burchardiJIATS_03_2007

7/23/2019 burchardiJIATS_03_2007

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/burchardijiats032007 1/26

Journal of theInternational Association

of Tibetan Studies

Issue 3 — December 2007

ISSN 1550-6363

An online journal published by the Tibetan and Himalayan Digital Library (THDL)

www.jiats.org



Editor: José Ignacio Cabezón

Book Review Editor: Kurtis Schaeffer

Assistant Editors: Alison Melnick, Zoran Lazovic, and Christopher Bell

Managing Director: Steven Weinberger

Technical Director: Nathaniel Grove

Contents

Articles

• A Look at the Diversity of the Gzhan stong Tradition (24 pages)

– Anne Burchardi

• Beyond Anonymity: Paleographic Analyses of the Dunhuang Manuscripts (23 pages) – Jacob Dalton

• “Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue (25 pages)

– Brandon Dotson

• An Early Seventeenth-Century Tibeto-Mongolian Ceremonial Staff (24 pages)

– Johan Elverskog

• The Importance of the Underworlds: Asuras’ Caves in Buddhism, and Some Other

Themes in Early Buddhist Tantras Reminiscent of the Later Padmasambhava

Legends (31 pages)

– Robert Mayer

• Re-Assessing the Supine Demoness: Royal Buddhist Geomancy in the Srong btsan

sgam po Mythology (47 pages)

– Martin A. Mills

• Modernity, Power, and the Reconstruction of Dance in Post-1950s Tibet (42 pages)

– Anna Morcom

Book Reviews

• Review of Thundering Falcon: An Inquiry into the History and Cult of Khra ’brug,

Tibet’s First Buddhist Temple, by Per K. Sørensen et al (5 pages)

– Bryan Cuevas

• Review of Tibetan Songs of Realization: Echoes from a Seventeenth-Century Scholar

and Siddha in Amdo, by Victoria Sujata (6 pages)

– Lauran Hartley

• Review of Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas, ed. Rob Linrothe and Review

of The Flying Mystics of Tibetan Buddhism, by Glenn H. Mullin (8 pages)

– Serinity Young

ii



A Look at the Diversity of the Gzhan stong Tradition1

Anne BurchardiUniversity of Copenhagen

Abstract: This article introduces two studies by classical Tibetan Buddhist scholarsthat explain the range of meanings of the term gzhan stong. The two texts – one

by Padma bi dza (twentieth century), the other by Tāranātha (1575-1634) – areanalytical studies that summarize and compare the various views of previous scholars who wrote on gzhan stong. Such interpretive studies are valuable in that they present us with different ways of interpreting the heterogeneous material classied under the rubric “gzhan stong.” They also suggest ways of contextualizing the different levels of discourse found within this material.

Introduction

Descriptions of gzhan stong are frequently encountered in the context of polemicaldiscourse, where it stands in contradistinction to rang stong .2 Some scholarlyattention has been paid to the historical context of the controversies involving

prominent gzhan stong masters and their writings. But so far the attention givento the actual differences of interpretation of the term gzhan stong in its varioushermeneutical and philosophical contexts has been quite limited in non-Tibetan

publications – limited, that is, when we consider the extent of primary sourcesavailable in Tibetan.3 Fortunately, this situation is improving year by year, and it

1

This article is a revised and enlarged version of the paper presented at the Tenth Seminar of theInternational Association for Tibetan Studies (6th-12th September 2003), Oxford. Thanks to GeneSmith, David Seyfort Ruegg, José Cabezón, and Karl Brunnhölzl for advice.

2 Gzhan stong may be translated as “empty of other” and rang stong as “empty of self(-nature).”There is general agreement about rang stong referring to relative or conventional phenomena. So-called gzhan stong proponents will generally – but not necessarily – consider gzhan stong to refer exclusivelyto ultimate phenomena. See Wangchuk Dorji, “The rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations of the TathāgatagarbhaTheory,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 48 (2004): 171-213, and especially 171 n. 3, for an account of various usages of gzhan stong .

3 The following are some signicant studies in English relevant to the study of gzhan stong : DavidSeyfort Ruegg, Buddha Nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective:On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet (London: School of Oriental andAfrican Studies, University of London, 1989); Susan Hookham, The Buddha Within (Albany: SUNY

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 3 (December 2007): 1-24.www.thdl.org?id=T3128.1550-6363/2007/3/T3128.© 2007 by Anne Burchardi, Tibetan and Himalayan Digital Library, and International Association of Tibetan Studies.Distributed under the THDL Digital Text License.

http://www.thdl.org/?id=T3128

http://www.thdl.org/xml/showEssay.php?xml=/tools/THDLTextLicense.xml

http://www.thdl.org/xml/showEssay.php?xml=/tools/THDLTextLicense.xml

http://www.thdl.org/?id=T3128



is my hope that the present reections will further our general knowledge of the gzhan stong tradition in some small way.

There is a vast amount of material waiting to be explored that can inform us

about the gzhan stong views held by various Tibetan masters. Here I would liketo introduce two analytical studies that show various ways of viewing and dening

gzhan stong .

Padma bi dza

The rst study is The Full Moon Dialogue (dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba),4 a relativelyrecent text from early twentieth-century east Tibet, written by a mkhan po fromZur mang named Padma bi dza (also known as Padma rnam rgyal)5 and

commissioned by the eleventh Si tu, Padma dbang mchog rgyal po (1886-1952).It is a reply to twenty-ve questions submitted to the monastic college at Dpalspungs.6 The following is an excerpt from this text.

Press, 1991); Matthew Kapstein, The ’Dzam thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kun mkhyen Dol po pa Shes rab rGyal mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue (New Delhi: Shedrup Books, 1992); CyrusStearns, The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master DolpopaSherab Gyaltshen (Albany: SUNY Press, 1999); Matthew Kapstein, “We Are All Gzhan stong pas:Reections on The Reexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence, by Paul Williams,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 7 (2000): 105-25; E. Gene Smith, Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau, ed. Kurtis R. Schaeffer (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001).

4 Place and date of printing are unknown. This text was kindly given to me by the former director of The National Library of Bhutan, Lopon Pemala. It is studied at the Nyima Lung Monastic College inBhutan.

5 See http://www.tbrc.org P5784.6 The introduction informs us that a paper roll containing twenty-ve questions concerning the

difference between Madhyamaka Rang stong and Gzhan stong in terms of the base, path, and fruit of the essential Mahāyāna sūtra and mantra perspectives was brought to the great Bka’ brgyud seat of Dpal spungs in Mdo khams called Thub bstan dar rgyas chos ’khor gling, the seat of ’Jam mgon si turin po che. The paper roll stated that these questions were for the scholars based at ’Jam mgon gzhan phan snang ba’s school, and that the questions came from someone from Rgyal rong called Karmanges don. Upon thorough investigation of the words and the meaning, it was found that the wording

was probably that of a “realized one” (rtogs ldan), but from the point of view of the meaning, thequestions were generally considered to be indicative of the fact that the author had a certain level of analytical realization (de la skabs ’dir rgyal rong ba ka rma nges don yin zer ba zhig gis/ mdo khamsbka’ brgyud kyi gdan sa chen po shar dpal spungs thub bstan dar rgyas chos ’khor gling du ’khod pa’ibyams mgon si tu rin po che’i chos sde/ ’jam mgon gzhan phan snang ba’i slob grwa pa gzhi byes kyimkhas pa rnams la dri ba yin zer ba dbu ma rang stong dang gzhan stong gnyis kyi khyad par dri bya’i snying por gyur pa’i theg chen mdo sngag phyogs kyi gzhi lam ’bras bu’i skor ci rigs pa nas brtsamste dri ba nyer lnga tsam zhig mdzad ’dug pa’i shog dril lag tu son te tshig don la legs par brtags pas/ tshig gi dag sdeb ni rtogs ldan phal cher gyi lugs su ’dug la/ don gyi cha rnams spyir rnam dpyod kyidrod tshad nyul ba’i dri ba re yin/ ; Padma bi dza [Zur mang mkhan po padma rnam rgyal], Dri lantshes pa’i zla ba [n.p., n.d.], 2.4-3.4).

The questions are very pointed and include the consequences of both afrmative and non-afrmativeanswers. For example:

Are concepts dharmakāya or are they delusion? If they are the true nature, then this ordinary mindcontradicts the uncreated dharmakāya, the special quality of mahāmudrā. If they are delusion, thenit follows that saṁsāra is dharmakāya (rnam rtog chos sku gnas lugs ’khrul lugs gang / gnas lugs yin na tha mal shes pa ’di/ ma bcos chos sku phyag chen khyad chos ’gal/ ’khrul lugs yin na ’khor ba chos skur thal/ ; Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 14.1-14.2).

2Burchardi: The Diversity of the Gzhan stong Tradition

http://www.tbrc.org/

http://www.tbrc.org/



Translation

In brief, the crucial exchange concerning the difference between rang stong and gzhan stong [is as follows]:

1. A general presentation of the different opinions.2. A specic description of the Jo nang intention.3. A presentation of the validity of the two kinds of Madhyamaka.

A General Presentation of the Different Opinions

There are about seven main divisions concerning the meaning of the terms (rang stong and gzhan stong ):

1. The omniscient Jo nang, (Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan [1292-1361])father and sons, consider consciousness to be rang stong and pristineawareness ( ye shes) to be gzhan stong .

2. The supreme shākya, Gser mdog paṇ chen (1428-1507), considers theappearance of phenomena to be rang stong and the luminous, true natureof phenomena (dharmatā) to be gzhan stong .

3. Sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen (1294-1376) considers subject and object to berang stong and space and pristine awareness to be gzhan stong .

4. Karma pa bdud ’dul rdo rje (1733/4-1797/8) considers cyclic existence

( saṁsāra) to be rang stong and transcendence of suffering (nirvāṇa) to be gzhan stong . This is a wholesome position.

Another question reads:

At the time of the ground, is the potential primordially pure or not? If it is, then what is the basis of the temporary delusions? Similarly, the manner of delusion must be said to be a manner of purity.

If it is not primordially pure, then what are the natural qualities and the temporary impurities?” ( gzhidus rigs pa ye dag yin nam min/ yin na glo bur ’khrul gzhi gang la bya/ ji ltar ’khrul tshul dang nidag tshul smros/ ye dag min na yon tan rang bzhin dang / dri ma glo bur ba de ci la ser/ ; Padma bidza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 47.4-47.5).

The colophon states:

My master Byams mgon tā’i si tu rin po che held this paper roll of questions in his hand, and withthe command “give some satisfying answers to this,” he hit it on my head as a drum stick, like atext worthy of respect. So nurtured by his kindness and the kindness of ’Jam mgon gzhan phansnang ba and others, [I,] Padma bi dza from Zur mang, placed in the ranks of Dpal spungs thub bstan dar rgyas chos ’khor gling, wrote this, which is what came to mind, when staying at the homeof Lto ru tsang, minister of the king of Sde dge, on my way to Rdzogs chen to have books printed

(rang re’i rigs kyi khyab bdag byams mgon tā’i si tu rin po ches ’di’i dri ba’i shog dril lag tu gnang nas rnga la dbyug gus bskul ba’i dpe ltar lags pas/ ’di la lan yid tshim pa zhig thob cig ces bka’ stsal spyi bor phebs par brten nas/ rje de nyid dang ’jam mgon gzhan phan snang ba sogs kyi bka’ drin gyis rjes su ’tsho zhing / shar dpal spungs thub bstan dar rgyas chos ’khor gling gi gral mthar ’khod zur mang ba padma bi dzas mdo khams rdzogs chen phyogs dpe cha spar du ’gro ba'i lam zhor/ sa skyong sde dge’i mdun mdzod lto ru tshang sar ’dug skabs blo thog nas shar byung du brisba dag par bshus nas bskur ba dge legs ’phel/ ; Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 75.2-75.5).

The text consists of the answers to these questions.

3 Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 3 (December 2007)



5. The omniscient Mi bskyod (1507-54), father and sons, consider the purekāyas and pristine awareness to be rang stong in terms of their true natureand to be gzhan stong in terms of the way they appear.

6. ’Jam mgon si tu paṇ chen (1700-74) considers the aspect that refutes to be rang stong and the aspect that establishes to be gzhan stong . This is awholesome position.

7. Furthermore, Kaḥ thog dge rtse paṇ chen (1761-1829) considers properlythe context of mastery in equipoise to be rang stong and the context of differentiation in post-meditation (subsequent attainment) to be gzhan

stong .

These seven positions have been arranged here in a summary in order to broadenthe intelligence of those with lucid minds.7

If you summarize the seven, they can be condensed into three: [1] the main Jonang pa [assertion that] pristine awareness is gzhan stong ; [2] Shākya mchog[ldan’s assertion that] the sphere [of reality] is gzhan stong ; and [the assertions of]the others [3-7] that both the sphere [of reality] and pristine [awareness] (dbyings

ye gnyis ka) are gzhan stong .8

They can also be condensed into two: the rst ve [1-5] are mainly presentationsof rang stong and gzhan stong as subjects to be determined,9 while the latter two[6-7] are mainly presentations of rang stong and gzhan stong as methods of

ascertainment.10

So we can say that [1] consciousness [as rang stong ] and pristine awareness [as gzhan stong ]; [2] phenomena [as rang stong ] and dharmatā [as gzhan stong ]; [3] saṁsāra [as rang stong ] and nirvāṇa [as gzhan stong ]; [4] subject-object [as rang stong ] and space-pristine awareness [as gzhan stong ];11 [5] true nature [as rang

7 mdor bsdus gnad kyi dris lan dbu ma rang stong dang gzhan stong gi khyad par la/ ’dod tshul gyidbye ba spyir bstan pa/ jo nang pa’i dgongs pa bye brag tu brjod pa/ dbu ma gnyis kyi ’thad tshul bstan

pa dang gsum las/ dang po la ming don ci rigs kyi dbye sgo gtso bor bdun tsam du ’dug ste/ kun mkhyen jo nang yab sras ni/ rnam shes rang stong / ye shes gzhan stong du ’dod pa dang / shāka [read shākya]mchog pa gser mdog paṇ chen ni/ chos can snang ba rang stong / chos nyid ’od gsal gzhan stong du’dod pa dang / sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen ni/ yul dang yul can rang stong // dbyings dang ye shes gzhan stong du ’dod pa dang / karma pa bdud ’dul rdo rje ni/ ’khor ba rang stong // myang ’das gzhan stong tsam du ’dod na legs phyogs dang / kun mkhyen mi skyod yab sras ni/ dag pa’i sku dang ye shes kyang gnas tshul rang stong / snang tshul gzhan stong du ’dod pa dang / ’jam mgon si tu paṇ chen ni/ dgag phyogs rang stong / sgrub phyogs gzhan stong du ’dod na legs phyogs dang / kaḥ thog dge rtse paṇchen ni/ mnyam gzhag la zlo’i skabs rang stong / rjes thob shan ’byed skabs gzhan stong du ’dod palegs zhes pa ste/ ’dod tshul bdun po ’di dag ni blo gsal rnams kyi blo gros zor yangs pa’i ched du bsduste bkod pa yin no/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 60.3-61.4).

8 bdun pa de’ang bsdu na/ jo nang pa gtso bor ye shes gzhan stong / shāka [read shākya] mchog padbyings gzhan stong / gzhan rnams dbyings ye gnyis ka’i gzhan stong ste gsum du ’du’o/ (Padma bidza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 61.4-61.5).

9 gtan la dbab bya: that which is to be resolved or ascertained.10 de’ang snga ma lnga gtan la dbab bya’i sgo nas dang / phyi ma gnyis ’bebs byed kyi sgo nas gtso

bor rang stong dang gzhan stong du bzhag pas gnyis su ’du’o/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zlaba, 61.5-61.6).

11 Padma bi dza has switched the order of view 3 and 4 here.




stong ] and apparent nature [as gzhan stong ]; [6] refutation [as rang stong ] andestablishment [as gzhan stong ]; [7] equipoise [as rang stong ] and post[-meditationas gzhan stong ] are the seven [1-7], the three [1, 2, & 3-7], or two different types

[i.e., 1-5 as subjects to be determined and 6-7 as methods of determination] of rang stong and gzhan stong .12

A Specic Description of the Jo nang Intention

Among the four general tenets, in Tibet there are several tenets of the Madhyamaka(Central System), divided into the two of rang stong and gzhan stong . The rstwas given the name rang stong , referring to the empty aspect mainly taught andemphasized in the context of the intermediate turning.13

As for the second, in the context of covering the nal [turning] with the intentionof Mantra[-yāna] (Path of Secret Syllables), it was appropriate to comment evenon the intention of most sūtras as Mantra[-yāna]. The ultimate meaning of the

sūtras of the nal turning of the wheel was joined with the ultimate meaning of the Highest Yoga Tantras (Anuttara-yoga-tantra). The illusory impurities to beremoved were taught to be rang stong . Although the qualities of full maturationwere not asserted to be present at the time of the ground, the basis of purication,the aspect to be freed, space and pristine awareness, being naturally permanent,stable, peaceful, and indestructible were ascertained to be gzhan stong . This is theintention of the omniscient Jo nang, father and sons, and in Tibet this was giventhe famous name of Gzhan stong Madhyamaka.14

A Presentation of the Validity of the Two Kinds of Madhyamaka

1. The differences between the two types of Madhyamaka.2. How these two ultimately do not contradict each other.

The Differences Between the Two Types of Madhyamaka

This differentiation between Rang stong and Gzhan stong Madhyamaka should beknown in an unmistaken way to [correspond to the difference between] the meaning

12 smras pa rnam shes ye shes chos can chos nyid dang / ’khor ’das gzung ’dzin dbyings ye gnas snang tshul/ dgag sgrub mnyam rjes sgo nas rang stong dang / gzhan stong dbu ma’i khyad par bdun gsum gnyis/ shes par skabs kyi tshigs su bcad pa’o/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 61.6-62.1).

13 gnyis pa jo nang pa’i dgongs pa bye brag tu brjod pa ni/ spyir grub mtha’ bzhi las/ bod kyi phyogs su dbu ma’i grub mtha’ ’dod tsul [read tshul ] ’ga’ zhig la rang stong dang gzhan stong gnyis su dbyerigs pa’i dang po ni/ bka’ ’khor lo bar pa gtso bor gyur pa’i stong phyogs gtso bor ston skabs dbu ma

rang stong du ming chag pa dang / (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 62.1-62.3).14 gnyis pa ni gong ma sngags kyi dgongs pas gung ’gebs skabs/ mdo phal cher gyi dgongs pa yang

sngags ltar ’grel rung bas/ ’khor lo tha ma’i mdo don mthar thug dang / bla med sngags kyi rgyud donmthar thug gnyis lto sbyar te sbyang bya ’khrul pa’i dri ma rang stong du bstan nas/ rnam par smin pa’i yon tan gzhi dus su mi ’dod par gsungs kyang bral ba’i phyogs kyi sbyang gzhi dbyings dang / ye shes rtag brtan zhi ba g.yung drung gi rang bzhin gzhan stong yin ces gtan la phab pas/ bod du kunmkhyen jo nang yab sras kyi dgongs pa dbu ma gzhan stong zhes yongs su grags pa’i ming chags pa yin no/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 62.3-62.6).




and intention of Sūtra[-yāna] (Path of the Buddha’s Words) and Mantra[-yāna,respectively] through a presentation of

1. Difference in terms of subject matter.2. Difference in ascertaining.3. Difference in terms of manner of ascertainment.15

Difference in Terms of Subject Matter

It is appropriate to describe the difference between the two kinds of Madhyamakain terms of subject matter as follows: “Faults are rang stong and qualities are gzhan

stong .”16

The empty aspect emphasized in the context of the sūtras of the second turning

of the wheel and the texts commenting on their intention constitute that which isto be puried, the faults and defects which are temporary and illusory. These areconsidered rang stong . That which is emphasized in the treatises of the nal turningand the Mantra[-yāna], tantras, and so forth constitutes the basis of purication,the qualities which are space and pristine awareness. These are considered gzhan

stong .17

Difference in Ascertaining

Concerning the differences between the two types of Madhyamaka [in terms of method], it is appropriate to say: “The logic that refutes is rang stong and the logicthat afrms is gzhan stong .”18

As Nāgārjuna (second century) says: “No object whatsoever has ever come intoexistence either from itself, from something else, from something other than thesetwo or without a cause.” This manner of teaching, through the logic of refutationemphasized in the intermediate turning of the wheel and so forth is the rang stong method of teaching.

As the regent Maitreya says: “Sentient beings possess tathāgatagarbha, since

perfect buddhakāya radiates, since suchness cannot be differentiated, and since

15 gsum pa dbu ma gnyis kyi ’thad tshul bstan pa la/ dbu ma gnyis kyi khyad par mdzad tshul dang / de gnyis mthar thug ’gal med tshul gnyis las/ dang po ni/ de ltar dbu ma rang stong dang gzhan stong gi khyad par dbab bya/ ’bebs byed/ ’bebs tshul gsum gyi sgo nas mdo sngags kyi dgongs don phyin cima log pa ltar shes dgos pa las (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 62.6-63.2).

16 dang po gang zhig gtan la dbab bya skyon rang stong yon tan gzhan stong gi sgo nas dbu ma gnyis

kyi khyad par bstan ces brjod kyang rung ste/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 63.2-63.3).17 gtso cher ’khor lo bar pa’i mdo dang dgongs ’grel sogs las stong cha bstan pa’i skabs sbyangsbya glo bur ’khrul pa’i nyes skyon rang stong dang / gtso cher ’khor lo tha ma’i gzhung dang sngagsrgyud sogs las sbyangs gzhi dbyings dang ye shes kyi yon tan gzhan stong du bstan par ’dod pa ltar ro/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 63.5-64.1).

18 gnyis pa gang gis gtan la ’bebs byed dgag phyogs kyi rigs pas rang stong dang / sgrub phyogs kyirigs pas gzhan stong gi sgo nas dbu ma gnyis kyi khyad par yang rung ste/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 64.1-64.2).




they have the potential.” It is appropriate to say that teaching through the logic of afrmation in the nal turning of the wheel is the gzhan stong method.19

Difference in Terms of Manner of AscertainmentIt is appropriate to say that the manner of teaching the sphere of reality(dharmadhātu) as a generality/universal is rang stong , and the manner of teachingit in terms of its actuality/particularity is gzhan stong , just as master Asaṅga (ca.310-90) differentiated between dharmadhātu as a generality and as an actuality.20

It is also appropriate to say that the manner of ascertaining the conceptual imageof dharmadhātu by way of [the teachings on] the sixteen kinds of emptiness andso forth in the intermediate turning of the wheel is rang stong , and the manner of determining dharmadhātu in terms of its actuality, sugatagarbha (heart of bliss),

by way of [the teachings on] the luminosity of mind itself and so forth in the nalturning of the wheel and Mantra[-yāna] is gzhan stong .21

So, it is appropriate to understand the postulations of the two types of Madhyamaka through proper investigation of the sources of the teachings.Furthermore, as explained just above, one should gain certainty in three ways.

To summarize in verse form:

Faults and qualities, refutation and afrmation, conceptual and actual dhātu

[Are] the differences between rang stong and gzhan stong In terms of what they are, how they [are ascertained], and in what manner.22

How These Two Ultimately Do Not Contradict Each Other

Through a difference in the tradition of expression on these points, the names of the two types of Madhyamaka came about. Therefore, the aspect that expressesspace (dbyings) and illusory nature ( sgyu ma’i rang bzhin) of the intermediateturning of the wheel was given the name Rang stong Madhyamaka. The aspect

19 mgon po klus/ bdag las ma yin gzhan las min/ gnyis las ma yin rgyu med min/ dngos po gang dag gang na yang / skye ba nam yang yod ma yin/ ces sogs gsung pa ltar gtso bor ’khor lo bar pa la sogs pa’i dgag phyogs kyi rigs pas rang stong du bstan tshul dang / rgyal tshab byams pas/ rdzogs sangs sku ni ’pho phyir dang / de bzhin nyid dbyer med phyir dang / rigs yod phyir na lus can kun/ rtag tu sangs rgyas snying po can/ zhes sogs gsungs pa ltar ’khor lo tha ma’i sgrub phyogs kyi rigs pas gzhan stong du bstan na yang rung ba ltar ro/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 64.2-64.5).

20 gsum pa ji ltar gtan la ’bebs tshul chos dbyings spyi mtshan bstan pa’i tshul gyis rang stong dang / rang mtshan bstan pa’i tshul gyis gzhan stong du bstan kyang rung ste/ slob dpon thogs med kyis chosdbyings la spyi mtshan dang rang mtshan gnyis su phyes pa ltar ro/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 64.5-64.6).

21 ’khor lo bar pas stong nyid bcu drug sogs kyi sgo nas chos dbyings spyi mtshan gtan la ’bebs pa’i

tshul gyis rang stong dang / ’khor lo tha ma sngags dang bcas pa las sems nyid ’od gsal sogs kyi sgonas chos dbyings rang mtshan bde gshegs snying po gtan la ’bebs pa’i tshul gyis gzhan stong du bstanna yang rung ba’i phyir/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 64.6-65.2).

22 gsungs pa’i khungs rnams la legs par brtags pas/ dbu ma gnyis kyi ’jog mtshams go yang rung zhing / de’ang bshad ma thag pa ltar tshul gsum gyi sgo nas nges par bya’o/ ’dir smras pa’i sdom/ skyon dang yon tan dgag dang sgrub/ phyi dang rang gi mtshan nyid dbyings/ gang zhig gang gis tshul ji ltar/ rang gzhan stong pa’i kyad par gsum/ zhes par skabs kyi tshigs su bcad pa’o/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 66.2-66.4).




that expresses space and pristine awareness of the nal turning of the wheel as the base of Mantra[-yāna] was given the name Gzhan stong Madhyamaka.23

In fact, even the rang stong pas must assert that, while dharmatā is free of all

elaborations of eternalism and nihilism, yet it appears as the ground, the nature of the kāyas (bodies), and pristine awareness. Even the gzhan stong pas must acceptthat the appearing yet empty space is free of all elaborations. Therefore, it would

be good to establish the intended meaning of the two Madhyamakas as one andthe same: a great union ultimately transcending all the elaborations and terms of eternalism and nihilism.24

Analysis

It is well known that the views held by proponents of the gzhan stong traditionhave varied considerably from the time of Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan up tothe present day. Padma bi dza identies seven different positions held by sevendifferent masters spanning a period of more than six centuries. He denes a number of different categories for his comparison. In the rst context, rang stong and gzhan

stong are shown to refer to phenomena belonging to two different levels of reality.In the second context, rang stong and gzhan stong are presented as differentstrategies of ascertaining a given subject, and in the third context he shows rang

stong and gzhan stong as different methods of gaining realization.

The rst ve masters cited – Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, Shākya mchogldan, Sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen, Karma pa bdud ’dul rdo rje, and Karma pa mi

bskyod rdo rje – are presented as viewing rang stong and gzhan stong as differingin terms of subjects to be determined. The rst four of these masters hold thatvarious relative phenomena are rang stong while ultimate phenomena are gzhan

stong .25 However, although the fth master cited, the Eighth Karma pa, is portrayedas going against this pattern, he is nevertheless included in the list perhaps onaccount of those of his writings that advocate gzhan stong .26 The sixth master cited,

23 gnyis pa dbu ma gnyis po mthar thug ’gal ba med tshul ni/ de ltar khyad par gsum po tsam zhig rtsal du ’don lugs kyis dbu ma gnyis kyi mtshan du chags pa des na ’khor lo bar pa’i dbyings dang sgyu ma’i rang bzhin rtsal du bton pa’i cha nas dbu ma rang stong du ming chags pa dang / ’khor lotha ma sngags dang bcas pa’i gzhi dbyings dang ye shes kyi rang bzhin rtsal du bton pa’i cha nas dbuma gzhan stong gi ming du chags pa tsam gyi khad par las/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba,66.5-67.1).

24 don la dbu ma rang stong pas kyang chos nyid rtag chad kyi spros pa thams cad dang bral bzhindu snang ba’i gzhi sku dang ye shes kyi rang bzhin ’dod dgos pa dang / gzhan stong pas kyang snang bzhin du stong pa’i dbyings spros pa thams cad dang bral ba ji bzhin du khas len dgos pa’i phyir na/ dbu ma gnyis po mthar thug spros mtshan rtag chad thams cad las ’das pa’i zung ’jug chen por dgongsdon gcig tu grub na legs te/ (Padma bi dza, Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba, 67.1-67.3).

25 This conforms to Dol po pa’s general denition of relative phenomena being rang stong (chos canrang stong ) and their ultimate nature or dharmatā being gzhan stong (chos nyid gzhan stong ).

26 Mi bskyod rdo rje commented upon the Abhisamayālaṃkāra in accordance with the gzhan stong philosophy in his Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i lung chos mtha’ dag gi bdud rtsi’i snying por gyur pa gang la ldan pa’i gzhi rje btsun mchog tu dgyes par ngal gso’i yongs ’dus brtol gyi ljon pa rgyas pa (Sikkim: Karma Shri Nalanda Institute, n.d.). See Karl Brunnhölzl, A Commentary on the Perfectionof Knowledge: The Noble One Resting at Ease (Sackville: Nitartha Institute,2001) for a partial translation




Si tu paṇ chen (1700-74), is presented as regarding rang stong and gzhan stong asdifferent methods of ascertaining a given subject, while the seventh master, Kaḥthog dge rtse paṇ chen,27 is portrayed as holding rang stong and gzhan stong as

different ways of gaining realization.The seven positions are also summarized into three positions with Dol po pa

representing the rst position that emphasizes the aspect of pristine awareness ( ye shes) as gzhan stong , Shākya mchog ldan representing the second position thatemphasizes the aspect of the sphere of reality (dbyings) as gzhan stong , and theothers representing a third group of positions that asserts a combination of spaceand awareness (dbyings ye gnyis ka) as being gzhan stong .

Padma bi dza concludes on a conciliatory note, showing how rang stong and gzhan stong do not contradict each other. They can thus be considered to belongto different levels of discourse, and therefore lack the basic criteria for meaningfulcomparison. Ruegg has aptly observed: “It may be possible to think in terms of complementarity (or incommensurability) between two theories belonging todistinct universes of religious-philosophical discourse rather than in terms of contradiction between theories competing on the same level.”28

As we have seen, gzhan stong is used to refer to a number of different but relatedelds of inquiry. Let us explore this issue a bit further.29 Certain Tibetan Buddhistmasters use the term gzhan stong to refer to a philosophical tenet system ( grub

mtha’ , siddhānta); others use it to refer to a philosophical point of view theory (ltaba). At other times it is used to refer to a combination of theory and practice (lta sgom) or to a practice tradition ( sgom lugs). Finally, many – such as Padma bi dza – argue that rang stong and gzhan stong represent Sūtrayāna and Mantrayāna,respectively.

of this text. Mi bskyod rdo rje also endorsed gzhan stong in his Dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me, published in Dbu ma gzhan stong skor bstan bcos phyogs bsdus deb dang po (Sikkim: Karma Shri Nalanda Institute, 1990), 12-48. However, his commentary on Madhyamakāvatāra, the Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan dus gsum khyen pa’i zhal lung dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta (Seattle: Nitartha International Publications, 1996) is in accordancewith the rang stong theory, while at the same time taking issue with the emptiness propounded by theDge lugs pa school. For studies of this last text see Paul Williams, “A Note on Some Aspects of MiBskyod Rdo Rje’s Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 11, no. 2(1983): 125-146, and DavidSeyfort Ruegg, “A Kar ma bka’ brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditionsof the Indo-Tibetan dBu ma (Madhyamaka),” Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, vol. 3 (Roma:Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1988), 1249-80. See also Karl Brunnhölzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagyü Tradition (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2004), 445-526, where Mi bskyod rdo rje’s views on gzhan stong are elaborated in the fourth chapter, entitled “Is There Such aThing as Shentong-Madhyamaka?”

27 His association of rang stong with equipoise and gzhan stong with post-meditation differs from

the views of, for example, Shākya mchog ldan and from that of many gzhan stong proponents’ positions, but this is a subject for future study.28 Ruegg, Buddha Nature, 7-8, 11; and also David Seyfort Ruegg, Three Studies in the History of

Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy, Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought, part 1 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2000), 81.

29 It is important to remember that although gzhan stong , in the course of centuries of discussionacross the categories mentioned above, has become a somewhat “loaded” term, there are no groundsfor the ascription of a substantive ontology to the term itself.




Broido has pointed out that Dol po pa never intended his gzhan stong to fulllthe requirements of a philosophical tenet system.30 Instead, Dol po pa “calls hisdarśana ‘Dbu ma chen po,’ and intends it to be connected with experience and to

be contrasted with dbu ma as a siddhānta.”31

However, later holders of the gzhan stong lineage seem to have given gzhan stong the status of a philosophical tenetsystem.32 It was on this level of discourse that polemical comparisons betweenrang stong and gzhan stong began to proliferate. Both Dol po pa and later gzhan

stong proponents assert that gzhan stong incorporates and bases itself on rang stong as a philosophical tenet system. They then go on to say that gzhan stong supersedes this level of discourse. Nevertheless, it seems that some later gzhan

stong proponents argue for the supremacy of gzhan stong even on the philosophicaltenet system level. Although this may be nothing but a strategy for defending the

tradition against criticism from its opponents, it can become, as Broido points out,“a source of serious confusion,”33 at least for those attempting to study the tradition.

Tāranātha

Tāranātha (1575-1634) is an example of a gzhan stong proponent who used theterm gzhan stong in a way that encompasses both the sense of philosophical tenetsystem ( grub mtha’ ) and of practice tradition ( sgom lugs).34 He is said to have had

30

Michael Broido, “The Jo-nang-Pas on Madhyamaka: A Sketch,” The Tibet Journal 45, no. 1 (1989):86-90.31 Broido, “The Jo-nang-Pas,” 87. He further says: “In S’s [Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan’s] usage

a siddhānta ( grub-mtha’ ) is a xed philosophical position based on axioms and set rules of argument;a darśana (lta-ba) is a point of view in a broad sense, including what derives directly from experience.”

32 This is dened by the Tibetan tradition in general as “Limit of Establishment,” i.e., the nalconclusion reached by a system based on logic and scripture, referring to tenet systems.

33 Broido, “The Jo-nang-Pas,” 89.34 Tāranātha was a prolic writer on many subjects. In a short text called The Central Causal and

Resultant Drop ( Rgyu ’bras dbu ma’i thig le), Tāranātha describes tathāgatagarbha in its sūtra andtantra context; see Tāranātha, The Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha, vol. 13 (Leh,

Ladakh: C. Namgyal & Tsewang Taru, 1982-87), 463-68. In The Heart of Zhentong (Gzhan stong snying po; Tāranātha, Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha, vol. 4, 491-514), he outlinesthe position of gzhan stong in relation to various topics. For a study of this work see Klaus-Dieter Mathes, “Tāranātha’s Presentation of trisvabhāva in the gŹan stoṅ sñiṅ po,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23, no. 2 (2000): 195-223. Finally, The Ornament of Gzhan stong Madhyamaka (Gzhan stong dbu ma rgyan; Tāranātha, Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha,vol. 4, 797-824) is, according to Cyrus Stearns in The Buddha from Dol po: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Albany: SUNY, 1999), 69, one of Tāranātha’smost important works, devoted solely to the explication of the gzhan stong view. Lastly, we shouldmention materials that have only recently come to light, namely texts in the ’Dzam thang edition of Tāranātha’s Collected Works: Tāranātha, Collected Works, ’Dzam thang Edition, TBRC W22276. Herewe nd his extremely interesting interpretations of The Heart Sūtra from a gzhan stong point of view;

see Matthew Kapstein, Reason’s Traces (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001), 304-6. The texts arethe Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po’i don rnam par bshad pa sngon med legs bshad (Tāranātha, Collected Works, ’Dzam thang Edition, vol. 17, 571-759) and the Sher snying gi tshig ’brel (Tāranātha, Collected Works, ’Dzam thang Edition, vol. 17, 759-83). Here Tāranātha identies threedifferent passages (762, 765, and 771) that he maintains clearly show that The Heart Sūtra teaches gzhan stong . While gzhan stong presentations of tathāgatagarbha are quite common, it is rare to see gzhan stong elucidations of the second turning of the wheel. Although, for Yogic Conduct System(Yogācāra) precursors to these, see Donald S. Lopez, Jr., The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan




visions of Dol po pa during the composition of several of his texts. His writingsserved in turn as a signicant inspiration for ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’Yas’s writings on gzhan stong 35 and other subjects. ’Jam mgon kong sprul is an

example of a later gzhan stong proponent who presents gzhan stong as a separate philosophical tenet system.36

We will now use Tāranātha’s text, The Twenty-One Profound Points ( zab donnyer cig pa),37 as a lens into the positions of the rst two masters cited in Padma

bi dza’s list, Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan and Shākya mchog ldan. Their positions are compared in detail by Tāranātha with respect to twenty-one issues.The fact that Tāranātha introduces the discussion using the term gzhan stong dbuma’i lta sgom (theory and practice of the Empty of Other Central System) indicatesthat his text seeks to encompass the discourse of two elds of inquiry: philosophical

point of view theory (lta ba) and meditation ( sgom). He says:

I think that it is impossible for any contradiction to exist in the intention behindthe explanation of those who see the profound [reality]. However, seeing what isneeded for training various people, differences were [explained] conventionally.

Here, the Lord of Dharma, the great omniscient Brton pa bzhi ldan [Dol po pa],and the great paṇ ḍita, the victorious Shākya mchog ldan, agree on the essential

point of the view and meditation of Gzhan stong Madhyamaka. However, when

Commentaries (Albany: SUNY, 1988), 60, where the statement “form is emptiness, emptiness is form,emptiness is not other than form; form is not other than emptiness” is interpreted as an afrmingnegative.

35 Such as ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas, Gzhan stong dbu ma chen po’i lta khrid rdo rje zla ba dri ma med pa’i ’od zer , in Rgya chen bka’ mdzod (Paro: Ngodrug, 1975/6), vol. nya (8), 581-621; Nges don dbu ma chen po la ’khrul rtog nyer gsum gyi ’bur ’joms pa legs bshad gser gyi tho ba, in Rgya chen bka’ mdzod , vol. ta (9), 211-18; Lta ba gtan la bebs pa las phro ba’i gtam skabs lnga pa

lung dang rig pa’i me tog rab tu dgod pa, in Rgya chen bka’ mdzod , vol. ta (9), 29-68; and Ris med chos kyi ’byung gnas mdo tsam smos pa blo gsal mgrin pa’i mdzes rgyan , in Rgya chen bka’ mdzod ,vol. ta (9), 69-100.

36 See his Shes bya kun la khyab pa’i gzhung lugs nyung ngu’i tshig gis rnam par ’grol ba legs bshad yongs ’du shes bya mtha’ yas pa’i rgya mtsho (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985), 35.1-41.1: glegs bam gsum pa/ skabs bdun pa/ lhag pa shes rab kyi bslab pa rim par gye ba/ ’khor lo gsum gyidrang nges dang bden gnyis rten ’brel rnam par nges pa’i skabs/ lnga pa/ grub mtha’ so so’i ’dod tshul . Translated into English by Anne Burchardi and Ari Goldeld, Gaining Certainty about the Provisional and Denitive Meanings in the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, the Two Truths,and Dependent Arising: The Root Text and Commentary Section Two of Chapter Seven from TheTreasury of Knowledge by Jamgön Kongtrül Lodrö Thaye (Kathmandu: Marpa Institute, 1997). Herehe presents the Vaibhāṣika, the Sautrāntika, the Cittamātra, the Svātantrika madhyamaka, the Prāsaṅgika

madhyamaka, and the Gzhan stong Madhyamaka view of the two truths as an ascending scale. The presentation of gzhan stong as a form of Madhyamaka contrasts with, for example, Mi bskyod rdo rje’s position that gzhan stong is more correctly a form of Yogācāra. See Brunnhölzl, Center of the Sunlit Sky, 445.

37 Tāranātha, Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha, vol. 4, 781-95. For an excellent studyand translation of this text see Klaus-Dieter Mathes, “Tāranātha’s ‘Twenty-one Differences with Regardto the Profound Meaning’ – Comparing the Views of the Two gŹan stoṅ Masters Dol po pa and Shakyamchog ldan,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27, no. 2 (2004): 285-328.




ascertaining their view provisionally there are many minor differences betweentheir philosophical tenet systems.38

Tāranātha presents Shākya mchog ldan’s position rst, referring to him as“former” ( snga ma), and Dol po pa’s position last, referring to him as “latter” ( phyima).39 They are introduced in this order in the text as a way of expressing ahierarchical order of profundity according to the author. My impression is thatTāranātha wishes to restate Dol po pa’s original gzhan stong by showing how itdiffers from Shākya mchog ldan’s version of gzhan stong . But does Tāranātha’sadmiration for and identication with Dol po pa allow for an accurate portrayalof Dol po pa’s position? Tāranātha seems in many cases to be speaking on Dol po

pa’s behalf, and so we can to a certain extent read what is portrayed as Dol po pa’s position as being actually Tāranātha’s own position.

Another issue is whether Tāranātha uses a given point in time as denitive for portraying Shākya mchog ldan’s position in regard to the twenty-one points,40 sinceShākya mchog ldan’s position vis-à-vis the rang stong / gzhan stong problematicis known to have changed during his lifetime. He has been described by Thu’u

bkwan blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737-1802) as starting out as a (rang stong )mādhyamika, then becoming a Cittamātra (Mind Only System) proponent, andthenendingupasaJonangpa( gzhan stong mādhyamika). According to Dreyfus,41

the second period, which started when Shākya mchog ldan was around the age of

forty-nine, is more accurately described as Central Yogic Conduct System(Yogācāra-madhyamaka), and in particular as False Aspectarian Yogic ConductSystem, which surpasses the Ṃind Only ṣystem.42 During the last phase, startingwhen he was around fty-six, he claimed the Jo nang pa position to be “a moreappropriate way to account for the experiential side of the realization of emptiness.”43

Among the points covered in Tāranātha’s text are the issues of whether thesecond turning is of literal or non-literal meaning and whether gzhan stong might

38 om swa sti/ zab mo gzigs pa rnams la ni/ bzhed dgongs ’gal ba mi srid snyam/ on kyang gdul byatha dad dang / dgos pa’i dbang gzigs tha dad bsnyad/ ’dir chos rje kun mkhyen chen po brton pa bzhildan dang / paṇḍi ta chen po rgyal ba shākya mchog ldan gnyis/ gzhan stong dbu ma’i lta sgom gyi gnad gcig kyang / gnas skabs lta ba de gtan la ’bebs pa’i skabs/ grub mtha’ mi ’dra ba than thun mang dag yod pa rnams ’dir ngos bzungs bar bya ste (Tāranātha, Zab don nyer cig pa, 782.1-782.3).

39 Even though Shākya mchog ldan was born sixty-seven years after Dol po pa’s death.40 See Mathes, “Tāranātha’s ‘Twenty-one Differences,’” 315 for an analysis of this.41 Georges B. Dreyfus, Recognizing Reality: Dharmakirti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations

(Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1997), 28-29.42 See also Iaroslav Komarovski, Three Texts on Madhyamaka by Shakya Chokden (Dharamsala:

Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 2000), 59 n. 27.43 Dreyfus, Recognizing Reality, 29. Shākya mchog ldan’s brilliant expositions relevant to gzhan

stong research include, among others: Byams chos lnga’i nges don rab tu gsal ba zhes bya ba’i bstanbcos, in Collected Works, vol. 11 (Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgye, 1975), 1-38; Byams chos lnga’i lam gyi rim pa gsal bar byed pa’i bstan bcos rin chen sgron gyi sgo ’byed , in Collected Works, vol. 11,39-156; and Rgyud bla’i rnam bzhad sngon med nyi ma, in Collected Works, vol. 13, 113-58. For atranslation of the latter see Anne Burchardi, Shakya mchog ldan’s Literary Heritage in Bhutan (The National Library of Bhutan, forthcoming).




also be taught in the second turning and not exclusively in the third turning of thewheel of dharma. Tāranātha remarks in this connection that there is a difference

between the rang stong intention of The Victorious One and his sons, and that

which is known as rang stong “these days”:44

The former [viz., Shākya mchog ldan] says, “On the level of philosophy (lta ba),rang stong is profound for cutting through elaborations. On the level of meditation( sgom pa), gzhan stong is profound for bringing experience (nyams su len pa).”45

Here rang stong is identied as the tradition of Prāsaṅgika, of the Svātantrika, aswell as that of the model treatises.46 The latter [viz., Dol po pa] says that the rang

stong philosophy explained by the Victorious One and his sons is excellent for cutting through elaborations, but the philosophical tenet (lta grub)47 comprising

gzhan stong is not different in this respect. That which is known as rang stong

these days takes the view of Prāsaṅgika, Svātantrika, as well as the model treatisesto mean that the ultimate is unreal. That is a mistake. It is not a wholesome wayof cutting elaborations through philosophy since it is a denigration.48

Shākya mchog ldan’s position is depicted as sympathetic to gzhan stong whileremaining within the generally accepted framework of logical discourse when itcomes to theory. He acknowledges the role that gzhan stong plays on the level of meditation. He is shown to hold rang stong as the highest view since he arguesthat because non-dual pristine awareness ( gnyis med ye shes) cannot withstandlogical scrutiny it cannot have an ultimate place in the context of logical discourse.Dol po pa argues that non-dual pristine awareness can withstand logical scrutinysince it is beyond the reach of the logical mind.49 In this context the two mastersare obviously speaking from two different perspectives. While Shākya mchog ldanis speaking of view, Dol po pa is speaking of that which transcends view.

The two masters are shown to differ on the value they give to trisvabhāva(three-fold nature) vis-à-vis the two truths, on their positions concerning rang rig ,

44

deng sang rang stong gi lta bar grags pa (Tāranātha, Zab don nyer cig pa, 783.5). I assume thatdeng sang refers to Tāranātha’s time and not to Dol po pa’s. Tāranātha has the following comment onwhat he considers the original meaning of rang stong in his Rgyu ’bras dbu ma’i thig le. He says:“When it was taught that the ultimate is empty of own essence, the intention was that, when observingthe ultimate, there is nothing for the intellectual mind to hold on to” (don dam rang gi ngo bo stong paltar/ gsung pa’i dgongs pa don dam la dmigs nas/ blo yis bzung ltar ma grub pa la dgongs; Tāranātha, Rgyu ’bras dbu ma’i thig le, in Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha, vol. 13, 466.7-467.1).

45 Nyams su len is often translated as “practice,” meaning “bringing into experience.”46 The Madhyamaka treatises of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva.47 Combined abbreviation of lta ba and grub mtha’ .48 yang snga mas/ lta bas spros pa gcod pa la rang stong zab/ sgom pas nyams su len pa la gzhan

stong zab ces te/ de’i rang stong yang thal rang gzhung phyi gsum gyi lugs la ngos ’dzi[n] / phyi masni/ rgyal ba sras bcas bzhed pa’i rang stong gi lta ba de spros pa gcod byed mchog yin yang / gzhan stong du ’dus pas lta grub logs logs pa min la/ deng sang grags pa’i rang stong thal rang gzhung phyi gsum gyi lta ba don dam bden med du ’dod pa ni nor pa yin pas/ lta bas spros pa gcod pa la bzang bamin te/ skur ’debs su ’gyur ba’i phyir yin zhes gsung / (Tāranātha, Zab don nyer cig pa, 784.4-784.7).

49 Literally: “Since non-dual wisdom withstands logical analysis, when analyzing it, it is said that itis one’s own confusion [that one ends up analyzing]” ( gnyis med ye shes rigs pas dpyad bzod yin pas/ de la dpyod pa de rang gi ’khrul gsung ; Tāranātha, Zab don nyer cig pa, 785.4).




on the status of tathāgatagarbha, and on their understanding of Mantra[-yāna], but in particular they are shown to differ on whether the nature of non-dual pristineawareness is permanent or impermanent, whether it is an entity or a non-entity,

and whether it is compounded or uncompounded. Here Dol po pa’s argumentstranscend (or disregard) the logical categories by stating that while non-dual pristineawareness is permanent in the sense that it is beyond the three times and isuncompounded in the sense that it is beyond compounded and uncompounded, itis neither an entity nor a non-entity.

Dol po pa believes – according to Tāranātha – that epistemology is insufcientwhen it comes to establishing the ultimate. He does accept the logic of non-dual

pristine awareness as a cognition, but refutes its inclusion in the logical categoryof entities (dngos po), where cognition normally belongs, at least according to a

good deal of Buddhist epistemological literature. He says, “To assert a non-entityas existing ultimately is not a logical teaching, but to assert an entity as beingultimate is the tradition of proponents of substantialism.”50 Whether this last remark in fact is Tāranātha’s way of defending Dol po pa against his later critics can only

be asserted by studying Dol po pa’s own writings in detail. However, this exchangeserves to illustrate the complexities involved when an already ahistorical and ctivediscussion covers more than one level of discourse.

Conclusion

These two comparative studies – the texts of Padma bi dza and of Tāranātha – produs to look more closely at the writings of the individual masters cited in order toinvestigate whether these were indeed their positions. At the same time, they showsome of the complex issues faced by authors when portraying and comparing the

philosophical positions of important Buddhist scholars who preceded them.

Such studies are valuable because they show us how Tibetans themselves craftedhermeneutical strategies for bringing order to the heterogeneous complex of viewsknown as gzhan stong , allowing us to explore the semantic ranges of the term and

its usage. Such strategies are also useful because they provide us with a starting point for contextualizing the statements found in the actual writings of the scholarsquoted.

The literary output of several of these Tibetan Buddhist scholars is immense.In some cases their positions may have changed during their lifetime. Furthermore,an author may defend a philosophical position for a rhetorical purpose withoutholding this position himself, and as Tāranātha has mentioned, their presentationsmay be colored by pedagogical concerns.

For those of us who study this tradition it is therefore, in some cases, prematureto announce any denitive conclusion as to the position of individual authors beforetheir entire literary output has been studied in detail. It will require patience before

50 dngos med don dam du ’dod pa chos mi rigs la/ don dam dngos por ’dod pa dngos smra ba’i lugs so (Tāranātha, Zab don nyer cig pa, 788.1-788.2).




a clear picture emerges of the exact positions of even the most inuential TibetanBuddhist scholars on gzhan stong .




Glossary

Note: glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entries list the following information in this order: THDL Extended Wylie transliteration of the term, THDL Phonetic rendering of the term, English translation, equivalentsin other languages, dates when applicable, and type.

Ka

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Person1761-1829Katok Getsé Penchenkaḥ thog dge rtse paṇchen

PersonKarma Ngedönkarma nges don

PersonKarmapakarma pa

Person1733/4-97/8Karmapa Düdül Dorjékarma pa bdud ’dul rdo rje

Person1507-1554Karmapa MikyöDorjé

karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje

OrganizationKagyübka’ brgyud

Kha


Termkhenpomkhan po

Ga


TermSan. siddhānta philosophical tenetsystem

drupta grub mtha’

OrganizationGelukpadge lugs pa

PlaceGyelrongrgyal rong

TextThe Central Causal and Resultant Drop

Gyundré Umé Tiklérgyu ’bras dbu ma’ithig le

TextGyülé Namshé Ngönmé Nyima

rgyud bla’i rnambzhad sngon med nyima

Termmeditationgom sgom

Termmeditationgompa sgom pa

Term practice traditiongomluk sgom lugs

Termillusory naturegyumé rangzhin sgyu ma’i rang bzhin

Nga


Termentityngöpodngos po

Termformer ngama snga ma

Cha


Termrelative phenomena[being] rangtong

chöchen rangtongchos can rang stong

Termultimate nature[being] zhentong

chönyi zhentongchos nyid gzhan stong




Ja


Person1292-1361Jonang jo nang

OrganizationJonangpa jo nang paPerson1813-1899Jamgön Kongtrül

Lodrö Tayé’jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas

Person1871-1927Jamgön Zhenpen Nangwa

’jam mgon gzhan phan snang ba

Person1700-1774Jamgön Situ Penchen’jam mgon si tu paṇchen

PersonJamgön Situ Rinpoché’jam mgonsi tu rin poche

Nya


Term bringing experiencenyamsu lenpanyams su len pa

Term practicenyamsu lennyams su len

Termnon-dual pristineawareness

nyimé yeshé gnyis med ye shes

Ta


Termthat which is to beresolved or ascertained

tenla wapja gtan la dbab bya

Terma “realized one”tokdenrtogs ldan

Term philosophical tenettadruplta grub

Termcombination of theory and practice

tagomlta sgom

Term philosophical pointof view theory;

philosophy

tawalta ba

PersonToru Tsanglto ru tsang

Person1292-1361Tönpa Zhidenbrton pa bzhi ldan

Tha


MonasteryTupten DargyéChökhorling

thub bstan dar rgyaschos ’khor gling

Person1737-1802Tuken Lozang Chökyi Nyima

thu’u bkwan blobzang chos kyi nyi ma

Da


Person1292-1361Dölpopadol po pa

Person1292-1361Dölpopa SherapGyeltsendol po pa shes rabrgyal mtshan

TextThe Full Moon Dialogue

Drilen Tsepé Dawadri lan tshes pa’i zlaba

PlaceDokhammdo khams

PlaceDegé sde dge




Pa


Persontwentiethcentury

Pema Namgyel padma rnam rgyal

Persontwentiethcentury

Pema Bidza padma bi dza

Person1886-1952Pema Wangchok Gyelpo

padma dbang mchog rgyal po

Term pendita paṇ ḍita

MonasteryPelpungdpal spungs

MonasteryPelpung TuptenDargyé Chökhorling

dpal spungs thubbstan dar rgyas chos’khor gling

Termgenerality;universalchitsen spyi mtshan

Pha


Termlatter chima phyi ma

Ba


PersonJamgön Tai SituRinpoché

byams mgon tā’i si turin po che

Person1886-1952Jamgön Situ Rinpochébyams mgon si tu rin po che

Text Jamchö Ngé Ngedön Raptu Selwa ZhejawéTenchö

byams chos lnga’inges don rab tu gsal ba zhes bya ba’i bstanbcos

Text Jamchö Ngé Lamgyi Rimpa Selwar JepéTenchö Rinchen Dröngyi Gojé

byams chos lnga’i lam gyi rim pa gsal bar byed pa’i bstan bcosrin chen sgron gyi sgo’byed

Doxographical

Category

San. MadhyamakaUmadbu ma

DoxographicalCategory

Uma Chenpodbu ma chen po

TextUma Zhentongkor Tenchö Chokdü Dep Dangpo

dbu ma gzhan stong skor bstan bcos phyogs bsdus debdang po

TextUma Zhentong MawéSöl Lekpar Chewé Drönmé

dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgronme

TextUmala Jukpé Namshé Penden Düsum Khyenpé Zhellung Dakgyü DruppéShingta

dbu ma la ’jug pa’irnam bshad dpal ldandus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung dwagsbrgyud grub pa’i shing rta

TermSan. dhātusphere of reality;space

yingdbyings




Term both the sphere of reality and pristineawareness

ying yé nyikadbyings ye gnyis ka

Ma


Person1507-1554Mikyömi bskyod

Dza


PlaceDzamtang’dzam thang

MonasteryDzokchenrdzogs chen

Zha


Termempty of other zhentong gzhan stong Text Zhentong Nyingpo gzhan stong snying po

Termzhentongpa gzhan stong pa

TextThe Ornament of Gzhan stong Madhyamaka

Zhentong Uma Gyen gzhan stong dbu margyan

Termtheoryand practice of theEmpty of Other Central System

zhentong umé tagom gzhan stong dbu ma’ilta sgom

Za


Text Zapdön Nyerchikpa zab don nyer cig pa

MonasteryZurmang zur mang

Ya


Term pristine awarenessyeshé ye shes

Ra


Termempty of self[-nature]

rangtongrang stong

Termrangtongparang stong pa

Term particularityrangtsenrang mtshan

Termrangrik rang rig

Sha


TermShakya shākya

PersonShakya Chok shākya mchog

Person1428-1507Shakya Chokden shākya mchog ldan

TextShernyinggi Tsikdrel sher snying gi tshig ’brel




TextSherapkyi ParöltuChinpé Nyingpö Dön Nampar Shepa Ngönmé Lekshé

shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snyin po’idon rnam par bshad pa ngon med legs

bshad TextSherapkyi Paröltu

Chinpé LungchöTadakgi Dütsi Nyingpor GyurpaGangla Denpé Zhi JetsünChoktuGyepar Ngelsö Yongdü Tölgyi Jönpa Gyepa

shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i lung chosmtha’ dag gi bdud rtsi’i snying por gyur pa gang la ldan pa’i gzhi rje btsun mchog tu dgyes par ngal gso’i yongs ’dus brtol gyi ljon pa rgyas pa

Sa


Person1294-1376Sazang Mati Penchen sa bzang ma ti paṇchen

PersonSitu si tu

Person1886-1952Situ Pema Wangchok Gyelpo

si tu padma dbang mchog rgyal po

Person1700-1774Situ Penchen si tu paṇ chen

Person1428-1507Serdok Penchen gser mdog paṇ chen

Sanskrit

TypeDatesSanskritEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Text Abhisamayālaṃkāra


Anuttara-yoga-tantra

Highest YogaTantra

Personsecond/thirdcentury

Āryadeva

Personca.310-390

Asaṅga

Termbuddhakāya


CittamātraMind Only System

Termdarśana

Termdharma

Termdharmadhātusphere of reality

Termdharmakāya

Termdharmatātruenature of

phenomena;ultimatenature

Termkāya body; state

Text Madhyamakāvatāra

Termmādhyamika

Termmahāmudrā


Mahāyāna

Person Maitreya




Termmantrasecret syllables


MantrayānaPath of SecretSyllables

Personsecondcentury Nāgārjuna

Termnirvāṇatranscendence of suffering


Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka

Term saṁsāracyclic existence


Sautrāntika

Term sugatagarbhaheart of bliss

Term sūtraBuddha’s WordDoxographicalCategory

SūtrayānaPath of theBuddha’s Words


Svātantrika Madhyamaka

Termtantra

Person1575-1634Tāranātha

Termtathāgatagarbha

Termtrisvabhāvathree-fold nature


Vaibhāṣika


YogācāraYogic ConductSystem


Yogācāra- Madhyamaka

Central YogicConduct System




Bibliography

Broido, Michael. “The Jo-nang-Pas on Madhyamaka: A Sketch.” The Tibet Journal 45, no. 1 (1989): 86-90.

Brunnhölzl, Karl. A Commentary on the Perfection of Knowledge: The Noble One Resting at Ease. Sackville: Nitartha Institute, 2001.

———. The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagyü Tradition. Ithaca:Snow Lion, 2004.

Burchardi, Anne. Shakya mchog ldan’s Literary Heritage in Bhutan. Thimphu:The National Library of Bhutan, forthcoming.

Burchardi, Anne, and Ari Goldeld. Gaining Certainty about the Provisional and Denitive Meanings in the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, the TwoTruths, and Dependent Arising: The Root Text and Commentary Section Twoof Chapter Seven from The Treasury of Knowledge by Jamgön Kongtrül LodröThaye. Kathmandu: Marpa Institute, 1997.

Dreyfus, Georges B. Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and ItsTibetan Interpretations. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1997.

Hookham, Susan. The Buddha Within. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991.

’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas. Rgya chen bka’ mdzod . Paro: Ngodrub,1975/6.

———. Shes bya kun la khyab pa’i gzhung lugs nyung ngu’i tshig gis rnam par ’grol ba legs bshad yongs ’du shes bya mtha’ yas pa’i rgya mtsho. Beijing:Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985.

Kapstein, Matthew. The ’Dzam thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kunmkhyen Dol po pa Shes rab rGyal mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue. NewDelhi: Shedrup Books, 1992.

———. Reason’s Traces. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001.

———. “We Are All Gzhan stong pas: Reections on The Reexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence, by Paul Williams.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 7 (2000): 105-25.

Komarovski, Iaroslav. Three Texts on Madhyamaka by Shakya Chokden.Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 2000.

Lopez, Donald S., Jr. The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan

Commentaries. Albany: SUNY, 1988.Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. “Tāranātha’s Presentation of trisvabhāva in the gŹan stoṅ

sñiṅ po.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23, no.2 (2000): 195-223.




———. “Tāranātha’s ‘Twenty-one Differences with Regard to the ProfoundMeaning’ – Comparing the Views of the Two gŹan stoṅ Masters Dol po paand Shakya mchog ldan.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist

Studies 27, no. 2 (2004): 285-328.Mi bskyod rdo rje. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i lung chos mtha’ dag gi bdud

rtsi’i snying por gyur pa gang la ldan pa’i gzhi rje btsun mchog tu dgyes par ngal gso’i yongs ’dus brtol gyi ljon pa rgyas pa. Sikkim: Karma Shri NalandaInstitute, n.d.

———. Dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me. In Dbuma gzhan stong skor bstan bcos phyogs bsdus deb dang po, 13-48. Sikkim:Karma Shri Nalanda Institute, 1990.

———. Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan dus gsum khyen pa’i zhal lung dvags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Seattle: Nitartha International Publications,1996.

Padma bi dza [Zur mang mkhan po padma rnam rgyal]. Dri lan tshes pa’i zla ba. N.p., n.d.

Ruegg, David S. “A Kar ma bka’ brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditionsof the Indo-Tibetan dBu ma (Madhyamaka).” Orientalia Iosephi Tucci

Memoriae Dicata. Vol. 3, 1249-80. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio edEstremo Oriente, 1988.

———. Buddha Nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet . London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,1989.

———. Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought, Part 1.Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 50. Vienna: Arbeitskreisfür tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2000.

Shākya mchog ldan. Collected Works. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgye, 1975.

Smith, E. Gene. Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau. Edited by Kurtis R. Schaeffer. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001.

Stearns, Cyrus. The Buddha from Dol po: A Study of the Life and Thought of theTibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Albany: SUNY, 1999.

Tāranātha. The Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsun Tāranātha. 17 vols. Leh,Ladakh: C. Namgyal & Tsewang Taru, 1982-87.

———. Collected Works. ’Dzam thang Edition, TBRC W22276.

———. Zab don nyer cig pa. In The Collected Works of Jo-naṅ Rje-btsunTāranātha. Vol. 4, 781-95. Leh, Ladakh: C. Namgyal & Tsewang Taru,1982-87.




Wangchuk Dorji. “The rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha Theory.”Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 48 (2004): 171-213.

Williams, Paul. “A Note on Some Aspects of Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje’s Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 11, no. 2 (1983):125-46.


Documents

burchardiJIATS_03_2007