf qf Mahiipa1Jr/ita Abhayiikaragupta (Baroda: Oriental Institute reprint, 1972) [Gaekwad's Oriental Series no. 109].

Pal (1975): Pratapaditya Pal, Bronzes qfKashmir (Graz: Akademische Drutk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975).

Pal (1978): Pratapaditya Pal, The Sensuous Immortals: A Selection qfSculpturesfrom the Pan-Asian Collection (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, ~7~. .

Pal (1988): Pratapaditya Pal and Julia Meech-Pekarik, Buddhist Book Illumina-tions (New York: Ravi Kumar Publishers, 1988). .

Pi1Jr/fkrama-siidhana: L. de la Vallee Poussin (ed.), Etudes et textes tantriques: Paficakrama (Gand/Louvain: H. Engelcke/J.-B. Istas, 1896) pp. 1-14 [Recueil de travaux publies par la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Gand, 16me fascicule].

Pradfpoddyotana: Chintaharan Chakravarti (ed.), Guhyasamiijatantrapradfpodyotanatfkii-~atkotivyiikhyii (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1984) [Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series No. 25].

Siidhanamiilii: Benoytosh Bhattacharya (ed.), Siidhanamiilii 2 vols. (Baroda: Oriental Institute reprint, 1968) [Gaekwad's Oriental Series no. 26 & 41].

Sa11Jvarodaya: Shinlchi Tsuda, Sainvarodaya-tantra: Selected Chapters (Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1974).

Saraswati (1977): S.K. Saraswati, Tantrayiina Art: An Album (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1977).

Shastri (1897): Hara Prasad Shastri, "Notes on Palm-leaf MSS. in the Library . of His Excellency the Maharaja of Nepal" Journal qftheAsiatic Society qfBengal 66 (1897) 310-316.

Sircar (1977): D.C. Sircar, "The Pala Chronology Reconsidered," in Wolfgang Voigt (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1977) pp. 964-969 [Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Supplement 111,2].

Sotheby's (1985): Indian, Himalayan, South-East Asian Art and Indian Miniatures [auction catalogue] (New York: Sotheby's, 1985).

Uhlig (1981): Helmut Uhlig, Tantrische Kunst des Buddhismus (Berlin: Verlag Ullstein GmbH, 1981).

Wayman (1977): Alex Wayman, Yoga qf the Guhyasamiijatantra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977).

130 JIABS VOL. 13 NO" 2

Folio 106 rev" L

Dvibhuja-Sambara

Folio 107 obv" I. Vajravarahi

VAJRAYANA DEITIES

Folio 106 rev. c.

Pil).c;ilkrama -Ak~obhya

Folio 107 obv. c. Sparsavajra

131


Folio lO6 rev. r.

Trailokyak~epa -Heruka / Heva j ra

Folio lO7 ov. r.

Nairatmya

The Mantra" OT(l mavi-padme hUT(l" in an Early Tibetan Grammatical Treatise

byP. C. Verhagen

Among the treatises on Sanskrit grammar incorporated into the Tibetan Buddhist canon commonly known as Bstan- Jgyur, a few can be found that were written originally in Tibetan, while the vast majority are translations of Sanskrit texts.! One of these original Tibetan compositions dealing with Sanskrit grammar is a highly interesting treatise entitled SgraJi-rnampar-dbye-ba-bstan-pa, "Expose (of) the Nominal Cases."2 It describes the essentials of the Sanskrit system of nominal declension, while also relating this system to the semanticsand sometimes even the morphology-of the Tibetan case-particles.

The author's name is not mentioned in the text or its colophon. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the SgraJi-rnam-pardbye-ba-bstan-pa and the two titles immediately preceding it in the Bstan- Jgyur, also grammatical treatises,3 have been written by the Tibetan grammarian and translator Lce-khyi-'brug (alias Ci-khyi-'brug or Ce-khyi-'brug), who can positively be associated with the period 798-815 A.D.4 It seems fair to assume a date of composition for this treatise in the early period of the formation of the Tibetan canonical literature, most likely the ninth century A.D. 5 In the treatise under consideration the Sanskrit nominal declension is described as a system of eight cases, with a further subdivision of each case into singular, dual and plural. These eight cases are dealt with in the traditional order: nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative and vocative. 6 For each of these cases a summary description of the semantics and the

133


main points of the morphology are presented, supplemented with Sanskrit examples (with their Tibetan translations).

In the final section of the text, dealing with the vocative case, the well-known mantra" Or[l ma1Ji-padme hUr[l" is cited as an example. Here I will present a short excerpt from the text, containing the reference to this mantra and its subsequent (grammatical) interpretation. In the paragraphs immediately preceding this excerpt it has been stated that the vocative case is indicated in Sanskrit mainly by (the interjection) he, "Oh!" or (the case-ending) -e. 7 As examples for the use of he the author gives" *he he bhagavan," "Oh, oh, venerable one!" and "*he vajra," "Oh, vajra!": as an example for -e he mentions "*vrkse "8 "Oh tree!" .. , ,

Excerpt from S gra'i-rnam-par -dbye-ba-bstan-pa [Peking Bstan-'gyur: Mdo-'grel: vol. NCO 63v7-64r2:J

/ gzhan-yang-bod-pa-'di-phal-/ [63v8:Jcher-e-ston-pa-yin-la/ de-yang -snying -po-rnams-ni-bod-pa-kho-na-yin-pas -phal-cher -e-yod-de / de-yang- >Ji-ltar-or[l-ma-1Ji-padme-hur[l-zhes-pa-lta-bu-la / or[l-ni-yeshes-lnga'i-ngo-bo-yin-pas-dang-por-smos-pa-[64rl :Jyin-pas / hUr[lni-thugs-dgongs-shig-ces-par-mjug-bsdus-pa-yin-te-bar-gyi-bod-padngos-ni-ma-1Ji-ni-nor-bu-yin-la / padme-ni-dngos-te-sor-bzhag-go [/1 / des-na-nor-bu-padma-zhes-pala-[64r2: Jphyag- 'tshal-gyi-sgo-nasbod-pa-yin-la / me-zhes-pa'i-e-sbyar-ba-ni-kye-yin-te /. kye-nor-bupadma-zhes-pa-lta-bu'o /

Translation

'Morever (gzhan-yang) , this vocative (case) (bod-pa) is generally9 (phal-cher) indicated (ston~pa) (by case-ending) -e, and as the hearts (or essences) (snying-po-rnams) (scil. the mantras, or: of the mantras) are precisely (kho-na) invocations (or: vocatives) (bod-pa), (these invocations/vocatives in the mantras) generally (phal-cher) have (yod) (case-ending) -e; so then (de-yang) (this vocative case-ending occurs) accordingly ('di-ltar) for instance in (lta-bu-la) (the mantra) "Or(! ma1Ji-padme hUr[l."

(In this mantra) Or[lis uttered (smos-pa) as first (dang-par), because it is the essence (ngo-bo) of the five wisdoms (ye-shes-

EARLY TIBETAN TREATISE 135

lnga'i lO ; hUr(l, (which is to be translated as) "Be mindful of (this)!" (thugs-dgongs-shig),l! is placed at the end (mjug-bsdus), so the actual (dngos) vocative (or: invocation) (bod-pa) in between (bar-gyi) (Or(l and hUr(l consists of) malJi, (to be translated as) "jewel" (nor-bu) and padme (emend to: padma) ("lotus"), which is the same (dngos) (word in Tibetan as in Sanskrit) and so remains unchanged (sor-bzhag)I2 (in translation).

So (des-na) , to (this) "jewel-lotus" (nor-bu-padma) 13 an invocation (bod-pa) by means of a salutation (phyag-'tshal-gyi-sgonas) is (addressed), (which results in) the application (sbyar-ba) of (case-ending) -e in (the syllable) me, which is (to be translated as) "Oh!" (kye), so that (the translation of) the example (lta-bu) is: "Oh,jewel-lotus!".

Short Evaluation

The choice of the mantra Or(l malJi-padme hUr(l as an example in the above passage from the Sgra'i-rnam-par-dbye-ba-bstan-papresumably dating from the ninth century-seems to be an indication of the relative popularity of this formula already in the early period of the spread of Buddhism in Tibet. This is contrary to the opinion prevalent in western Tibetology until rather recently that, as no mention of Or(l malJi-padme hUr(l had (until then) been discovered in the Tibetan literature of that period, this mantra did not playa role of any significance in the earliest phases of Tibetan Buddhism.14

However, early references to this mantra can be found in the ninth- and tenth-century Tibetan literary remains from Dun Huang, notably in a text entitled Dug-gsum-'dul-ba,15 as well as in the well-known, rather cryptic, Sanskrit-Tibetan formulary. 16 I t would seem that the present passage can now provisionally be added to the ninth-century textual evidence of Or(l malJi-padme hUr(l. ..

It should be noted that in this passage from the Sgra'irnam-par-dbye-ba-bstan-pa, the formula is nowhere explicitly associated with the bodhisattva AvalokiteSvara.

From a grammatical point of view it is rather interesting that the term malJi-padme is cited as an example of the vocative case.17 This means that according to the morphology of classical Sanskrit this form should be considered either as a vocative dual of a neuter compound stem malJi-padma or as a vocative


singular of a feminine compound stem ma1J.i-padmii. In the former interpretation it would most likely be a dvandva-type of compound ("Oh, jewel and lotus!")/8 while in the latter, a bahuvrfhi-type of compound would have to be supposed ("Oh, [you woman] who have thejewel-lotus!").19

Considering the above it would seem that the formula Orrz mar;i-padme hurrz, which was to become such a prominent feature oflater Tibetan Buddhism, was-at least-known in Tibet already in the period of the first propagation (snga-dar) of Buddhism.

NOTES:

1. Cf. PC. Verhagen, "Sanskrit grammatical literature in Tibet: a first survey," to be published in: Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Confirence, voL7(?), Leiden (1991), pp. 47-62.

2. Peking ed. Suzuki (1955-1961) title nr. 5838, Bstan-'gyur Mdo-'grel NGO ff. 54r6-64r4. The text is not extant in the Sde-dge, Co-ne or Snar-thang editions of the Bstan-'f[yur.

3. Gnas-brgyad-chen-po'i-rtsa-ba, Peking ed. Suzuki (1955-1961) title Dr.

5836, Bstan-'gyur lvIdo-'grel NGO ff. 40v6-43v7 and Gnas-brgyad-'grel-pa, Peking ed. Suzuki (1955-1961) title Dr. 5837, Bstan-'gyur Mdo-'grel NGO ff. 43v8-:54r6.

4. On Lce-khyi-'brug in general and his dating, cf. S. Inaba, Chibetto-go Katen Bunpogaku, Kyoto 1954, pp. 24-29, N. Simonsson, Indo-tibetische Studien I, Uppsala 1957, pp. 243-244 and RA. Miller, "Thon-mi Sarpbhota and his Grammatical Treatises," JAOS 83 (1963), pp. 486-487 (= repr. in: Studies in the Grammatical Traditions in Tibet, Amsterdam 1976, pp. 2-3).

There are ample text-internal indications (such as striking similarities in method and terminology) that the three texts-the first of which is certainly the work of Lce-khyi-'brug-are closely related, almost certainly contemporaneous and quite possibly by the same hand. Text-externally the main arguments for the attribution to Lce-khyi-'brug are to be found in several canonical catalogueindexes (dkar-chag); the earliest Bstan-'gyur catalogue, written by Bu-ston Rinchen-grub (1290-1364) (ed. L. Chandra, The Collected T1in"ks of Bu-ston, voL 26, New Delhi 1971, = Sata-Pitaka Series voL 66, f. 1l7r3), a slightly later version by Bu-ston's pupil Sgra-tshad-pa Rin-chen-rgyal-mtshan (1318-1388) (ed. L. Chandra, The Collected works of Bu-ston, vol. 28, New Delhi 1971, = SataPitaka Series voL 68, f. III r6), as well as the catalogue of the Peking Bstan- 'gyur written by the fifth Dalai Lama Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho (1617-1682) (ed. L. Chandra, Catalogue of the Peking Tanjur, voL I, New Delhi 1983, = Sata-Pitaka Series vol. 325, f. 138r4) have virtually identical entries pertinent to these texts, that seem to indicate that Lce-khyi-'brug was the author of all three texts.

5. Besides the characteristic similarities between our text and the treatise that can be positively attributed to Lce-khyi-'brug (cf. note 4), another

EARLY TIBETAN TREATISE 137

indication for an early date of composition is the location of the text in the canon, viz. among a group of treatises written by early Tibetan scholars, e.g., the Sanskrit-Tibetan lexicon Mahiivyutpatti and its partial commentary Sgmsbyor-bam-pa-gnyis-pa (Peking ed. Suzuki 1955-1961 title nrs. 5832 and 5833), both datable to the late eighth, early ninth century, and Sum-cu-pa and Rtags-kyi'jug-pa (Peking ed. Suzuki 1955-1961 title nrs. 5834 and 5835), the well-known treatises on Tibetan grammar.

6. It should be noted that it is not common practice in the Indian indigenous grammatical traditions to employ the total number of eight for the cases; usually we find a sevenfold case~system there with the vocative case as a subtype of the first, nominative case.

7. In classical Sanskrit the case-ending -e as specific for the vocative case occurs only in vocative singular of nominal stems (of all genders) ending in i and feminine stems ending in ii, cf. W.D. Whitney, Sanskrit Gmmmar, 1889, par. 335.h, 339, 363.f, 364. This is by no means the only-or even the most frequent-form the vocative case assumes. Moreover, the case-ending -e also occurs as vocative (here identical to nominative and accusative) dual of neuter stems ending in a and feminine stems ending in ii, cf. Whitney, op. cit., par. 328.b, 330, 363.g, 364.

The ending -e as specific for the vocative case does not seem to have been particularly more frequent in Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, cf. F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, New Haven 1953, vol. I, par. 8.27-28,9.14-15,10.33-41,12.15-16,13.9; note the occasional use of nominative singular endings (-0, -u, perhaps -e) for vocative of stems in a (cf. Edgerton, op. cit., par. 8.28) and the use of -e as vocative singular for stems in r (cf. Edgerton, op. cit., par. 13.9).

8. This, in fact, is not the correct classical form. The vocative singular of the nominal stem vrk~a, "tree," is identical to the stem-form: vrk!a; however, cf. Edgerton, op. cit., par. 8.28.

9. It certainly does not hold for classical Sanskrit that the case-ending -e is the "general" or most frequent ending for the vocative case; cf. note 7.

10. Cf. e.g. Mahiivyutpatti, ed. R. Sakaki, Kyoto 1916-1925, entry nrs. 110-114.

11. Note that a respectful expression (sci!. thugs-dgongs) is employed here. 12. Translation of sor-b:::.hag is based on the relevant entry in dge-bshes

Chos-kyi-grags-pa's Tibetan dictionary entitled Brda-dag-ming-tshig-gsal-ba (n.p., n.d.; Chinese translation Peking 1975), p. 744: "g:::.han-du-ma-sgyur-barrang-ngo-bor-gso-bar-b:::.hag-pa," "to establish (b:::.hag-pa) (something), preserving (gso-bar) the thing itself (rang) in identical (form) (ngo-bor) without altering (ma-sgyur-bar) (it) into another (form) (g:::.han-du)."

13. Apparently the author regards mar;i-padma as a compound. Unfortunately he does not specify the relation between mar;i and padma, the two members of the compound; cf. "short evaluation" and note 19. .

14. Cf., e.g., P. Pelliot, T'oung Paa XXXI (1934), p. 174, M. Lalou, ''A Tun-huang Prelude to the Karar;rjavyulza," Indian Historical Quarterly vo!' 14 (1938), p. 200. However, cf. also C. Regamey, "Motifs vichnouites et sivaites dans Ie KaraJ)<;Iavyuha", in: Etudes tibitaines, dediees it la memo ire de Marcelle Lalou,


Paris 1971, p. 419-420, particularly note 13. 15. Cf. the important article by Y. Imaeda, "Note preliminaire sur la for

mule OT[l mar;i padme hUT[l dans les manuscrits tibetains de Touen-houang," in: M. Soymie (ed.), Contributions aux etudes sur Touen-houang, Geneve-Paris 1979, pp. 71-76.

The three Dun Huang manuscripts of this text studied by Imaeda give variant readings of the mantra, sci!.: "oT[l-ma-ni-pad-me-hum-myi-tra-swa-hii," "oT[lma-ma-ni-pad-me I hum-mye I I" and (correct Imaeda's reading of Pelliot tib. 37 to:) "oT[lm-ma-ma-r;[?] i-pad-mel hum-myil."

Imaeda suggests an interpretation of the syllables myi-tra in the first version as equivalent to mitra, either the Sanskrit word meaning "friend" (cf. also maitrf, "compassion") or perhaps even connected with the Iranian deity Mithra.

A different interpretation seems possible: I propose that the syllable myi in the first version and the final syllables mye and myi of the latter two versions, could be interpreted as a notation of the stressed (and in ritual recitation often prolonged) nasalization which is the pronunciation of the anusviira (viz. T[l) in the preceding syllable *huT[l. This could also account for the curious repetition of syllable ma in the latter two versions; in either version the first syllable ma could then be regarded as notation of this same pronunciation of anusviira in the preceding syllable OT[l.

This interpretation would not allow the reading of myi-tra as mitra; the syllable tra would have to be read separately or combined with the following element swa-hii (* trii-sviihii?).

16. In this text the mantra itself is not quoted, but it is referred to with the terms *{atj-anak{ara (cf. {atj-ak{an) and yi-ge-myi-btub-pa-drug; cf. R.A. Miller, "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit iili, kiili as Grammatical terms in Tibet." HJAS 26 (1966), pp. 141-143 (= repro in: Studies in the Grammatical Tradition in Tibet, Amsterdam 1976, pp. 49-51); edition:]. Hackin, Formulaire sanscrit-tibitain du Xe siecle, Paris 1924, cf. p. 23, 38, 81.

Note the different interpretation of this passage in A. R6na-Tas, Wiener vorlesungen ;cur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets, Wien 1985 (= Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 13), p. 350 (viz. *s[v}ara anak{ara).

-17. It should be noted that the interpretation of (mar;i-) padme as ending in a vocative case is already found in the well-known account of the 18th-century Jesuit Ippolito Desideri's missionary activities in Tibet between 1716 and 1721, commonly called Relazione; cf. R.A. Miller, "Notes on the Relazione of Ippolito Desideri, S.].," Monumenta Serica XXII:2 (1963), pp. 467-469.

18. The neuter gender is not common for padma, the final member of the compound, but not unthinkable either.

19. The bahuvrfhi type of compound allows a variety of grammatical relations between the members internally; possible translations for a bahuvnhi mar;ipadmii would be inter alia: "(woman) who has the lotus of the jewel" or "(woman) who has the lotus with the jewel" or "(woman) who has the lotus in the jewel" or "(woman) who has the lotus that is ajewel." Could it be that this feminine compound noun mar;i-padmii refers to Prajiiii-piiramitii, the well-known Mahayana concept of "transcendental wisdom," which is grammatically feminine and, when personified, female?

II. Book Reviews

Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka, by Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. xvi, 484.

Recent social scientific investigations ofTheravada practice in South and Southeast Asian countries may have not only brought to the fore interesting information about the character of "popular" Buddhism, but also generated intriguing analyses of the contours, range and roots of the religiosity this Buddhism encompasses. Since the Pali textual corpus-the "Great Tradition" in sociological parlance-has for generations been the mainstay of Theravada studies, there is good reason to welcome these new focusings on the long neglected "Little Tradition" -the symbolism, rituals and beliefs through which the masses of people in Theravada countries project their religious commitments on a daily basis. Yet it is difficult to view the many social scientific analyses of "popular" Buddhism with equal enthusiasm. Frequently informed by an insensitivity to the numinous and a regrettable refusal to appreciate the richly diverse ways in which it is apprehended or reified in human life, these analyses can also be faulted for other, more specific, reasons. As they are, for the most part the work of "outsiders," there is, for one thing, room to doubt the adequacy of the empathetic understanding they incorporate (in particular, connections between Pali canonical positions and living Theravada practice are often overlooked or misperceived because of this), and for another, they are apt to encompass explanations and assumptions that are on occasion questionable on logical and inductive grounds. Besides, it is possible to recognize in them some unthoughtful applications of those old categories in social scientific studies of religious phenomena-taboo, black magic, white magic and the like.

These are considerations that might usefully be borne in mind in reading Buddhism Transformed, a notable investigation ofTheravada practice in Sri Lanka which actually seeks to "describe, analyze and interpret recent changes in the religious life of Sinhala Buddhists." This book's factual content is for the most part interesting and instructive, but many reservations are in order about the analyses it offers. One could, in particular, impugn several details in its evaluations of the place and spread of the worship of deities ("spirit religion") in Sri Lapkan Buddhist life, and also take issue with the whole explanatory frame epitomised in the neologism "Protestant Buddhism." It appears, moreover, that at some levels, sceptical

139


reductionism tends to assume new shapes here: the authors make unmistakable moves to link meditation to possession, and also seek to interpret. certain manifestations of religious observance and prayer as obsessive-compulsive acts of neurotic origin. But, before

. developing these critical points further, it would be instructive to outline some salient features of the investigation Buddhism Transformed presents.

Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka emerges here as an interestingly multi-faceted phenomenon. Organized in four parts, each of which embraces studies on several related topics, the book's initial elucidations serve to place in focus the "new religious orientation" manifested in the country. Traditional Sinh ala Buddhism (identified as "the religion ofa rice growing peasant society," as is Theravada elsewhere in Southeast Asia) was, according to the authors, "a system of belief and action with a distinctive ethos." Though the basic structure of Buddhist soteriology is conceded to be still "intact" in Sri Lanka, religious practice here, they maintain, has assumed new characteristics under the impact of mainly social forces (among which population growth is viewed as "the greatest single catalyst of change"). Modernist tendencies innovatively (and conflatedly) designated as "Protestant Buddhism" (encompassing protesting reactions to political and cultural influences generated by Sri Lanka's last colonial rulers, the Protestant Christian Britishers, and also the putative imitative adoption of some of the stances of Protestant Christianity itself on the part of Buddhist leaders) are represented as one complex element in these characteristics. The authors recognize the other (which is no less so) in a range of developments in the "spirit religion" -the religiosity focused on deities seen as flourishing and spreading especially among the less privileged urban classes. These latter developments are held to entail some radical departures from old traditions of belief and, more significant, as tending to move Buddhism away from its rational and humane foundations. Indeed, the book in large part is an attempt to "characterize" this "Post-Protestant" phase in Buddhism: and its title, "Buddhism Transformed," in turn appears to derive its raison dJetre in some notable respects from a particular estimate of the nature, roots and the spread ofthe religiousness projected in what is seen as this newly emerged phase in Sri Lankan Buddhist practice.

How is this religiousness oriented? What are its inspiring concerns? As is to be expected in a social scientific investigation, the answers provided to these questions are very much predicated on descriptive observations, and so cannot be adequately summarized. However, the main points are clear: deeply penetrated by

REVIEWS 141

devotionalism (bhakti) of Hindu inspiration, the recently evolved religion of the Sinhala people is not found to be "rational," and, secondly, actually to incorporate several departures from beliefs and practices as traditionally understood. Evidence to support this conclusion is initially identified in the burgeoning "spirit religion" associated with shrines located in and around Colombo. In Nawala, Lunawa, Bellanwila and other such shrines, the religiousness in vogue is shown to involve the worship and propitiation of deities on the part of cult groups led by priests and priestesses who go into trances or become possessed; "a roaring trade in black magic" is what the authors observe, for instance, in the last place mentioned. They also find much that is striking in the deities central to the new religiousness, such as Huniyam and Kali. With demonic pasts, these increasingly propitiated deities are invested by their believers with greater capacities to help and this, it is argued, reflects the felt social needs ofthe expanding underprivileged classes. The authors' view of the way this religiousness centered on the worship of gods is transforming traditional Buddhist belief is detailed in especially captivating terms in their account of the practices at Kataragama. The devotionalism and expressions of cultic commitment that are seen here are represented as rather strange developments whose roots are for the most part more Hindu than Buddhist.

However, the transformation of Buddhism brought about through "Protestant Buddhism" is depicted as no less far-reaching. In fact, the authors equate its historical impact at one point to the consequences of Emperor Asoka's missions to Sri Lanka. According to them, "Protestant Buddhism" generated some characteristic attitudes: it abandoned the irenic treatment of other religions traditional to Buddhism and adopted instead a polemical stance, was fundamentalist in outlook, held that Buddhism was not a religion, but a philosophy, and depended on English-language concepts. They find these characteristic attitudes epitomized in the Buddhism preached or interpreted by a variety of Sri Lankan figures ranging from the 19th century monk-debater Gunananda to the late university teacher of the sixties, K.N. Jayatilleke. Portrayed as a more recent "extreme case" given to chauvinistic accountings of Buddhist thought by Gombrich elsewhere (see Theravada Buddhism, A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London and New York, 1988, p. 196), J ayatilleke's attempt to see anticipations of positivism and empiricism in the Buddha's teachings is here taken as a "Protestant" stance (it is }nteresting to note that the impact of his controversial interpretative positions on certain Sri Lankan academic expositions of Buddhist doctrine is duly observed in Paul Griffiths, On Being


Mindless, Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem, La Salle, Ill., 1986, pp. 139-140). "Protestant Buddhism" in a paradigmatic sense is identified in the life and work of Anagarika Dharmapala: a specifically Calvinist orientation is discerned in the social, moral and religious values he inculcated.

The creation or invention of tradition, it is again pointed out, is yet another source of religious change witnessed in Sri Lanka. Buddhism TranifOrmed documents and analyses what are taken as several different manifestations of this notable phenomenon. Beginning with the Buddhist model of social development fostered through the Sarvodoya movement, the authors analyze the recent attempt to give a Buddhist orientation to the marriage ceremony, efforts directed towards instituting a female Buddhist Order, the character of the newly evolved temple ceremony, "Bodhi Puja," and the significance of recent Sinhala myths created to Buddhicize the Kataragama temple complex. These interpretations generally serve to reinforce the book's informing perspectives centered around "Protestant Buddhism" and "spirit religion." For instance, the authors consider the Sarvodoya movement to be "rooted in the Protestant Buddhism of Dharmapala"; and "Bodhi Puja" is taken as an innovation which "covers every contingency requiring white magic for which it has been customary to use spirit religion." Not surprisingly, the same perspectives also loom large in the analyses of representative Buddhist leaders, from Ananda Maitreya to the so-called "Sun Buddha." In the discussions of these and other charismatic personalities a striking connection is made between meditation and possession: the "enlightenment experience" of the "Sun Buddha," for example, is likened to the "ecstatic trance of possession." And this, significantly,

. is a point the authors again broach in their concluding remarkstraining in meditation, they think, can lead to "trance states very like possession."

Buddhism Traniformed shows in unmistakable terms the fascinating world of belief and commitment that Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka currently embraces. Though very real, this is a world that is almost wholly disregarded in the course of Pali doctrinal exposition. Hence what is observed and described here retains both significance and value. The authors' analyses must be recognized as significant, too, for they incorporate some perspectives from which Theravada practice in Sri Lanka is apt to be understood and judged in certain scholarly circles. Yet, there is little reason to regard theseperspectives as wholly valid or sufficient. On the contrary, there are several contestable features in the ways in which what the book so readably documents, tends finally to be understood and judged. Since social

REVIEWS 143

scientific explanations of Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka have proliferated over the years with little evidence of serious critical scrutiny, it would be perhaps useful to draw some attention to these contestable features.

In a noteworthy (and still valid) cautionary observation, John Stuart Mill, the pioneer methodologist of the social sciences, emphasized that "social phenomena are those in which a plurality of causes prevails in the utmost possible extent" (A System if Logic, VI: 7:4). Yet it is questionable whether in their various interpretative commentaries our authors (or for that matter most other investigators of the Theravada scene in South Asia) have always been guided by a sufficiently scrupulous recognition ofthe heuristic principle that is· articulated here. Buddhism Traniformed, one might argue, bears witness to several attempts at explaining complex religious behaviours in rather simplistic terms, invariably invoking a narrow range of causes (economic standing, class as determined by the latter, or personal health). This kind of accounting serves to reinforce the view that religious belief is mainly a function of material conditions, and as such it should no doubt warm the hearts of Marxists in particular. But methodological considerations apart, there is reason enough to question its adequacy if one recognizes that there is a transcendent dimension to life, and is withal ready to make some concessions to the "reality of the unseen" as grasped by religious individuals, however depressed their worldly condition might be (cf. W. James, Varieties if Religious Experience, New York, 1958, Lecture III).

This does not exhaust the methodological reservations that could be entertained about this book It is also possible to impugn its central thesis that Buddhism in Sri Lanka has oflate been "transformed" on account of a burgeoning "spirit religion" (more on this below), and a generalized "flight to the occult." Though the transformation is portrayed as a pervasive phenomenon ("radical shift" and "sea change" are two of the more expressive phrases used to characterize it), one may fairly ask whether things are really so: indigenous observers of the Sri Lankan religious scene who share this assessment in its entirety will be hard to find, and at all events, on a close review of the evidence adduced, there is room to argue that what one encounters here is in the main a vast generalization built on a limited sampling of religious behaviours. Since the field work backing this book's investigation is at many levels not recent, it should be pointed out that as far as the younger Sri Lankans are concerned, the dominant trend currently is perhaps towards secularism-a drifting away from religious attachments of any kind, The violence


attending the country's still un contained insurgencies (which, significantly, are now engulfing several areas with sacred sites, making travel to them unsafe) might, for all we know, have engendered a wider erosion of belief in supernaturalism focused on deities, creating a general atmosphere more suited to an acceptance of traditional Theravada emphases on suffering (dukkha) and impermanence (anicca) .

Again, a host of queries, both methodological and otherwise, can be raised about "Protestant Buddhism." The authors of course consider the "double meaning" they have given to it as a pointer to its particular "utility," and it is adopted by other inquirers into religious developments in Sri Lanka without the slightest hint of reservation, let alone criticism (perhaps the latest testimony to this is to be found in George D. Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Ti-adition, Reinterpretation and Response, Columbia, S.C., 1988). Yet readers who are sensitive to the demands of inductive thinking, and, afortiori, many Sri Lankan Buddhists, are likely to take a different view of the neologism and its explanatory scope. Clearly, "Protestant Buddhism" is a "label" under which a very wide range of facts and considerations relating to the transformation of Buddhism in Sri Lanka are identified and interpreted. But can all the heterogeneous details highlighted in the process find equally sound or cogent explanation within its framework? Not only is it possible to entertain some serious doubts on this score, but one might even argue that the ways in which "Protestant Buddhism" is applied or invoked in the book's investigation does not reflect a meticulous concern for an established requirement in valid a posteriori thinking and inductive generalization, namely, that dissimilar phenomena must not be resolved into or placed under one category. In this connection one could, for instance, question the propriety of treating the efforts of Sri Lankan academics to link Buddhist positions in philosophy and logic to Western thought simply as a.manifestation of "Protestant Buddhism." No doubt, the tones of polemical one-upmanship in which Buddhism is related to other systems in some of their writings (cf. K.N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist The07Y oj Knowledge, London, 1963; for a more recent instance see G. Dharmasiri, A Buddhist Critique oj the Christian Concept oj God, Colombo, 1974) are in large part better understood when the characteristic stances of "Protestant Buddhism" are taken into account. But significant segments of them also deserve to be viewed as contributions to long standing, cross-culturally pursued exegetical and evaluative endeavours associated with the advanced study ofPali Buddhism. Few are likely to grudge that this is very much the case with Jayatilleke's book

REVIEWS 145

Uayatilleke's researches into rebirth, though admittedly unsophisticated, again merit consideration in larger perspectives: survival, after all, is an issue in both empiricist philosophy and parapsychology, and the case for it has come under scrutiny in the work of British academic philosophers of the calibre ofC.D. Broad and H.H. Price).

There is, similarly, scant reason to regard positive estimations of Buddhism accompanied by the view that Buddhism is not a mere religion, but a philosophy with scientific emphases, as a peculiarly "Protestant Buddhist" phenomenon localized in Sri Lanka. Many whose thinking cannot be even remotely connected with "Protestant Buddhism" (or even theosophy) have commented on Buddhism in these as well as much more admiring terms, and what that points to is Buddhism's appeal to people with a certain turn of mind, and also an intrinsic feature in its doctrines. The idea that Buddhism is unique and encompasses an insightful philosophic core, for instance, is notably broached by Huxley (cf this reviewer's "Buddhism in Huxley's Evolution and Ethics: A note on a Victorian Evaluation and its Comparativist Dimension," Philosophy East and West, vol. 35, 1985). And in some of their comments on the system, the philosophers Nietzsche and Schopenhauer sometimes went still further than that eminent Victorian scientist-thinker. If more recent testimonies to the same effect are needed, one could refer to the evaluative stances in N.P. Jacobson's The Heart qf Buddhist Philosophy (Carbondale, Ill., 1988) or S.C. Kolm's Le boheur libert! :Bouddhisme pnifond et modernit! (Paris, 1984). Buddhism is viewed in this latter study as a philosophy and a value system which can be used to restructure modern civilization.

I t also can be argued that the use of "Protestant Buddhism" as an explanatory frame entails other misperceptions andjudgments of questionable historicity on the matter of influences in particular. That Sri Lankan Buddhism in the British colonial era interacted with Protestant Christianity is of course a fact (however, influence, it is well to note in passing, was not one-sided: the ambient Sinhala Buddhist culture has affected the Christianity practiced in Sri Lanka, too, as evidenced by such things as the language of the Sinhala Bible, modern church architecture and liturgy, and certain customs of the converts to Christianity). Still, careful consideration of the various details discussed under "Protestant Buddhism" allows room to say that when invoked and used as an explanatory frame, the concept is often distorting in that it (a) leads to an exaggeration of the historical e;'Ctent of Protestant Christianity's formative influence over Buddhist developments in modern Sri Lanka and (b) serves to deflect attention away from Theravada Buddhism's very


notable inner doctrinal resources to generate reformist criticism, sustain meliorist social action, motivate lay religiosity, and generally help further the processes of adaptive change. Recognizing parallels is one thing; but ascribing causes is something else. The emphases of Protestant Christianity are no doubt an instructive backdrop against which the developments in the Sri Lankan Buddhist scene can be clarified, especially to a Western readership. However, the extent to which the two-in other words the Protestant emphases and Buddhist developments-admit of being causally related is open to debate because of some distinct considerations about Buddhisrri which, surprisingly, are well-nigh ignored in this book. Those, put baldly, are, on the one hand, the paradigmatically protestant nature of the Buddha's message, which originated in reaction to Brahmanical Hinduism and, on the other, the existence within its classic sources of many critical viewpoints that can validate much that goes with "protestant" religious behaviour. Indeed, given early Buddhism's innovative critique of religion defined in terms of rites performed by a priestly elite, its valuation of the vernacular in religious instruction (it is a clear recognition in the Vinqya texts that the Buddha's word should be studied "each in his own dialect"; cf. Cullavagga, V:33) and, above all, its doctrinal insistence that as regards spiritual liberation, each should "be a lamp unto himself," taking refuge in "none but the Truth" (cf. Mahiiparinibbiina Suttanta, Dzgha Nikqya, II: 100), the invocation of some parallel Christian positions evolved several centuries later to explain or account for Buddhist developments seems quite otiose.

It is in particular questionable whether it is really necessary to go far afield to Christian Protestantism to elucidate the roots of many characteristic stances in Dharmapala's reformist thinking: quite in keeping with the "Principle of Parsimony" (to which social scientific investigation of religion must needs defer), these can in large part be traced to that widely accessible compendium of Buddhist teachings Dharmapala must surely have read, namely, the Dhammapada. Thus, his criticisms of monks, for instance, can be directly related to several stanzas there which stress that many who wear the yellow robe are not worthy of it since they lack moral and religious virtues (cf. Dhammapada, stanzas 9,10; cf. 264, 266, 307). The personal religiousness founded on discipline and focused on moral practice that Dharmapala favoured is discussed in the Dhammapada section devoted to the "Just or the Righteous" (Dhammatthavagga) , and could well have been an inspiration to him and others' after him. Long available in Sinhala and English (and frequently cited in sermons and the popular press),. the Dhammapada is in some ways the

REVIEWS 147

ve~itable "Bible" ofTheravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Its opening statement that mind is focal to everything, and ordains and determines every condition (manopubbangamii dhammii manosetthii manomayii) is indeed the probable source of much popular enthusiasm for meditation and the associated view that Buddhism's core concern is the mind, though this enthusiasm is also supported by purely Sinhala sources such as the medieval Lovadasangariiva (verse 127), where bhavanii (meditation) is projected as the best field of merit. Finally, if one goes to the Nikiiya texts, even Dharmapala's economic meliorism and associated social mores can be given a sure Theravadafooting: the Buddha's discourses addressed to the "house father" Anathapindika, for instance, as set forth in the Anguttara-Nikiiya carry explicit references to the "Ariyan disciple" who, "with wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by sweat, lawful, and lawfully gotten" generates happiness for both himself and all around him (see Gradual Sayings, trans. FL. Woodward, London, 1982, vol. II, p. 75 ff. and "On Getting Rich," vol. III, p. 37ff.). That worldly self-improvement, wise fiscal management and moral commitment are informing considerations in the lives oflay Buddhists is clearly indicated here.

When viewed-In the light of canonical teachings and the discernible theoretical underpinnings of modern Buddhist practice, the interpretations in Buddhism Transformed can be said to incorporate still other questionable positions. Evidently, the Weberian distinction between virtuoso religious specialists and ordinary people tends to condition many of the authors' analyses of the roles of monks and the laity. Yet it could be argued that the applicability of the above distinction to a Buddhist society is limited, for account must be taken of the fact that Theravada thinking stresses the unity of Buddhist . religious life through the inclusive notion of caturparisii (or the "four assemblies," encompassing monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen; cf. Gradual Savings, vol. I, pp. l6ff.). In this connection there is also good reason to pay some attention to a point that Peter Mansfield (Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism, London, 1986, chap. I) has made recently: it is a mistake to assume that the social division between monks and laymen is also the spiritual division of the Buddhist world (the latter, Mansfield rightly insists, is found in the distinction between savaka and puthu)jana, those who actually pursue the Buddhist religious way, and those who do not). Then again, anyone who is religiously sensitive, and withal willing to extend some recognition to the numinous, must be critical of the narrow perspectives from which the newly emergeq. "Bodhi Puja" practice is considered in the book. Once a modicum of empathetic understanding is brought to bear on this practice, what is most characteristic in it should strike many as


a new endeavour to generate an anciently acknowledged form of religious feeling best epitomised in the Pali term pasadasamvega (cf. Mahavamsa, 1:3-4). To turn to some other matters, whether so critical a portrayal of the Sarvodaya movement as here provided is entirely warranted is likewise open to question (the evaluations projected in Bond, op. cit. chap. 7, on this score are sometimes more understanding, and merit perusal for balance). In any event, it is well to remember that "profit, happiness and welfare of many-folk" being a consideration that is aired rather frequently in Pali canonical texts (and the Sri Lankan chronicles as well; cf. Dzpavamsa; 12:29 ... "bahujanahitiiya . .. bahujanasukhiiya lokanukampiiya atthaya hitiiya sukhiiya . .. "), it is possible to explain the inspiring principles of that movement in traditional frames. Indeed, service-oriented social activism on the part of Sri Lankan monks is increasingly justified locally now through appeals to the above anciently articulated phrases.

Contestable views of a no less far reaching nature can be identified in the book's interpretations of the role played by gods and meditation in Sinhala Buddhism. As regards the former, it must first be pointed out that the position that Sinhala Buddhism confers authority in the universe upon the "warrant gods" referred to in the Mahavamsa, though axiomatic for the discussion here, will nevertheless not pass muster in wider thought frames: there is good reason to argue that for this form of Buddhism even at the popular level (as for Theravada Buddhism generally), dhamma, is the fount of authority in the universe, gods being helpers and protectors of limited power who function within the limits of the dhamma. That this was a particularly Sinhala recognition seems to be borne out by a poignant remark carried in the latter part of the Mahavamsa, in the course of its account of the destruction wrought by South Indian invaders of Sri Lanka led by Magha (see Ciilavamsa, II, 80:55-56). There, it is said that the deities entrusted with the protection of the island failed to discharge their functions on that occasion because of the "various evil deeds" of its people. As already indicated, it is possible to entertain misgivings about the authors' estimate of the spread of "spirit religion"; but it is equally important to point out that there is room to wonder whether beliefs associated with gods that Sri Lankans have come to embrace recently should be viewed as developments in Buddhist practice that are entirely at odds with tradition. True, new gods and new styles of devotion have evolved; but one must also remember that belief in gods and spirits is as old as Buddhism itself, as evidenced by the contents of such ancient Pali texts as the Petavatthu, Vimanavatthu and their commentaries (cf. M.M.]. Marasinghe,

REVIEWS 149

Gods in Early Buddhism, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, 1974; Mohan Wijayaratana, Le culte des dieux chez les bouddhistes singhalais, Paris, 1987). In the Anguttara Nikiiya (see Gradual Sayings, vol. III, p. 37) the Buddha himself seems to refer approvingly to oblations to spirits (petas) and deities (devas) and even characterize the offering of such oblations as duties of the successful lay disciple. Besides, though little taken account of in this book, the propitiation of deities is very much legitimized in contemporary Sri Lankan thinking as fantikarma, in other words, religious exercises performed to ward off evil and better one's material conditions (cf. W.S. Karaunatillake, "The Religiousness of Buddhists in Sri Lanka Through Belief and Practice," in John Ross Carter, ed., Religiousness in Sri Lanka, Colombo, 1979, p. 19ff.).

To turn, finally, to meditation, the perspectives from which this age-old concern of Buddhist (and indeed Eastern) religiosity are approached here are likely to disappoint many, for they tend to reflect (a) a scant regard for the possibilities of human spiritual development and (b) a disinclination to extend even a passing recognition to the fact that several sciences (psychology, physiology and even clinical medicine) have studied meditational experiences and actually amassed data that attest to the changes (both mental and physical) that they often accompany (cf. C. Tart, Altered States if Consciousness, New York, 1969; C. Naranjo and R.E. Ornstein, On the Psychology Of Meditation, New York, 1971). The altogether striking move made to link meditation and possession might make sense within the perspectives adopted; but it appears to be a move that is in great measure pivoted on a tacit (behaviouristic) presumption that outer observation is an infallible guide to inner states, which everyone cannot concede. Besides, given the widespread recognition that there are several levels of meditational experience and training (cf. Christmas Humphreys, Concentration and Meditation: A Manual if Mind Development, Baltimore, 1973; J. Hamilton-Merritt, A Meditator's Diary, New York, 1979), it is doubtful whether an attempt to reductively explain meditation as possession should be taken seriously in the absence of clarifications as to the level of meditational achievement considered; in its analyses of charismatics in particular, the book often treats meditation as a simple, undifferentiated phenomenon. In any event, it is well to observe that the basic religious experiences of the "Sun Buddha" reported and analysed here with several references to Protestant Christianity, but little regard for the inner springs and the pistorical manifestations of Buddhist spirituality, seem actually to parallel those of Zen masters in some striking ways. The setting and suddenness of his illumination,. and the very charac-


terization of the informing principle in his religiousness as a "knowing by seeing" (diikZma diin'ima in Sinhala) are very reminiscent of satari in Zen Buddhism, with its extra-rational seeing into the nature and essence of things (kenshO in Japanese, chien-hsing in Chinese), a seeing that opens revolutionary new vistas within which "life assumes a fresher, deeper, more satisfying aspect" (D.T. Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, ed. by W. Barrett, New York, 1956, p. 83; cf. S.Park, Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment, New York, 1984). Spiritually illuminative processes juxtaposable with the above are not unknown within the Theravada tradition itself: consider, for example, the accession to "saving knowledge" (vimutti iianadassana) through an acquisition of the "divine eye" (dibbacakkhu) as celebrated in some verses of the Thera-Theri Gatha.

To sum up, Buddhism Transformed is a book that holds a mirror on a rich variety of details relating to modern religious practice in Sri Lanka, and can be said to exhibit both the strengths and the limitations of social scientific investigations conducted on the "popular Buddhism" ofTheravada societies. That the analyses provided could be controversial among Sri Lankan Buddhists is of course acknowledged by the authors themselves; but, as has been shown in the foregoing, they are also vulnerable to certain technical and scholarly criticisms. The emergence of new forms of belief and practice in Sri Lanka's Buddhist milieu is a notable fact which merits study, and the authors must indeed be commended for focusing attention on it in a systematic manner. Still, few informed observers who review the nature and diffusion of those innovations against a background of the traditional emphases ofTheravada Buddhism are likely to go so far as to conclude that Buddhism in Sri Lanka has oflate been transformed by them or because of them: considered in this light, the book's title seems hyperbolic. On the other hand, the authors' perception that popular practices in Sri Lankan-Buddhism are often at odds with the "rational and humane" spirit of canonical doctrines is not without some validity. However, this is not a circumstance that should unduly worry Buddhists (or, for that matter, puzzle students of Buddhism) very much: that the "fear-stricken" are apt "betake themselves to hills, woods, gardens, trees, and shrines" is an ancient doctrinal recognition (underscored in Dhammapada stanzas 188-189) which, significantly, also add that no such refuge is "safe or supreme"), and going by the book's own accountings, it appears that it is in the main people who are "fear-stricken" in various ways who have come to embrace practices that display irrational and superstitious characteristics. Besides, it is a further doctrinal recognition that the receptivity to the dhamma on the part of people is

REVIEWS 151

uneven and subject to change, and in any case, tolerance being an important aspect of Buddhism, Buddhists are likely to view new cults, however bizarre, with equanimity, as long as they do not contravene moral norms (szla).

Those students of Buddhism who bring to bear some philosophical perspectives on their study of the new manifestations of popular practice in Sri Lanka have even less reason for feeling disturbed. Insightful philosophers of religion, such as Hume, have long insisted that given the facts of human nature, the reign of reason over religion at the popular level in particular is and indeed has to be precariously weak: the gulf between "precept and practice" observed in Sri Lanka would, in Hume's thought, be just a projection of the natural history of religion witnessed in all places and at all times. The ordinary individual, he held, is not only little attuned to deal with the abstruse principles of doctrinal religion, but is also prone to leave them aside and evolve beliefs more suited to his or her own genius and concrete concerns. Irrationality, no doubt, is a corrupting influence on religion; but reflective thinking will have to recognize that it is an influence that cannot be shaken off altogether (in this connection it is well to remember that irrational cultic practices of many sorts, including satanism accompanied by ritual sacrifices, persist even in advanced Western societies). Taking due account of the practical realities encountered in religious life, Hume actually cautioned against judging "the civility or wisdom of any people or even of single persons, by the grossness or refinement of their theological principles" ("Of the Standard of Taste," Essays Moral) Political and Literary, Oxford, 1963, p. 253). However, notwithstanding its apparent failure to pay attention to these and other considerations, Buddhism Transformed, it is well to reiterate, remains a very readable and factually instructive book. Though they deserve to be regarded in a critical light for reasons indicated, even the explanatory frames it uses to interpret the many new developments in Sri Lankan Buddhist practice are not without meaning and value: they are certainly a means of integrating those developments for purposes of study, and also, after a manner, of accounting for their inner springs and grounding causes.

Vijitha Rajapakse


The Emptiness if Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamika, by C.W. Huntington, Jr., with Geshe Namgyal Wangchen. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989. xvi + 276 pp. + bibliography + index. $35.00 (cloth).

The Emptiness if Emptiness is the first complete annotated translation into a Western language of one of the greatest classics of Indian Buddhism, the Madhyamakavatara. It is accompanied by an extensive and detailed introduction covering a wide range of relevant topics. Given that the volume is itself in two parts (the introduction and the translation), I have opted for dividing my discussion of the work accordingly, though in reverse order.

The original Sanskrit is, of course, lost, though there surface from time to time rumors of a Sanskrit original from Tibet now in the hands of the Chinese. Huntington's annotated translation is therefore based primarily on the Tibetan. It is clear from the' annotations., however, that the author has scrupulously searched for, made reference to, and cited the available Sanskrit fragments, a great virtueofthe work. Huntington also has made extensive reference to the Tibetan translation of the Bha.rya, Candrikirti's autocommentary to the text, to a host of other relevant texts of Indian Buddhism, and to a great deal of secondary source material, making his translation a sound piece of philological research. The translation itself is excellent. Anyone who has worked with Indian philosophical verse is aware of the problems involved in the translation of such works. Huntington's translation, however, makes the task seem straightforward. It is at once accurate and readable, a rare accomplishment. Although one might quibble with the choice of some terms, e.g., "nondefinitive sense" for neyartha-"provisional" seems to me preferable-his translation choices are for the most part clear-cut and at times even insightful. One significant drawback is that the index to the volume is essentially an index to the introduction alone, a great impediment to the scholar who wishes to make reference to the translation. This, however, does not detract from the quality of the translation itself, which is unusually accessible, clear and accurate.

The introduction to the work is written in the same lucid prose as the translation. I t is a bold undertaking in which the author discusses a wide variety of issues relevant to the study of Madhyamaka: methodology, history, historiography, doctrinal context, soteriology and the use of philosophical language. Given that the translation was done under the guidance of an eminent Tibetan dge bshes of the dGe lugs pa school, however, it is ironic that the main thrust of Huntington's introduction should be so at odds with the dGe lugs pa reading of the Madhyamaka. Huntington's reading of Candrakirti

REVIEWS 153

has clearly been influenced by Wittgenstein, American pragmatists (e.g., James) and neo-pragmatists (e.g., Rorty) and deconstructionists. A dGe lugs pa (and many of their Sa skya predecessors) would take exception with much of what Huntington writes in his introduction, and I would like to devote the remainder of this essay to the task of pointing out what some of these differences are. My aim here is not to demonstrate that Huntington's is a misreading of Candrakirti, thought I do believe that there are evaluative criteria that can be employed to decide questions of authorial intent. My goal here is more modest. It is simply to show that there is at feast one jnterpretation of Candrakirti that varies radically from the one presented in the introduction to this work. Which comes closer to the mark will be left up to the reader.

1. The influence of the deconstructionists on Huntington's reading is perhaps more evident in his discussion of philosophical views (dr~ti). Early in the book (p. xii) he states:

Early Madhyamika explicitly claims to operate as a rejection, or deconstruction, of all attempts to create a value-free, objective view of truth or reality ... Ultimately, the Madhyamika's rejection of all· views is more the rejection of an attitude or way if thinking than the rejection of any particular concept .... Accordingly, the significance of the words and concepts used within the Madhyamika system derives not from their supposed association with any objectively privileged vocabulary supporting a particular view of truth or reality, but from their special efficacy as instruments which may be applied in daily life to the sole purpose of eradicating the suffering caused by clinging, . antipathy, and the delusion of reified thought.

In Huntington's view, then, the Madhyamaka eschews all philosophical views! and it rejects technical philosophical terminology that has as its aim the setting forth of a normative and true: philosophical viewpoint. Being a pragmatic philosophy for living a truly free and non-clinging life, it has no need for such things. The claim that all things are empty, for Huntington, is not a philosophical view but "the groundlessness of all experience" (p. 26). By maintaining that emptiness is itself empty (hence the title) the Madhyamika extricates him/herselffrom the foundationalist predicament of having to justify a belief system through rational means. Hence:

The Madhyamika philosopher rejects our most fundamental empirical propositions and the matrix of rationality in which they are cast as matters of strictly normative and ultimately groundless belief.


More specifically, according to the Madhyamika, concepts oflogic as well as practical concepts dealing with empirical phenomena like causation, are all grounded in a particular way of life which is itself groundless. Everyday experience is empty of a fixed substratum for the justification of any type of kriowledge or belief, and precisely this lack of justification-this being empty even of "emptiness"-is itself the truth of the highest meaning. (p. 10)

The dGe lugs pas' view of the Madhyamaka finds such a position anathema. According to them, though the ultimate task of the Madhyamaka is indeed a pragmatic one, the elimination of an innate (Tib. lhyan skyes) ignorance that reifies the self and the world into something it is not, it also is viewed as a philosophical system in its own right. As such, it functions to subvert faulty conceptual structures that are learned or acquired (kun brtags). 2 It deals with philosophical terms and concepts, has beliefs, and advocates a philosophical position. 3 Further, the elimination of philosophical misconceptions and the acquisition of right view is seen as a necessary stepping-stone to the elimination of innate ignorance. What Huntington does, a dGe lugs pa would claim, is to conflate the theory and practice of the Madhyamaka by making it seem as

. though the Madhyamaka is all practice. According to the dGe lugs pas, the theoretical super-structure, with all the full-blown philosophical accoutrements, though distinct from the practice, is considered as a prerequisite to and is fulfilled in the practice, the series of spiritual exercises that lead to the elimination of the subtle innate ignorance that abides in the minds of all sentient beings.

Over and above this, however, the dGe lugs pas present a plethora of philosophical objections to the view that the Madhyamikas hold no philosophical position. For example, in his sTong thun chen mo, the great dGe lugs pa exegete mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang (1385-1438) states that the Prasangika Madhyamika's claim to "be in accordance wit~ the world or with worldly conventions" is not a repudiation ofthe use of philosophical terminology, concepts or beliefs:

As for those who claim that (the Prasarigikas believe in being in accordance with) those who are untrained in philosophy, they are quite mistaken. This is because no one trained in philosophy could possibly come to accept the majority of the technical ways Prasarigika Madhyamikas use terminology ... '

I t is difficult to imagine how anyone who has read even a portion of CandrakIrti's Prasannapadii could possibly doubt his commitment to

REVIEWS 155

the rational and systematic justification of the philosophical truth of the doctrine of emptiness. The fact that emptiness is itself empty is, according to most Tibetan scholiasts, not meant to imply that it requires no rational justification. Rather it is a corrective· to those who would reify the doctrine of emptiness into an independent philosophical concept with no connections to the human predicament.

Later in the sTong thun chen mo mKhas grub rje states:

What do we mean by saying that Prasangikas set forth the conventional in accordance with the world? All ordinary beings and aryans still in training have innate mundane minds, and following mere names, they engage in effective action without analysis. Likewise, the Prasangika Madhyamika sets forth the conventional following mere words, without analysis. (But suppose one interprets "according with worldly convention" to mean that) what worldly idiots who are ignorant of tenets claim exists one should also claim to exist and what they regard as non-existent one should also claim to not exist. If one takes this as the meaning of "positing things in accordance with the world" then one has gone far astray_ 5 .

Hence, from the dGe lugs pa perspective, the Madhyamika rejects neither philosophical beliefs (tenets) nor the use of philosophical terminology. ''According with worldly usage" does not oblige the Madyamika to reject philosophical concepts and terminology in favor of common parlance. It means, instead, that the Madhyamika uses terminology with the awareness that, when subjected to an ultimate analysis, - referents to such terms cannot be found. 6

Madhyamaka, therefore, is not a form of ordinary language philosophy.

One of the most extensive refutations of the view that the Prasangikas have no position of their own and that they only refute the positions of their opponents through the use of reductio arguments, neVer relying on positive syllogistic reasoning, is to be found in the sTong thun chen mo.7 After laying out the opponent's position in great detail (including purported proof-texts from the Vigraharyiivartanf, Yukti-Fa-Ftikii, Catu~fataka, Madhyamakiivatiira, and Prasannapadii) , mKhas grub rje presents a series of arguments aimed at repudiating such a view. Unfortunately, the discussion in the sTong thun chen mo is too detailed and extensive to cite here. It behooves us, however, to outline some of the more interesting portions of the text.

(a) His first argument is fairly straightforward. The belief in no-beliefs is itself a belief. Hence, the opponents contradict themselves by holding a belief after all. Of course, the conundrum here


arises from the self-referential nature of the proposition. 8

(b) His second objection has as a presupposition the siddhiinta schema, a systematization of all of Buddhist philosophy in which the Prasangika school is posited as the "highest" school of tenets. mKhas grub rje states that for someone who maintains that the Prasangikas hold no philosophical position all notions of distinct philosophical schools or traditions vanish, and gradations in philosophical accuracy become impossible, leaving one with no ground from which to evaluate other systems. This reduces one to having no basis from which to claim that one's own view is the superior one, that one's beliefs are the "ultimate purport" (dgongs pa mthar thug pa) of the Buddha. In short, it leaves one a relativist. It is possible that this consequence of the view that the Prasangikas hold no philosophical position may not seem problematic to a modern Western interpreter, but it was (and still is) considered devastating by traditional scholars.

(c) In an interesting argument, mKhas grub rje asks his opponent what it is that makes Candraklrti a Prasangika. Is not one's philosophical identity determined by the philosophical beliefs one holds? Indeed, if one has no beliefs at all how can one even call oneself a Buddhist? If it is enough that Candrak"irti argue against his opponents and make certain claims for their sake, without believing in any thinK himself, then, he says, "it follows, absurdly, that the Conqueror Sakyamuni is a Cittamatrin because, though he does not accept the tenets of the Cittamatran himself, when he taught the SarlJdhinirmocana Siitra he accepted them merely for the sake of other disciples.

(d) If the Buddha, as a Prasangika, had no beliefs of his own, then there is no point in reading scripture. There is neither a reason nor a way to interpret it, and the entire Madhyamaka neyiirtha/ nftiirtha hermeneutic becomes pointless.

(e) Finally, mKhas grub rje states that there are a plethora of passages (which he cites) in which both Nagarjuna and Candrakirti make one-pointed philosophical claims, "'this is so,' 'this is not so,' 'this is correct,' 'this is not correct. '" Given that these quintessential "Prasangikas" make such claims, is it not fitting to maintain that they hold the views which they so vehemently assert?

I t is equally interesting that mKhas grub rje ascribes the following motivation to those who believe that the Prasangikas accept no philosophical position:

They think that the reasoning of the Prasaitgika Madhyamikas is refuting everything. Then, once refuted, realizing that all those forms

REVIEWS 157

of reasDning can be used to refute what they themselves accept, they repudiate the fact that all the absurdities urged on others are applicable to themselves. Should such absurdities be urged, being totally unaware of how to avert such arguments (when turned against them), their one last hope is to say, "we accept nothing at all."g

Hence, for mKhas grub rje, the claim that there is no view is the refuge of the intellectually feeble:

Those who are poor in intellect and fortune may not be able to understand the system (ofCandraldrti), but at least they should not slander it by saying that there is no such .rystem! To say "we do not accept any system, whether Prasangika or Svatantrika Madhyamaka" clearly identifies one as not being a Madhyamika. So do not take up such a . contradictory system which prides itself on being the best among philosophical schools.1O

2. A major difference between Huntington and the dGe lugs pas occurs in the area of epistemology and logic. As we have seen above, Huntington maintains that our ordinary experience is groundless, that is cannot be justified epistemologically, and he takes this to be the meaning of the Madhyamika claim that emptiness is itself empty. A dGe lugs pa would respond that "our most fundamental empirical propositions and the matrix of rationality in which they are cast" are not at all groundless, for they find their ground, their justification, in the conventionally valid knowledge of the world (Jig rten pa'i that snyad pa'i tshadma), which, as we have seen above, does allow for philosophical discourse. ll The radical critique set forth by the Madhyamika may mean that nothing will be found when subjected to reasoning which analyzes the ultimate nature of things (don dam dpyod byred kyi rigs pa), but this does not mean that things are left groundless at the conventional level. At this level "our most fundamental empirical propositions" are left intact and philosophy is still possible.

Huntington also maintains that Candraklrti's refutation of the svatantra is a repudiation of all syllogistic reasoning in general, leaving Candraklrti with the reductio (prasanga) as his only logical tool:

The· Prasangika maintained that this sort of syllogistic argumentation, even with the modifications introduced by Bhavaviveka, is inappropriate in the service of the concept of emptiness, for "emptiness" is not to be sought after in the propositional structure of an inferential judgment. According to the Prasallgika one must be led toward a gradual realization of emptiness solely by means of a critique directed at his own prejudices and presuppositions about so-called enlpirical


experience and the arguments either consciously or unconsciously posited to support these preconceived ideas. (p. 34, my emphasis)

I have shown elsewhere l2 that in dGe lugs pa exegesis the refutation of the svatantra is not viewed as a repudiation of logic in general. Indeed, according to most Tibetan Madhyamikas, syllogistic reasoning is not only permissible but appropriate. The point being made in the Bhavaviveka/ Candraklrti debate is, in part, that a full-blown syllogism, especially one in which the trairiipya conditions are viewed as inherent to the· structure of logical inference, is not always necessary. Hence, prasanga arguments are not the sale tool available to the Prasarigika, though they are a tool, together with formal syllogistic reasomng.

3. I have shown in the introduction to my translation of mKhas grub rje's text, A Great Dose if Emptiness, that the dGe lugs pas hold several claims to be corollaries of each other: (1) the methodological claim that the Prasarigikas have no philosophical view...,-relativism, (2) the epistemological claim that they repudiate inference and syllogistic reasoning-skepticism, (3) the soteriological claim that the proper method of Prasarigika meditation is to empty the mind-quietism, and (4) the ontological claim that they negate the existence of all phenomena-nihilism. All of these views are considered by them to be related, and all are rejected as faulty. Consistent with the dGe lugs pa analysis of these problematic areas, Huntington at times also seems to subscribe to the fourth view by taking the catu~koti at face value (i.e., literally):

Most contemporary scholars believe that the term emptiness refers neither to existence nor non-existence. (p. 18)

Contemporary dGe lugs pa scholars, however, do not hold to such a position. It is precisely in response to someone who does that the following dialogue takes place in the sTong thun chen mo:

[mKhas grub rje:] By advocating that the sprout does not exist one is advocating that it is non-existent. .. , [Opponent:] These are not in direct contradiction, for although the Svataritrikas and all the lower schools understand reality in terms of the law of excluded middle, in the Prasarigika system reality is not understood in terms of the law of excluded middle. Hence there is no fault. [mKhas grub rje:] Then it would follow, absurdly, that (two things) could never be in direct contradiction, that they could never mutually

REVIEWS 159

exclud~ each other, for (according to you) one is unable to understand something to be non-existent by negating its existence .... Desist (in claiming) that the Prasangika refutes the realist by relying on internal contradiction. Moreover, it follows, absurdly, (from your views) that there is no difference between right tenets and wrong ones, whether they be Prasangika or realist tenets. This is because (for you) the point expressed by a philosophical tenet can neither be disproved by a valid cognition (prarniilJ-a) nor established by one.13

According to the dGe lugs pa interpretation of the catu~koti, the "existence'" that is repudiated must be qualified. It is "inherent existence" that the Madhyamika refutes, not existence in general. This is how the dGe lugs pas manage to uphold the principle of the excluded middle in their interpretation of the tetralemma. Later in this same section of the sTong thun chen rno (pp. 107-108) mKhas grub rje citesa variety of passages from Candraklrti in order to show how Candraklrti himself distinguishes "between existence and inherent existence," upholding the latter and rejecting the former.

For mKhas grub rje and the dGe lugs pas that follow him the repudiation of existence is tantamount to nihilism:

Nowadays it seems that quite a few Madhyamikas also accept, as do the realists, that if something is essenceless it must be non-existent. However, the realists, being expert philosophers, accept that things inherently exist without being nihilists in regard to karma and its effects. The Madhyamikas of today, however, advocate that karma and its effects do not exist, and yet these idiots consider theirs the highest view! 14 .

4. Who were the Madhyamikas' opponents? From their works, it is clear that they were varied, including non-Buddhists, and a host of Buddhist schools such as the Abhidharmikas and Yogacaras. Intuitively one might say that the Madhyamikas argue for their beliefs against these different opponents, but for Huntington this is not possible, since what the Madhyamikas are doing is not philosophy. Instead, it is something more akin to therapy of the Wittgensteinian kind:

I suggest that the Madhyamika philosophers can be best understood by entirely disposing of the idea that they are presenting a series of arguments against one set of claims and in favor of another .... Like Wittgenstein and the pragmatists, with whom they have much in common, the'Madhyamikas "keep trying to find ways of making antiphilosophical points in nonphilosophicallanguage." (p. 10)


Now if the Madhyamikas are not philosophers who argue against other philosophical traditions then what are they arguing against? Huntington states:

The Madhyamika sets itself in opposition to a philosophical tradition which was preoccupied with the search for more and more precise technical terminology and had neglected the practical application of philosophical theory ... (a tradition) that had severed theory from practice. (p. xii, my insertion) 15

Hence, according to Huntington, since the Madhyamikas cannot be arguing truth with fellow philosophers they must be urging scholastics to practice. What a terribly poor picture this paints, however, of the great Abhidharma and Yogacara masters! Was the Abhidharma truly the dry scholasticism that Huntington implies it was? Was Asanga merely twiddling his thumbs the twelve years he spent in the cave? Isn't it both the kinder and the more accurate interpretation to say that Nagarjuna and Candrakirti were not criticizing their opponents for their lack of practice, but for their faulty beliifS? This, however, is not an option for Huntington.

There are a number of other issues which, though important, cannot be dealt with here due to restrictions on space. Among them are Huntington's claim that the Madhyamika holds a non-referential view of language (pp. 30-32), and his very Theravada vipassaniilike interpretation of Madhyamaka meditation (pp. 35, 81-82), both problematic. All this notwithstanding, I cannot sufficiently emphasize that Huntington's introduction is a clear, well-written and provocative piece of scholarship, additionally amazing given the fact that he has been so heavily influenced by the French deconstruc-

. tionists! That the views criticized by mKhas grub rje in the above pas

sages correspond to many of Huntington's own views is in a sense a tribute to Huntington. It implies, of course, that the views he holds are views held by mKhas grub rje's opponents, great scholars in their own right. Regardless of what position one takes on these issues, it is a great virtue of Huntington's volume that he introduces them in a lucid, straightforward and advocative style. If there is a major drawback to his presentation it is only that he gives the reader little clue as to the fact that there are living contemporary interpretations of Candraklrti, traditional Tibetan readings of the Madhyamaka, that are substantially at variance with his own views.

REVIEWS 161

NOTES

1. This position is further amplified on pp. 8, 10, 15, 27,47, 98, 106-8, llO, etc. In many of these passages its connection to pragmatism is also further developed.

2. On the distinction between these two forms of ignorance see TTC pp. 132-134; all references to the sTong thun chen mo (TTC) are to the Madhyamika Text Series edition [New Delhi: Lha mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1972].

3. For the dGe lugs pa interpretation of Madhyamaka passages (e.g. from the Vigrahavyiivartanf) that seem to suggest otherwise, see my forthcoming translation of mKhas grub rj e's sTong thun chen mo, A Great Dose of Emptiness [Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press].

4. TTCp.84. 5. TTC pp. 172-173. 6. Notice that this is different from claiming that Madhyamaka posits a

non-referential view oflanguage. Words, as long as they are used in accordance with common usage, do have referents. The fact that under an ultimate analysis those referents cannot be found does not mean that, within the realm of conventions, the referents are non-existent. There is only one arena in which philosophy can be undertaken, and that is the realm of worldly usage, but philosophers are part of the world and technical philosophical terminology does not fall outside of "worldly usage." Hence, the Prasangika Madhyamikas' claim that the referents of terms cannot be found when a term or concept is subjected to an ultimate analysis does not stand in the way of the philosophical enterprise, or so a dGe lugs pa would argue.

7. SeeTTC pp. 296-311. 8. The argument goes on and is actually more complex than I make it

out to be here; see TTC pp. 296-7. 9. TTC p. 296.

10. TTC p. 302. 11. See note 6. 12. "The Prasangikas on Logic: Tibetan dGe lugs pa Exegesis on the

Question ofSvatantra," Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 15 (1988), pp. 55-62. 13. TTC pp. 98-99. 14. TTC p. 109. 15. See also his p. 17 for a similar remark.

Jose Ignacio Cabezon

III. NOTES AND NEWS

Notice of The Buddhist Forum

A welcome recent addition to the rolls of periodicals concerned with Buddhism is The Buddhist Forum, edited by Dr. Tadeusz Skorupski and published under the auspices of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London. Volume I (1990) contains a selection of SOAS seminar papers from the academic year 1987-88, as follows: R.F. Gombrich, "Recovering the Buddha's Message," R.F. Gombrich, "How the Mahayana began," K.R. Norman, "Pali Philology and the Study of Buddhism," A. Huxley, "How Buddhist is Theravada Buddhist Law?" TH. Barrett, "'Kill the Patriarchs!'" TH. Barrett, "Exploratory Observations on some Weeping Pilgrims," and 1. Astley-Christiansen, "Images and Permutations of Vajrasattva in the VajradhatumaI;H;l.ala." Subscription inquiries should be directed to Dr. Tadeusz Skorupski, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WCIH, OXG, England.

Roger Jackson

163


ERRATA

VOl. 12, no.2

"Jhiina and Buddhist Scholasticism," by Martin Stuart-Fox p. 98, last line: note 74 should be note 76. All subsequent endnote numbers within the text (nos. 75-95) should be two higher than indicated.

TOt. 13, no. 1 p. 114, after endnote 18: The author of the review should be listed here as Matthew Kapstein.

CONTRIBUTORS

Prof. Robert L. Brown Dept. of Art History nc.L.A. 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90024-1417

Pr:of. Jose 1. Cabezon Iliff School of Theology 2201 South University Ave. Denver, CO 80210

Dr. David Jackson 62Jorino-cho, Ichijoji Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606 Japan

Prof. Roger Jackson Dept. of Religion Carleton College Northfield, MN 55057

Prof. John Newman Dept. of Religion New College of the University of South Florida Sarasota, FL

Dr. Vijitha Rajapakse 35950 Timberlane Dr. Solon, OH 44139

Dr. PC. Verhagen Kern Institute Faculty of Letters State University of Leiden P'O.B.9515 2300 RA Leiden Netherlands

165

jiabs 13-2

Documents