Mahmudr in India and Tibet 2019027727, 2019027728, 9789004410404, 9789004410893

Mahmudr in India and Tibet offers a feast of cutting-edge research by European and North American scholars on key topics

272 32 2MB

English Pages 350 [351] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Mahmudr in India and Tibet
 2019027727, 2019027728, 9789004410404, 9789004410893

Table of contents :
Contents
Notes on Contributors
Introduction
Chapter 1 The Samādhirājasūtra and “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”: A Critical Edition and Translation of Verses 1–118
from Chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra
Chapter 2 The Seven Siddhi Texts (Grub pa sde bdun): Remarks on the Corpus and Its Employment in Sa skya-Bka’
brgyud Mahāmudrā Polemical Literature
Chapter 3 Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang
Documents and Beyond
Chapter 4 A Neglected Bka’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from
Gzhung and the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud Transmission
Chapter 5’ Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig on the Relation
between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa
Chapter 6 The Definitive Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo
rje’s Phyag chen gsal sgron
Chapter 7 Mahāmudrā as the Key-Point of the Third Dharmacakra according to the Sixty Verses on
Mahāmudrā by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes
Chapter 8 Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains
(lhag ma, avaśiṣṭa)
Chapter 9 Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā in the
Works of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje
Chapter 10 Assimilating the Great Seal: the Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of
Mahāmudrā
Index

Citation preview

Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet

Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library Edited by Henk Blezer (Leiden University) Alex McKay (University of London) Charles Ramble (École pratique des hautes études (EPHE, Sorbonne), Paris)

volume 44

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/btsl

Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet Edited by

Roger R. Jackson Klaus-Dieter Mathes

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: “DPal spungs Monastery, where Karma bKra shis chos ’phel edited and surveyed the production of the wooden blocks with the ‘Indian Mahāmudrā Works’ (Phyag chen rgya gzhung).” Photo by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Jackson, Roger R. (Roger Reid), 1950–editor. | Mathes,  Klaus-Dieter, editor. Title: Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet / edited by Roger R. Jackson,  Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2019. | Series: Brill’s Tibetan  studies library ; volume 44 Identifiers: LCCN 2019027727 (print) | LCCN 2019027728 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004410404 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004410893 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Mahāmudrā (Tantric rite) | Tantric  Buddhism–India–Rituals. | Tantric Buddhism–China–Tibet Autonomous  Region–Rituals. Classification: LCC BQ8921.M35 M34 2019 (print) | LCC BQ8921.M35 (ebook)  | DDC 294.3/4435–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019027727 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019027728

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1568-6183 ISBN 978-90-04-41040-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-41089-3 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Notes on Contributors vii Introduction 1 Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger R. Jackson 1 The Samādhirājasūtra and “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”: A Critical Edition and Translation of Verses 1–118 from Chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra 10 Paul Thomas 2

The Seven Siddhi Texts (Grub pa sde bdun): Remarks on the Corpus and Its Employment in Sa skya-Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā Polemical Literature 90 Adam C. Krug

3

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents and Beyond 123 Jacob P. Dalton

4

A Neglected Bka’ brgyud Lineage: The Rngog from Gzhung and the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud Transmission 142 Cécile Ducher

5

’Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig on the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa 170 Jan-Ulrich Sobisch

6

The Definitive Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Phyag chen gsal sgron 185 Casey A. Kemp

7

Mahāmudrā as the Key-Point of the Third Dharmacakra according to the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes 204 Martina Draszczyk

8

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains (lhag ma, avaśiṣṭa) 237 David Higgins

vi

Contents

9 Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā in the Works of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje 269 Klaus-Dieter Mathes 10

Assimilating the Great Seal: the Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā 302 Roger R. Jackson

Index 329

Notes on Contributors Paul Thomas received both his B.A. and M.A. in Buddhist Studies and Himalayan Language from the Rangjung Yeshe Institute in Kathmandu, Nepal. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is researching the intersection between Indian Buddhist tantra and Śaiva tantra. Adam C. Krug holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of California, Santa Barbara with a dual concentration in Buddhist Studies and South Asian Religions. His dissertation, “The Seven Siddhi Texts: The Oḍiyāna Mahāmudrā Lineage in its Indic and Tibetan Contexts,” is a comprehensive study of the history and interpretation of this early corpus of Vajrayāna treatises in India, Nepal, and Tibet. He has published articles on Buddhist ethics, Tibetan Buddhism in pop culture, and tantric epistemology in The Seven Siddhi Texts. His current research focuses on Buddhist demonology in the kriyātantra literature and the Indic and Tibetan cults of the Goddess Mārīcī. Jacob P. Dalton Khyentse Foundation Distinguished University Professor in Tibetan Buddhism, holds a joint appointment in South and Southeast Asian Studies and East Asian Languages and Cultures at UC Berkeley. He works on tantric ritual, Nyingma religious history, paleography, and the Dunhuang manuscripts. He is the author of The Taming of the Demons: Violence and Liberation in Tibetan Buddhism (Yale University Press, 2011) and The Gathering of Intentions: A History of a Tibetan Tantra (Columbia University Press, 2016). He is currently working on a study of tantric ritual in the Dunhuang manuscripts. Cécile Ducher (Ph.D.) defended her dissertation on the history of the Mar rngog lineage in December 2017 in Paris under the supervision of Matthew Kapstein. She is now doing a post-doctoral research in the EPHE/PSL (Paris) within the ANR “Social Status in the Tibetan World” (TIBSTAT). She is particularly interested in the history of the Kagyü lineage and the specificities of the tantric transmissions coming from Marpa.

viii

Notes on Contributors

Jan-Ulrich Sobisch has studied and taught Tibetology at the universities of Hamburg, Munich, and Copenhagen, where he was an associate professor until 2016. He has worked on autochthonous Tibetan traditions of mantra teachings in the context of the three vows of śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, and mantra adepts and the transmission of Indian tantric systems to and within Tibet. In the past ten years, he focused on the early ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud pas and their unique Dgongs gcig, a text that had a great impact on the formation of the Bka’ brgyud pas from the thirteenth century onwards. He is presently a researcher at the Ruhr-University, Bochum. Casey A. Kemp is a researcher and translator specializing in Indo-Tibetan tantra and Mahāmudrā traditions and is also a professional editor of Tibetan translations. She is currently completing her dissertation at the University of Vienna, which is titled, “Merging Views and Practices of Luminosity in the Early Tibetan Mahāmudrā Tradition.” She has published numerous articles on the concept of luminosity (prabhāsvaratā; ’od gsal ba) in early Bka’ brgyud literature. She is particularly interested in the transference of Buddhism from India to Tibet and the blending of philosophical views and yogic practices during the formative period of major Tibetan lineage traditions (11–13th centuries). Martina Draszczyk completed her doctoral thesis on buddha nature at the Department for South Asian, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies, Vienna University, in 2012. For the next six years, she continued her postdoctoral research work at this Institute with a focus on the correlation between Madhyamaka and the Dwags po Mahāmudrā tradition in Tibet. Her main publications are Die Anwendung der tathāgatagarbha-Lehre in Kong spruls Anleitung zur gzhan stong-Sichtweise (WSTB, 2015); together with her colleague David Higgins, Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way: Post-classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and BuddhaNature, 2 vols. (WSTB, 2016); and, also with David Higgins, Buddha Nature Reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Middle Path, 2 vols. (WSTB, 2019). David Higgins received his doctorate from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland in 2012. For the next six years, he was a Post-doctoral Research Fellow in the Department of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna, where he was exploring the relationship between Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka philosophies in Bka’ brgyud scholasticism during the post-classical period (15th to

Notes on Contributors

ix

16th centuries). His research interests include Indo-Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and epistemology, with a particular focus on Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā and Rnying ma Rdzogs chen doctrinal systems. His doctoral thesis was published under the title Philosophical Foundations of Classical Rdzogs chen in Tibet (WTSB, 2013). His recent publications include Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way (WTSB, 2016, 2 vols.) and Buddha Nature Reconsidered (WTSB, 2019, 2 vols.), both of which were co-authored with Martina Draszczyk. Klaus-Dieter Mathes is the Head of the Department of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. His current research deals with Tibetan Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and the interpretations of Buddha nature in the 15th and 16th centuries. He obtained a Ph.D. from Marburg University with a study of the Yogācāra text Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (published in 1996 in the series Indica et Tibetica). His habilitation thesis was published by Wisdom Publications under the title A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsawa’s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Boston: 2008). Recent publications include A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra) (Beiträge zur Kulturund Geistesgeschichte Asiens 90. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2015). Roger R. Jackson is John W. Nason Professor Emeritus of Asian Studies and Religion at Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota. He has published widely on various topics in Indic and Tibetan Buddhism. His publications include Is Enlightenment Possible (Snow Lion, 1993), Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre (co-edited with J. Cabezón, Snow Lion, 1996), Buddhist Theology (co-edited with J. Makransky, Routledge, 2000), Tantric Treasures (Oxford, 2004), The Crystal Mirror of Tenet Systems (with G. Sopa et al., Wisdom, 2009), and Mahāmudrā and the Bka’ brgyud Tradition (co-edited with M. Kapstein, IITBS, 2011). His most recent book, on Geluk Mahāmudrā, entitled Mind Seeing Mind, was published by Wisdom in 2019. In his next project he will return to his longtime study of the Indian Buddhist poet-saint, Saraha.

Introduction Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger R. Jackson Mahāmudrā (the Great Seal; Tibetan phyags rgya chen po) is one of the most important terms of art in later Indian Buddhism and the Buddhism of the Tibetan cultural sphere. First appearing in the context of Indian tantric literature – where it denoted, among other things, a particular hand-gesture, the clear visualization of oneself as a buddha-deity, and a female consort employed in sexual yoga practices – it acquired, over the course of time, an increasingly complex range of meanings, including the ultimate nature of reality; a meditative process in which the mind directly recognizes its own empty, luminous, and blissful nature; and the enlightened buddhahood that awaits at the end of the tantric path. Although Mahāmudrā was known during the first diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet (snga dar; 650–850 ce), it was during the second diffusion of the teaching there (phyi dar; post-1000), that it became a central term in Buddhist discourse. It was and is the very heartbeat of the various Bka’ brgyud lineages – especially those stemming from Sgam po pa (1079–1153) – but found a place of greater or lesser importance, too, in such traditions as the Rnying ma, Bka’ gdams, Sa skya, Zhi byed, Jo nang, and Dge lugs. Wherever it spread, Mahāmudrā was a fertile concept, giving rise to historical analysis, lineage formation, oral and written pith instructions (man ngag), inspired poetry, detailed meditation manuals, nuanced scholastic exposition, and vigorous philosophical debate. Among the key questions debated by Tibetan scholars were: Is Mahāmudrā solely a tantric concept and practice, or is there as well a Sūtra Mahāmudrā, or even an Essence Mahāmudrā? With which Indian Buddhist philosophical school – and turning of the Dharma-wheel – does Mahāmudrā most closely align? If Mahāmudrā is synonymous with emptiness, is that emptiness selfemptiness (rang stong) or other-emptiness (gzhan stong)? Does Mahāmudrā allow room for both sudden and gradual practices? Where, in Mahāmudrā meditation, is the line between calm abiding (śamatha; zhi gnas) and deep insight (vipaśyanā; lhag mthong)? Is there a place in Mahāmudrā for standard ethics, or rationality, or even language? Do the ideas and practices detailed within Mahāmudrā traditions amount to the same thing, or do they fundamentally differ? Although Mahāmudrā long has enjoyed popularity in the Tibetan Buddhist cultural sphere (including Nepal, Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, and Himalayan

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_002

2

Mathes and Jackson

India) and has attracted increasing attention from Westerners drawn to Tibetan Buddhism, critical scholarship on the topic only has gained real momentum in the past three decades.1 Following on the pioneering work of Herbert Guenther, a number of scholars in the 1980s and 1990s – most notably Michael Broido and David Jackson – sought to subject Mahāmudrā to careful historical and doctrinal scrutiny. Since the 1990s, the amount and quality of critical scholarship on Mahāmudrā has increased significantly, especially through the efforts of researchers in Europe and North America. Approaching it from a variety of perspectives, such figures as Alexander Berzin, Lara Braitstein, Karl Brunnhölzl, Elizabeth Callahan, Daniel Brown, David Gray, Sarah Harding, Matthew Kapstein, Ulrich Kragh, Peter Alan Roberts, Alexander Schiller, Victoria Sujata, David Templeman, Janice Willis, and the contributors to this volume have given increased depth and breadth to our understanding of Mahāmudrā in the Indian and Tibetan worlds. As Mahāmudrā has become the focus of increasing scholarly investigation, it has with increasing frequency been the subject of panels at international conferences, including the International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS) and, most especially, the International Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS). At the IATS seminar in Bonn, Germany in 2006, Lara Braitstein and Roger Jackson organized a panel entitled “Phyag rgya chen po: Perspectives, Debates, Traditions, and Transmissions,” which was informally aligned with a panel organized by Matthew Kapstein, entitled “For Karma Pakshi’s Octocentenary: Dialogue and Innovation in the Bka’-brgyud Traditions.” Braitstein and Jackson also organized a Mahāmudrā panel at the IABS conference in Atlanta, in 2007. After a one-conference hiatus, Mahāmudrā appeared again as the topic of an IATS panel at the 2013 seminar in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Klaus-Dieter Mathes, David Higgins, and Martina Draszczyk organized a panel there entitled “Toward a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions.”2 That a well-attended Mahāmudrā panel could be held at the very next IATS, in 2016 in Bergen, Norway – this time organized by Roger Jackson and Klaus-Dieter Mathes – attests to the continued growth of academic interest in Mahāmudrā and the increasing sophistication of various aspects of Mahāmudrā studies. It is the essays presented in Bergen (and two others not on the program there) that form the core of this volume.

1  For a survey of modern scholarship on Mahāmudrā up through 2010, see Jackson 2011. For more recent bibliographic information, see Jackson 2017, Jackson 2019. 2  The papers from the 2006 conference (with some additions and subtractions) were published in Jackson and Kapstein 2011, those from the 2013 conference in Mathes 2015.

Introduction

3

The essays range from studies of Indian sources of Mahāmudrā by Paul Thomas (on the Samādhirāja Sūtra) and Adam Krug (on the Grub pa sde bdun); to analyses of snga dar and early phyi dar materials by Jacob Dalton (on samayamudrā and mahāmudrā in Dunhuang documents), Cecile Ducher (on the Rngog lineage), Jan-Ulrich Sobisch (on the dgongs gcig literature), and Casey Kemp (on the tantric perspective of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje); to careful studies of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Bka’ brgyud sources by Martina Draszczyk (on the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa Chos grags ye shes), David Higgins (on the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje), and Klaus-Dieter Mathes (also on the Eighth Karma pa); to a discussion of the middle period of Dge lugs Mahāmudrā discourse in Tibet by Roger Jackson. In what follows, we will briefly summarize each of these essays, in the roughly chronological sequence just described. At the outset, Paul Thomas contributes a highly reliable critical edition and translation of the first section (verses 1–118) of chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra, which deals mainly with the emptiness of all phenomena in a manner reminiscent of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras. As part of his Mahāmudrā pith instructions in his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, Sahajavajra quotes several verses from this section (vv. 93, 94cd–98ab, 99, 102–103, and 106–107) to show that all phenomena or characteristic signs (nimittas) and related notions (saṃjñās) must be realized as being unarisen and pure. These quoted verses further express the inconceivable nature of this purity in a way typical of Mahāmudrā instructions that do not depend on formal tantric practice. With his edition and translation, Thomas thus provides the context for one of the major Indian sources adduced in support of Sūtra Mahāmudrā. Adam Krug’s contribution examines the Grub pa sde bdun, or Seven Siddhi Texts, a corpus of works composed by seven Indian mahāsiddhas that was widely recognized in Tibet as one of the earliest Indian collections of treatises on Mahāmudrā. Krug begins by arguing for the correct interpretation of the compound Grub snying gi skor (and its various permutations) as a reference to the Grub pa sde bdun and its related corpora of Indian Mahāmudrā works. It then presents a number of variants in the configuration of the Grub pa sde bdun that appear in Tibetan literature. These variants indicate a certain degree of fluidity in Tibetan authors’ conceptions of the corpus’ content and scope, and demonstrate a pattern that is consistent with the notion of “practical canonicity.” The chapter then turns to the Grub pa sde bdun’s appearance in a number of passages from a raft of Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā polemical works addressing Sa skya paṇḍita’s argument that Mahāmudrā can only be conferred and fully realized within the context of the higher tantric consecrations of the “unsurpassed yogatantra” or bla na med pa’i rnal ’byor gyi rgyud.

4

Mathes and Jackson

Authors on both sides of this debate are revealed as playing fast and loose with their sources by misrepresenting their content, ignoring any ambiguity in the form and function of the consecration rites recorded in the Grub pa sde bdun, and reading their own systems into the texts, even when there is little basis for doing so. Krug concludes by arguing that these tactics are not just a by-product of polemical writing – they are symptomatic of a broader rhetorical problem in the Tibetan conception of a singular, homogeneous “Indian tradition.” In “Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents and Beyond,” Jacob Dalton documents the usage of the term mahāmudrā from the late seventh through ninth centuries. Unlike the familiar texts of such mahs̄iddhas as Saraha, the tantric Nāgārjuna, Tilopa, Nāropa, and Maitrīpa (986–1063) and his disciples – namely, Mahāmudrā as the nature of mind in terms of bliss and emptiness and the final goal of the path – the Dunhuang texts examined by Dalton consistently take mahāmudrā to refer to the body of the Buddha. In this early material, the Buddha’s speech and mind are related to the dharmamudrā and samayamudrā, respectively. In slightly later texts, such as a tenth-century scroll with a Mahāyoga sādhana, however, the original meaning of mahāmudrā is extended to include not just the body of a buddha (or a deity for that matter), but also the buddha’s speech and mind. Dalton proposes that this reflects a development from the original meaning of mahāmudrā into the Mahāmudrā, with a capital M, known to later Indian and to Tibetan tradition. In “A Neglected Bka’ brgyud Lineage: The Rngog from Gzhung and the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud Transmission,” Cecile Ducher brings to light for the first time the illustrious family lineage of the seat of Spre’u zhing, which goes back to the Tibetan Empire. It flourished until the end of the sixteenth century, after which the seat eventually became empty, the estate having been handed over to the neighboring Gong dkar Monastery by the Fifth Dalai Lama. As the head of the Rngog Bka’ brgyud pas, this family lineage was instrumental in spreading and preserving Mar pa Lo tsā ba’s teachings. Key among these were one of Mar pa’s main protector practices, that of Dud sol ma, and seven tantric cycles, whose maṇḍalas came to be referred to as the Seven Maṇḍalas of the Rngog. The material examined by Ducher contains tantric Mahāmudrā only, and none of what Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas characterized as Essence or Sūtra Mahāmudrā; by the same token, in the Rngog Bka’ brgyud tradition there are no Mahāmudrā texts that start with calm abiding (śamatha) and deep insight (vipaśyanā) meditation practice. Jan-Ulrich Sobisch’s contribution is entitled “’Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig on the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa.” While Spyan snga Bkra shis rnam rgyal (1513–1596?) claims that up to Mi la ras pa

Introduction

5

the accomplishment lineage mainly involved tantric yogas such as Fierce Heat (gtum mo) or Luminosity (’od gsal), which are also part of Nāropa’s six yogas, Sgam po pa’s personal pith instructions to Phag mo gru pa (1100–1170) shed a different light on this issue. Depending on the yogin’s age, either Fierce Heat or Mahāmudrā instructions are given first. For young practitioners it is advisable to first obtain warmth through Fierce Heat practice. Elderly disciples, on the other hand, fare better by being first introduced to the Mahāmudrā of Inborn Union (lhan cig skyes ’byor phyag chen). In the material analysed by Sobisch, there is no clear determination as to whether or not Mahāmudrā can be realized without the six yogas. While Rdo rje shes rab, for example, explains in his Dgongs gcig commentary that the yogas are the only means to produce realization, the ’Bri gung speciality of the Fivefold Profound Path of Mahāmudrā (phyag chen lnga ldan) sets guru devotion in lieu of the six yogas, allowing a devoted practitioner to attain realization independent of, and thus not necessarily accompanied by, the path of means (i.e., Fierce Heat and the rest). Of interest also is that the more general teachings of the Fivefold Path prepare the necessary ground to ensure that one’s practice of the channels and winds (i.e., Fierce Heat and so forth) is a Buddhist path. Casey Kemp’s essay, “The Definitive Meaning of Mahāmudrā According to the Kālacakra Tradition of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Phyag chen gsal sgron,” is a study of an eleventh-century text on mahāmudrā written by Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje (b. 1027), who came to be associated with the Jo nang lineage and is considered a proponent of a “tantric gzhan stong” view. His only surviving collection of works is The Four Cycles of Illuminating Lamps (Gsal sgron skor bzhi), which seeks to clarify misunderstandings about topics central to Vajrayāna: emptiness, mahāmudrā, luminosity, and union (zung ’jug). Of these four, The Lamp Illuminating Mahāmudrā (Phyag rgya chen po gsal sgron) focuses on addressing wrong views regarding the definitive meaning of Mahāmudrā by relying on “canonical” literature, ranging from Nāgārjuna to Saraha to the Paramādibuddhakālacakratantra, which is the most definitive source for Kālacakra practitioners. Kemp explores how Yu mo ba draws from Indian sources to refute wrong views, asserts that the only means to realize Mahāmudrā is through the tantric path, describes Mahāmudrā as the spontaneous appearance of emptiness, and states that one must renounce worldly life and be guided on the path of cultivation by someone who has realized Mahāmudrā. Yu mo ba refutes Prāsaṅgika, Svātantrika, and even Rdzogs chen views of Mahāmudrā, claiming that Mahāmudrā cannot be defined through emptiness without appearance. Yu mo ba asserts that from reliance on authoritative Buddhist literature, particularly from the Kālacakra tradition, it is clear that attaining Mahāmudrā must be a realization of nonduality as the unity of

6

Mathes and Jackson

emptiness and appearance. Since according to Kālacakra sources this is described as the ultimate consort who manifests at the time of empowerment, Mahāmudrā can thus only be attained through tantric means. According to Yu mo ba, the Mahāmudrā consort is none other than Viśvamātā, Kālacakra’s consort, herself. In tantric cultivation, the yogin ceases conceptualization through his desire for the Mahāmudrā consort, and she spontaneously manifests as the pure appearance of the mind’s luminosity. This overview of Yu mo ba’s understanding of Mahāmudrā thus gives insight into the various debates and strategies for interpreting the definitive meaning of the term Mahāmudrā during the eleventh century and how these may have affected later tantric as well as nontantric interpretations. The next contribution, by Martina Draszczyk, is entitled “Mahāmudrā as Revelatory of the Key-Point of the Third Dharmacakra According to the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā by the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa Chos grags ye shes.” The Fourth Zhwa dmar pa’s (1453–1524) Sixty Verses are an excellent test-case for the reception of Dwags po Mahāmudrā in the so-called post-classical period of Tibetan Buddhism. This was a period when doctrines transmitted through certain lineages were systematized, contextualized, and synthesized. Well-defined teaching systems were formed and set off against others, a development that also led to intense intersectarian debates. In his verses, Chos grags ye shes displays Dwags po Mahāmudrā in all its facets. The author highlights the pith instructions transmitted in the Bka’ brgyud lineage, and follows Sgam po pa (1079–1153) in emphasizing the importance of the teacher’s blessing for the development of the student. Moreover, in tune with Maitrīpa and his way of bridging sūtric and tantric teaching systems, Chos grags ye shes presents the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the sense of Unity (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa’i dbu ma; yuganaddhāpratiṣṭhāna-madhyamaka) as the philosophical backbone for the practice of Mahāmudrā, while emphasizing a cataphatic approach that understands mind’s true nature not as mere emptiness but as coemergent wisdom imbued with qualities. The Zhwa dmar demarcates this from other Buddhist tenets that in one way or the other attribute various notions of existence or nonexistence to phenomena and the mind. He examines the required prerequisites from the side of both student and teacher and introduces the reader to Mahāmudrā practice. He also discusses and rejects criticism raised against this teaching system by Sa skya Paṇḍita, who was opposed to a Mahāmudrā practice that does not fully conform to the practice of the Unexcelled Yoga Tantras. In “Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains (lhag ma; avaśiṣṭa),” David Higgins examines the combination of Apratiṣṭhāna Madhyamaka with Mahāmudrā from the angle of the old question of what remains in emptiness.

Introduction

7

The topic is directly related to the discussion as to whether the acceptance of a remainder presupposes a distinction between two modes of emptiness, i.e., self-emptiness (rang stong) and other-emptiness (gzhan stong). Higgins further considers the related questions whether a buddha can be said to have knowledge ( jñāna), what happens during states of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), and whether goal-realization is best described by negative determinations (rnam bcad), positive determinations (yongs gcod), or no determinations or theses (dam bca’; pratijñā) at all. With this complex set of questions, Higgins examines how Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507–1554) understood the remainder in emptiness and how he used it to reconcile the affirmative and negative strains of Buddhist thought and praxis. The essay shows in particular how Mi bskyod rdo rje sought to accommodate an affirmative account of what remains within his non-foundationalist Madhyamaka philosophical orientation. Higgins concludes that for the Karma pa, this affirmative yet non-foundational remainder is best described as a “groundless ground,” an enduring mode of being and awareness that is available to first-hand experience yet irreducible to postulates of existence and nonexistence and the related views of eternalism and nihilism. In “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā in the Works of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje,” Klaus-Dieter Mathes shows how Mi bskyod rdo rje’s position of combining the via negationis of analytic Madhyamaka with the via affirmativa of Mahāmudrā fully profits from Maitrīpa’s radical nonfoundationalism, which still allows for ontologically unproblematic, positive descriptions of emptiness as luminosity or awareness. Following the tantric Nāgārjuna’s Caturmudrānvaya, Maitrīpa combines Mahāmudrā with the Madhyamaka view of “non-abiding” (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. The related practice is amanasikāra, which is not only taken in terms of its normal meaning of mental non-engagement, but also as “luminous self-empowerment.” The term lends its name to a cycle of texts by Maitrīpa, which played an important role in the writings of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje. Mi bskyod rdo rje thus combines Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka with the “Mahāmudrā of the nature of mind,” a term signifying that the uncontrived nature of mind manifests without effort in the absence of any dichotomizing reification. On the topic of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Mi bsyod rdo rje comes to the defense of Sgam po pa against the critique of Sa skya Paṇḍita, but follows a different approach than ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481). While the latter argues with reference to the Tattvadaśaka, its commentary, and Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra that there is a Sūtra-, or rather Pāramitānaya-based Mahāmudrā, which works without the formal tantric practice of the creation and completion stages, Mi

8

Mathes and Jackson

bskyod rdo rje warns that calm abiding and deep insight tend to be overstated as the exemplifying and actual wisdoms of tantric empowerment. Still, as Mi bskyod rdo rje points out, Maitrīpa teaches in his Kudṛṣṭinirghātana the attainment of buddhahood through the causal vehicle (i.e., Pāramitānaya). On a topic related to Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Mathes also shows how Mi bskyod rdo rje identifies in Maitrīpa’s description of the Vajrasattva-maṇḍala the possibility of an immediate access to the goal of buddhahood through pointing-out instructions (ngo sprod), as the deities are not cultivated as in the usual creation stage practice but directly pointed out. Lastly comes Roger Jackson’s “Assimilating the Great Seal: The Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā,” which considers the question whether the Dge lugs pa Mahāmudrā tradition – traced back to Tsong kha pa (1357–1419) but first publicized by the First​/F​ ourth Paṇ chen Lama, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1570–1662) – was originally – as some, including the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have claimed – a Dge lugs-Bka’ brgyud synthesis, which was stripped by subsequent interpreters of many of its Bka’ brgyud elements and brought into conformity with a hardening Dge lugs pa orthodoxy. Jackson focuses first on the Bka’ brgyud elements – especially text-quotations and meditation instructions – incorporated by the First Paṇ chen into his Mahāmudrā root-verses (the Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam) and autocommentary (the Yang gsal sgron me), then examines the contrasting attitudes toward both the Bka’ brgyud and Mahāmudrā evinced by two of the Paṇ chen’s disciples, the great A mdo master, Skal ldan rgya mtsho (1607–1677), and the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682), after whom little was written on Mahāmudrā for almost a century. Jackson then turns to the eighteenth-century renewer of the tradition, Dka’ chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713–1793), who wrote more on Dge lugs Mahāmudrā than any master before or since, and analyzes the ways in which his treatment of the practice tends to downplay Bka’ brgyud elements emphasized by the First Paṇ chen, while stressing what by then were orthodox Dge lugs pa categories, practices, and views. Although focusing primarily on doctrinal issues, Jackson also considers the political context in which Dge lugs Mahāmudrā discourse originated and developed. He concludes that while over the course of the century between the First Paṇ chen and Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Bka’ brgyud aspects of the Dge lugs Mahāmudrā tradition were increasingly overshadowed by Dge lugs pa elements, it is not really appropriate to say that the tradition was “Dge lugs paized,” because in its essential features, and especially in its philosophical view, it had been Dge lugs pa all along.

Introduction

9

We would like to thank our fellow contributors for offering their work for inclusion in this volume, and for their patience as it crept toward publication. We also would like to thank Patricia Radder at Brill for her guidance on matters great and small, as well as the anonymous reviewer for Brill, who provided numerous helpful comments and suggestions for improving the volume. We also are grateful to Gabriele Coura for preparing the index. Bibliography Jackson, Roger R. 2011. “The Study of Mahāmudrā in the West: A Brief Historical Overview.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’ brgyud Tradition. Edited by Roger R. Jackson and Matthew T. Kapstein, 3–54. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH. Jackson, Roger R. 2017. “Mahāmudrā in India.” Revised edition. Oxford Bibliographies Online. [Earlier versions: 2012, 2015.] Jackson, Roger R. 2019. “Mahāmudrā in Tibet.” Oxford Bibliographies Online. Revised version. [Earlier versions: 2012, 2015.] Jackson, Roger R., and Matthew T. Kapstein, eds. 2011. Mahāmudrā and the Bka’ brgyud Tradition. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, ed. 2015. “Towards a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions.” Zentralasiatische Studien 44: 7–144.

chapter 1

The Samādhirājasūtra and “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”: A Critical Edition and Translation of Verses 1–118 from Chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra Paul Thomas

1

Introduction

There is a convention in the Bka’ brgyud tradition to distinguish three types of Mahāmudrā: “Sūtra Mahāmudrā” (mdo lugs phyag chen), “Tantric Mahāmudrā” (sngags lugs phyag chen), and “Essence Mahāmudrā” (ngo bo’i phyag chen). These categories are not necessarily cut and dried, and there is a good deal of overlap among them, but a rough outline of their characteristics is as follows: Tantric Mahāmudrā is practiced in the context of standard tantric practice, i.e., the utpattikrama and utpannakrama (skyed rim and rdzogs rim; “generation stage and completion stage”), the four abhiṣekas (dbang; “empowerment” or “initiation”), and so forth; Sūtra Mahāmudrā does not necessarily rely on standard tantric practice, and may use teachings found in the Mahāyāna sūtras for instruction; and Essence Mahamudrā involves the sudden realization of the true nature of mind (tha mal gyi shes pa, “ordinary mind,” etc.), which is induced by a guru.1 A categorization that includes a sūtric Mahāmudrā practice, and indeed a systematized practice termed “Mahāmudrā” itself, seems to be unique to the Tibetans; there is no such system clearly laid out and established in Indian sources. However, as shown by Klaus-Dieter Mathes,2 traces of a “Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā”-style path that does not rely on standard tantric practices may be found in the writings of Maitrīpa (fl. 11th cent.) and his disciples, who are important forefathers of the Bka’ brgyud lineage. Mathes has written several essays about this matter, and here I wish to expand on his findings, focusing on the role of the Samādhirājasūtra in it. Harunaga Isaacson and Francesco Sferra3 have demonstrated that there is no solid evidence of Maitrīpa himself explicitly describing such a path; however, one of his important disciples, *Sahajavajra, in his ṭīkā commentary on 1 Shes bya kun khyab mdzod, 375f. 2 Mathes 2006; Mathes 2019: 142–159. 3 Isaacson and Sferra 2014: 412.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_003

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

11

Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka, explicitly states that the Tattvadaśaka teaches a path that is “in accord with the mantra system” and is superior to the standard Sūtra path, but does not involve initiation or the practice of the two stages. In addition, he associates this path with the term mahāmudrā, and what he describes is heavily resonant with later Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā (Mathes 2006: 219–221). In his ṭīkā, *Sahajavajra quotes verses 93, 94cd–98ab, 99, 102–103, and 106–107 from chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra4 in the context of his explanation of verse 7 of the Tattvadaśaka. Since this is an important example of an Indian author using sūtric sources to back up a Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā-style path, this essay will present Sanskrit and Tibetan critical editions and an English translation of the section of the Samādhirājasūtra from which these verses are taken. In addition, as a preface to the edition, I will provide a short explanation of the general doctrinal and practical context in which *Sahajavajra’s quotation of the Samādhirājasūtra occurs, followed by general information on the sūtra, some technical notes on the sources for the edition (including an interesting discovery concerning the Tibetan Phug brag manuscript), and some comments on the language used in the Sanskrit text of the Samādhirājasūtra.

2

The *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, the Samādhirājasūtra, and “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”

The Tattvadaśaka is a concise work of ten verses that describes the nature of tattva (“reality” or “that-ness” – here a synonym for “suchness” [tathatā]) – and gives some pithy instructions on how to realize it. Although there is no mention of mudrā (“seal”), abhiṣeka, or many other central tantric ideas, the text does come out of a tantric milieu, and the practitioner that masters tattva is described as svādhiṣṭhānavibhūṣita (“ornamented by self-blessing,” verse 9), and as “keeping the unmattavrata” (“vow of madness,” verse 9), both heavily tantric terms. The conduct and view described have some “non-dual” elements, and are highly reminiscent of the later Mahāmudrā teaching of the Tibetan Bka’ brgyud school. For example, phenomena are stated to be ekarasa, or “of one taste” (verse 5),5 and it is stated that “conceit concerning non-duality is

4 According to the verse numbering of the Sanskrit edition presented here. There are variations in the numbering of the various versions of the Sanskrit text, and since for vv. 1–118 the Tibetan translation is missing two verses that are found in the Gilgit manuscript, the verse numbering of the Tibetan and Sanskrit editions in the edition here do not match for most of the text. 5 Indeed, ekarasa (ro gcig) is one of the four stages of standard Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā practice.

12

thomas

itself luminous” (verse 7).6 It is a text that, while coming out of a tantric context, does not concern itself with the formal elements of tantric practice but rather focuses on the liberating insight that is central to such practice (and, with some variations, to Buddhist practice in general). Thus it is fitting that in his ṭīkā, *Sahajavajra characterizes the Tattvadaśaka as teaching a path that is outside of the standard tantric ritual framework but that is at the same time in accord with the Mantra system; in the introductory section of his commentary, he describes the text as “a concise pāramitā[naya] instruction in accord with the way of Mantra.”7 Later on, in his commentary on verse 8, he explains the difference between a practitioner of the path described in the Tattvadaśaka and a yogin of the guhyamantranaya (“secret mantra system”) on the one hand, and a practitioner of the standard pāramitānaya (“pāramitā system,” i.e., sūtric practice) on the other. He explains that the path taught in the Tattvadaśaka is inferior to standard tantric practice because it lacks some of the latter’s special techniques, while it is superior to the pāramitānaya because it involves special instructions on tathatā that must be received from a qualifed guru: Then what is the difference between [this kind of practitioner] and a yogin of the Secret Mantra system? Because his practice does not follow the sequence of the four seals, and because, lacking the taste of the great bliss of divine pride, he has a neutral form and thus takes a long time to attain complete awakening, there is a great difference. There is, furthermore, the following difference between [a yogin of this system and] a yogin of the pāramitā system: because [a yogin of this system] realizes the unifed tathatā of emptiness discerned from the instructions of a true guru, he is far superior [to a yogin of the pāramitā system].”8 Given the fact that the Bka’ brgyud tradition generally ranks all types of Mahāmudrā (including “non-tantric”) above ritually standard tantric practice, it 6 See the full quote below. 7 sngags kyi lugs kyi rjes su mthun pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag mdor bsdus pa. *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, 176a. 8 ’o na gsang sngags kyi tshul gyis rnal ’byor pa dang bye brag ci yod ce na | phyag rgya bzhi’i rjes su ’gro ba med pa’i phyir dang | lha’i nga rgyal gyi bde ba chen po’i ro med pas | btang snyoms kyi rnam pas mngon par byang chub pa dus ring pos rdzogs pa’i phyir bsgrub par bya ba dang sgrub par byed pa nyid kyi rnam pa bye brag nyid shin tu che’o || gzhan gyis pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul gyi rnal ’byor pa las ’di khyad par yod de | bla ma dam pa’i man ngag gi dpyad pa’i stong pa nyid zung du ’jug pa’i de bzhin nyid nges par rtog pas shin tu khyad par ’phags pa’i phyir ro |. Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, 192a.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

13

is interesting that here *Sahajavajra ranks the effectiveness of Mahāmudrā as below that of standard tantric practice; clearly the idea that a path that bypasses initiation and so forth would be equal or higher in rank relative to tantric practice would be quite controversial, as it was later in Tibet. If indeed such a teaching was promulgated in India, it seems it was not formulated as openly or in such exalted terms as it was later (and continues to be) by the Bka’ brgyud pas. *Sahajavajra quotes the Samādhirājasūtra in the context of his commentary on the second half of verse 7 of the Tattvadaśaka, which declares that any conceptual formulation of lack of duality is itself luminous: dvayahīnābhimānaś ca tathaiva hi prabhāsvaraḥ The conceit concerning lack of duality is, likewise, luminous. *Sahajavajra interprets this verse in terms of the abandonment of a certain set of four nimittas (“concepts”) that is found in both the Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī and the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, the former of which most likely used the latter9 as its source for them. They are enumerated as (1) the nimitta of relating to the psycho-physical aggregates (skandha) in terms of subject and object (grāhya and grāhaka); (2) the nimitta of the antidote (pratipakṣa), here defined as the six pāramitās; (3) the nimitta of śūnyatā/tathatā; and (4) the nimitta of the fruition (phala), here defined as the attainment of the ten bodhisattva levels. The latter three members of this set are also explained to be “[dualistic] concepts related to conceptualization of the remedy, etc.” (pratipakṣa- śūnyatāphala- nirūpaṇavikalpanimittāni); thus, in the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā *Sahajavajra refers to them as the “three conceptualizations” (dpyod pa gsum, *trinirūpaṇāni). He quotes Samādhirājasūtra ch. 32 vv. 93, 94cd–99ab in this context, describing it as an instance of the Buddha teaching that nimittas are unborn, and thus pure. The quotation is well chosen, for it does seem to teach exactly what *Sahajavajra says it does, with the minor difference that instead of talking about nimittas, it refers to saṃjñās – but these amount to the same thing. Indeed, right before he quotes the Samādhirājasūtra, *Sahajavajra equates the two (see below).10 The premise here is that not only should one eliminate the concepts relating to subject and object, but that one should also eliminate the

9 10

See Mathes 2005: 12–13. In the Abhidharmakośa, saṃjñā is defined as the apprehension of nimittas: saṃjñā nimittodgrahaṇātmikā (Abhidharmakośa 1:14d); the word can also be used to refer to the perceived aspect rather than the perceiving.

14

thomas

concepts related to the remedy for the afflictions (kleśa), those related to emptiness, and those related to the various results of the bodhisattva path. It is worth quoting at some length *Sahajavajra’s commentary on Tattvadaśaka 7cd, as not only does it show how the Samādhirājasūtra is used to explain the unique path taught in the Tattvadaśaka but it also demonstrates what the term mahāmudrā means in this context to *Sahajavajra, and by extension perhaps to Maitrīpa: Conceit concerning lack of duality is, likewise, luminous. (TDṬ 7cd) The intention here is as follows. In order that those who do not understand tattva may understand it, it is taught that one should abandon the four extremes.11 This is explained by the following verse: He who does not rely on the remedy, is not attached to tattva, And does not desire the result attains mahāmudrā.12 Here, the word mahāmudrā refers to the instructions on the tattva of mahāmudrā, the insight into the tattva of entities. As for the three conceptualizations…. “Lack of duality” (dvayahīna, gnyis dang bral ba) means “non-duality.” “Conceit” (abhimāna, rlom sems) means “[dualistic] conceptualization of tattva.” This is also luminous, as it lacks a nature, and yet at the same time is pure by nature.13 One should thus realize that both the object of accomplishment and the means of accomplishment have the nature of luminosity. In this context also, since one abandons the nimittas, this is called “mental non-engagement” (amanasikāra). What is referred to by this term is not simply not perceiving anything, e.g., a jug or cloth, like someone with their eyes closed; rather, not taking existent entities as perceptual objects, either by means of analysis or by means of the instruction of the guru, is what we call “mental non-engagement” here. As it is said…. Thus, [what is described here is] mental non-engagement regarding nimittas; in other words, the insight that there are no nimittas. Furthermore, “conceptions consisting of ideation concerning nimittas” (*nimit-

11 12 13

de kho na nyid yongs su mi shes pa dag gis de kho na nyid rtogs par bya ba’i don du. DRSM, 462. Sekanirdeśa v. 36: pratipakṣe sthito naiva tattvāsakto ’pi naiva yaḥ | gārddhyaṃ naiva phale yasya mahāmudrāṃ sa vindati ||. Mathes 2015: 388. gnyis dang bral ba ni gnyis su med par rlom pa de kho na la dpyod pa’i rnam par rtog pa de yang ‘od gsal ba ste | ngo bo nyid med cing rang bzhin gyis yongs su dag pa’i phyir ro. DRSM, 462.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

15

tanirūpaṇavikalpa) are the conceptions that apprehend nimittas.14 The Bhagavān has taught in the Samādhirājasūtra that these are unborn and pure: Concepts are explained to be designations in terms of intellectual apprehension; Concepts cannot be intellectually apprehended; they are taught to be void. (SRS 32:93) The nature of concepts being known, they will not arise. (SRS 32:94cd) He who has the concept, “I will eliminate concepts!” Deals in the elaboration of concepts; he will not be freed from concepts. (SRS 32:95) Whose concept arises, and who gives rise to it? Who contacts the concept, and who ceases it? (SRS 32:96) A phenomenon with a conceptual characteristic is not perceived by the Buddha; Consider the meaning of this, and concepts will cease. (SRS 32:97) If concepts are unarisen, whose concepts will cease? (SRS 32:98ab) Such a “lack of mind” and “lack of dualistic concepts” – which are simply mind that furthermore has no essence – do not lack existence altogether…. The Bhagavān has further stated: When one reaches liberation, all thoughts become inconceivable. When thoughts are inconceivable, one becomes inconceivable. (SRS 32:99) As are beings, so are thoughts; as are thoughts, so are the Victorious Ones; This idea was declared by the inconceivable Buddha. (SRS 32:102) When will the thoughts of one who contemplates alone in seclusion cease? None of the thoughts of one who contemplates thoughts will disappear. (SRS 32:103) One may contemplate many inconceivable thoughts for a protracted time And not reach the destruction of thought, as one has thought improperly. (SRS 32:107)

14

‘du shes ni mtshan mar ‘dzin pa’i bdag nyid can no (= AK I.14cd: … saṃjñā nimittodgrahaṇātmikā). DRSM, 462.

16

thomas

This thought is the great thought, the unsurpassable dharmathought. By means of this dharma-thought, true thinking will arise. (SRS 32:106)15 The way *Sahajavajra deals with the term mahāmudrā here is particularly interesting. He states that in this context mahāmudrā refers to “the instructions on the tattva of mahāmudrā, in other words, the insight into the tattva of entities.” The Tibetan translation of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā is quite erratic, and the grammar of the Sanskrit text is sometimes misrepresented; it is possible that the Sanskrit text actually stated that mahāmudrā refers to “the insight into the tattva of entities by means of the instructions of mahāmudrā.”16 In any case, it is 15

16

gnyis dang bral bar rlom pa yang || gang phyir de ni ’od gsal ’dod || ces bya ba smras te | ’di ni ’dir dgongs pa yin te |de yongs su shes pas de kho na nyid do || de kho na nyid rtogs par bya ba’i phyir dpyod pa gsum rnam par spang bar bya ba bstan pa yin te | mtha’ bzhi yongs su spong ba bzhin no || gnyen po’i phyogs la mi gnas shing || de nyid la yang mi chags pas || gang gi ’ang ’bras bu mi ’dod pas || de yis phyag rgya chen po shes || zhes bya ba’i tshig gis so || ’dir yang phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba ni phyag rgya chen po’i de kho na nyid kyi man ngag ste |dngos po’i de kho na nyid yongs su shes pa’o || yang dpyad pa gsum po ’di rnams kyang ste | … | gnyis dang bral ba ni gnyis med pa’o || rlom sems ni de kho na nyid du dpyod pa’i rnam par rtog pa’o || ’di yang ’od gsal ba’i rang bzhin las med pas rang bzhin gyis rnam par dag pa’i phyir ro || de ltar bsgrub par bya ba dang sgrub par byed pa yang ’od gsal gyi rang bzhin du rtogs par bya’o || yang ’dir rgyu mtshan yongs su spangs pas yid la mi byed pa zhes bya ba ni |’dir mig btsums pa ltar bum pa dang snam bu la sogs pa ci yang mi mthong ba ni yid la byed pa ni med do || yang ni rnam par dpyad pa’am bla ma’i man ngag gis dngos po mi dmigs pa nyid ni yid la mi byed pa’o | de skad du | … | de’i phyir rgyu mtshan gyis yid la mi byed la || rgyu mtshan med par yongs su shes pa nyid do || yang ni rgyu mtshan la dpyod pa’i rnam par rtog pa zhes pa mtshan mar ’dzin pa’i rnam par dpyad pa’o || de yang ma skyes pa nyid de rnam par dag bar bcom ldan ’das kyis bstan to || ji skad du bcom ldan ’das kyis ting nge ’dzin gyi rgyal po las | yang dag shes phyir mtshan mar ’dzin || nye bar ’dzin par nges par bstan || mtshan mar ’dzin pa med pa yang || rnam par nges na bstan pa yin || mtshan ma’i rang bzhin shes na yang || de ltar mtshan ma ’byung med ’gyur || mtshan ma ’di ni spang bar bya || mtshan med mthong pa la ’jug ’gyur || mtshan ma spros pa la spyod pas || mtshan ma las ni grol ba med || gang ’di mtshan ma skyes pa na || gang gis mtshan ma skyes pa yin | mtshan ma gang la gang gis reg |gang gis mtshan ma ’gog par byed || gang gis mtshan ma skye ’gyur ba || blo yis chos rnams thob pa med || sems ’di yis ni de bzhin sems || de phyir mtshan ma ’byung mi ’gyur || gang la mtshan ma ma skyes pa || ji ltar mtshan ma ’gag par ’gyur || zhes pa’o |. Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, 190a. Since the Tibetan translation of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā is at points incoherent, I have used my translation of the verses quoted from the Samādhirājasūtra instead of trying to represent them as they are found in the Tibetan translation. I follow Mathes (2015) in using ‘Gos lo tsā ba’s translation found in his DRSM for some passages in the commentary. The Tibetan text of this sentence reads: ’dir yang phyag rgya chen po zhe bya ba ni phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag ste | dngos po’i de kho na nyid yongs su shes pa’o |. From the

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

17

clear that for *Sahajavajra (and therefore possibly Maitrīpa), the term mahāmudrā can refer to a particular kind of insight, and possibly to the instructions related to such an insight. Furthermore, for *Sahajavajra this kind of Mahāmudrā belongs in the context of a path that does not involve the traditional tantric practices of the two stages and so forth but that at the same time is quasitantric, or, to put it in his words, “in accord with the way of Mantra.” This certainly foreshadows the Mahāmudrā of the Bka’ brgyud tradition, which, as we have seen, can be practiced outside of the context of traditional tantric practice but is still nevertheless considered “tantric” in some sense. In addition, *Sahajavajra’s use of the term amanasikāra ( yid la mi byed pa, “mental nonengagement”) in this context is also strongly evocative of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā, where this concept is central. It seems that we can see a direct line here between the thought of Maitrīpa and that of the masters of the Bka’ brgyud tradition. After all, Mar pa Lo tsā ba (fl. 11th cent.), the first Tibetan forefather of the Bka’ brgyud lineage, was a direct disciple of Maitrīpa, so it is perfectly natural that we should find such traces of Bka’ brgyud thought in the latter’s writings.

3

General Information on the Samādhirājasūtra

In addition to the specific instance of the quotations found in the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, the Samādhirājasūtra is also important for the Bka’ brgyud tradition in general, and their Mahāmudrā teachings in particular. In fact, they view Sgam po pa (1079–1153), one of the forefathers in the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud lineage, as a reincarnation of the central character of the sūtra who is the Buddha’s interlocutor throughout, Candraprabha (zla ’od), basing this claim on a prophecy in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Aside from the Bka’ brgyud pas, the Samādhirājasūtra was also quite important in India (for example, it is repeatedly quoted by Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā), and later for all schools in

context of the sentence and the grammar of its Tibetan translation, it appears that the portion of this sentence in which the definition of mahāmudrā is given could be a single compound, with the Sanskrit reading: tatra mahāmudreti mahāmudropadeśabhāvatattvaparijñānam. It could be that the translator, for whatever reason, decided that the syntactic relation between mahāmudropadeśa and bhāvatattvaparijñāna was an appositional one, as opposed to a locative (“the insight into the tattva of reality as found in the instructions on Mahāmudrā”) or an instrumental one. If, however, the translation faithfully reflects *Sahajavajra’s intention, mahāmudropadeśa would stand for the content or substance of the instructions, as it is being equated with “the insight into the tattva of entities.”

18

thomas

Tibet. It is also highly regarded in the Newar tradition of Nepal, where it holds a position as one of the navagrantha, or “nine texts” that are considered the most important exoteric Buddhist texts.17 Doctrinally, it is similar to the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and other works that propound the emptiness of all phenomena. It is quite long; in its various versions, it exists in thirty-nine, forty, or forty-two chapters,18 and has approximately 2,000 verses in Vaidya’s edition. Here, I present Sanskrit and Tibetan critical editions and an English translation of vv. 1–118 of the thirty-second chapter (the thirty-third in the Tibetan translation), the “Sūtradhāraṇānuśaṃsāparivarta,” or the “Benefits of Maintaining the Sūtra Chapter.” This chapter is the longest of the work, running to 280 verses, and it can be divided into two large sections. The first section (vv. 1–118), presented here, deals mainly with philosophical and metaphysical descriptions of reality and other Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrinal issues, and also contains the verses quoted by *Sahajavajra in his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, viz. vv. 93, 94cd–98ab, 99, 102–103, and 106–107. The second section (vv. 119–280) consists of a description of the benefits accruing to one who reads and propagates the sūtra, whence the chapter gets its name. The philosophical orientation in the portion presented here is similar to that of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, although no explicit mention is made of prajñāpāramitā. The important term that is repeatedly used is śūnyatā, and there is discussion of the fact that phenomena are “unarisen” and “unceased” (anutpanna and aniruddha), that they are free from being one and from being separate (eka and pṛthak), that they are similar in nature to the sky (gaganopama), and to a magician’s illusion (māyopama). The chapter applies this view especially to central Buddhist doctrinal ideas, declaring that ultimately even the path and result of Mahāyāna Buddhism do not exist (vv. 48 and 98), that there is actually no being that has ever passed into nirvāṇa (v. 28), etc. Also, as seen above, it explains that impediments to nirvāṇa such as saṃjñā ultimately lack existence.

17 18

Rospatt forthcoming: 14. The Tibetan translation has thirty-nine chapters, one group of Nepalese manuscripts has forty chapters, and another group of Nepalese manuscripts has forty-two chapters. Due to lacunae in the manuscript, it is uncertain how many chapters are contained in the Gilgit manuscript, but it is somewhere from 42–44; in the Chinese translation there are no chapter divisions at all.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

4

19

On the Meaning of the Term samādhi in Some Early Mahāyāna Sūtras

Skilton has shown that in certain early Mahāyāna sūtras the term samādhi refers to lists of spiritual practices and qualities, always presented by the Buddha to his bodhisattva interlocutor at the beginning of the text. There are five such sūtras known to be extant: the Pratyutpannasamādhisūtra, the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, the Samādhirājasūtra, the Praśāntaviniścayasamādhisūtra, and the *Sarvadharmapracārapravicayasamādhisūtra.19 In the Samādhirājasūtra the samādhi consists of some 329 items,20 and is named sarvadharmasvabhāvasamatāvipañcitasamādhi, “the samādhi that elaborates the sameness in nature of all phenomena.” Skilton concludes that we may translate the term in this context as “collection” or something similar, although he himself admits that this is still an unsatisfactory solution. I would like to add to his important research on this matter, by pointing to a possibility that is perhaps so obvious that it has escaped our attention thus far. Aside from its well-known meaning of “meditative concentration,” samādhi can also refer to a religious/ascetic observance or vow, or to the practice of the same; it is glossed by Mallinātha, for example, in his commentaries on Kālidāsa as niyama, tapas, etc.21 Now, the lists designated as sāmadhi in these five sūtras all have the same character, and their items are all what we would designate as “religious/ascetic observances,” niyama, or tapas, or the fruits of such observances. Thus it makes sense that the word samādhi in the context of these sūtras would refer to religious or ascetic practices and the fruits thereof, and by extension to a text that describes or enumerates such practices. The recurring exhortations to learn, recite, memorize and copy down the samādhis in these texts can thus be understood to be

19

20 21

Skilton, 2002. The first two of these sūtras are extant in both Chinese and Tibetan translation; the latter two are extant in Chinese translation only: *Sarvadharmapracārapravicayasamādhisūtra (觀察諸法行經; T. 15, 727b–749b (#649); for alternate trans. of this title see Skilton 2002: p. 72 n. 60), and the Praśāntaviniścayaprātihāryasamādhisūtra (寂 照神變三摩地經, T. 15, 723a–727b (#648)). The latter of these two sūtras is quoted by Prajñākaramati under this title (minus the word samādhi) in his commentary ad Bodhicaryāvatāra 1:34, and it is transliterated as such in the title of the Tibetan translation. In its longest version. See, e.g., Kumārasambhava I:22; III:24, 40; V:2, 6, 45, etc.; and Abhijñānaśākuntala, p. 42 (in the dialogue following I:22). It is unclear to me whether the only extant attestations of the word samādhi in this sense are to be found in Kālidāsa; it is also referred to in this sense in the Amarakośa (3.3.98) and other medieval thesauruses. In any case its obscurity would explain why it has escaped the attention of modern scholars, and even of Indian Buddhist scholars such as Asaṅga, on which see Skilton 2002: p. 88.

20

thomas

referring to the textual list of practices that make up the samādhi by the term samādhi, the same way we could say “copy down the meditation” to mean “copy down the text of the instruction or description of the meditation.” The entire text that focuses on such a samādhi could then also be referred to as a samādhi; thus the uses of the word that may be interpreted as referring to the text as a whole also make sense. Therefore the title Samādhirājasūtra may be translated as the “King of Observances Sūtra” or the like. These five samādhi sūtras may well be then closely related, and may have been produced by a single community of greater or lesser size, as Skilton suggests. The Pratyutpannasamādhisūtra and the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra were both translated into Chinese by Lokakṣema in the latter half of the second century; the Samādhirājasūtra is mentioned by Asaṅga (fl. 4th cent.) in his Mahāyānasaṃgraha and is also cited in the Sūtrasamuccaya, attributed to Nāgārjuna (fl. 2nd cent.).22 The attribution of the latter text to Nāgārjuna is disupted; however, based on its relation to the two other 2nd century samādhi sūtras and its archaic language,23 I think the first two centuries of the first millennium is a reasonable date to assign to the earliest recension of the Samādhirājasūtra.

5

Sources for the Text of the Samādhirājasūtra

The Sanskrit witnesses to the text consist of thirty-eight Nepalese manuscripts from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, an eleventh-century24 manuscript discovered in Tibet by Rahula Sāṃkṛtyāyana, the sixth-century Gilgit manuscript, a few fragments from the Schøyen collection, and two fragments from Central Asia. There is also a complete Tibetan translation and three Chinese translations, two partial and one complete. The two partial Chinese translations contain two and three chapters, respectively, and Narendrayaśas made the complete translation in 557 CE. The Tibetan translation was made in the early ninth century by the Indian pandit Śīlendrabodhi and the Tibetan translator Dharmatāśīla.

22 23

24

It is also reported by Chinese sources to have been translated by An Shigao in the 2nd century, but this attribution is doubtful. See Skilton 1999: 637. The language of the verse portions are not very Sanskritized, and include some examples of triṣṭubh/ jagatī in which there are mixed pādas of 11 and 12 syllables, which is a very archaic style. Seishi Karashima, personal communication (2019). This date is tentative, although probably reasonably accurate. For more information on the provenance of this manuscript, see Skilton 1997: 23.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

21

Andrew Skilton has done meticulous and exhaustive work in organizing and analyzing the material found in the various witnesses to the Sanskrit text, and from this information has determined that these witnesses represent four recensions. By “recension” he means “a distinct version of a text intentionally produced by an editor or redactor, thus excluding by my definition variations produced by the many accidental changes wrought over centuries by scribal error of one kind or another.”25 Skilton was also able to group the thirty-eight later Nepalese manuscripts into four branches, which he labeled A, B, C, and D. These Nepalese manuscripts represent two of the four recensions he has identified, the other two being represented mainly by the Chinese translation and the Gilgit manuscript, respectively. His four recensions are as follows: 1. That represented by the Chinese translation and the two Central Asian fragments, called the *Candrapradīpasamādhisūtra. This recension is similar in form to recension 2, although not identical to it. Both recensions 1 and 2 are shorter than recensions 3 and 4, missing many of the prose sections found in the latter two. 2. That represented by the Gilgit manuscript and the Schøyen fragments; this recension has no known title. 3. That represented by groups A, B, and C of the Nepalese manuscripts, the Sāṃkṛtyāyana manuscript, and the Tibetan translation, probably known as the Samādhirājasūtra. 4. That represented by group D of the Nepalese manuscripts, definitely known as the Samādhirājasūtra. This is a redaction of recension 3, in which the redactor cleaned up its language and “classicized” it, i.e., emended the more Middle Indic elements to Classical Sanskrit forms.26 The Samādhirājasūtra has been edited numerous times. Nalinaksha Dutt was the first to edit the whole sūtra, on the basis of the Gilgit manuscript (1941), and P.L. Vaidya later reworked Dutt’s edition in 1961. Although they made a major contribution to the study of the sūtra, both of these editions are unreliable; they frequently do not report variants or else erroneously report them. For example, Dutt does not report that the Gilgit manuscript reads saṃdhāyai in place of his saṃdhāya in v. 4b, emending it without comment; he fails to record the variant from the Gilgit manuscript in chapter 32 verse 6cd; in v. 97 (98 in the present edition) he reports that the Gilgit manuscript reads kadā saṃjñā anutpannā for the first pāda, when it clearly reads yadā saṃjñā anutpannā. This is just a sampling of these kinds of inconsistencies; they abound throughout both editions.

25 26

Skilton 1999b: 336. Ibid.: 343.

22

thomas

In addition to these two complete editions, there have been several editions of individual chapters made as well: there is Konstanty Régamey’s edition of chapters 8, 19, and 22 based on five Nepalese manuscripts (1938); Seiren Matsunami’s edition of chapters 1–7 based on three Nepalese manuscripts and the Gilgit manuscript (1975); Christoph Cüppers’ edition of chapter 9 based on twelve Nepalese manuscripts and the Gilgit manuscript (1990); and Skilton’s edition of chapter 17 based on eleven Nepalese manuscripts and the Gilgit manuscript (1997). This latter is the first attempt to represent one of the four recensions that have been identified; in his edition Skilton presents recension 3 from the above list. There is only one Indian commentary on the Samādhirājasūtra still extant. It is preserved in the Bstan ’gyur under the title Grags pa’i phreng ba (*Kīrtimālā), composed by a certain *Mañjuśrīkīrti (’jam dpal grags pa). It is sometimes helpful for interpreting the text, although in general it does not offer an in-depth commentary, tending to give light glosses or very brief explanations for each verse, and even skipping some verses entirely.

6

The Text Represented Here

All the editions except Skilton’s were made without a full awareness of the different recensions of the text, and thus are not necessarily clear about which text they are intending to represent. Thanks to the work of Skilton, we have a good idea about at least some of the recensions of the text that existed, and so can be clear about which text we intend to represent in an edition. The later Nepalese tradition of the text appears to be largely uncritical, and it seems to represent a recension of the text that, by the time it reached the form represented by the available manuscripts, was transmitted largely for purposes of merit-making, and not for close reading or study.27 It is thus full of mistakes and incoherent passages, which diminish its literary value. Given that we have Tibetan translations that can offer a window into a hitherto unknown version of the text, I have decided here to present an edition of the Sanskrit text that comes as close as possible to that used by the Tibetan translators. The various editions of the text found in different Bka’ ’gyur editions show a remarkable consistency in content; it is clear that they all have a common source, and the subsequent editing found in the Phug brag manuscript (on which more below) is easy to separate out from the original translation. Furthermore, it is in fact

27

Skilton 1997: 34.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

23

for the most part relatively easy to determine the reading of the Sanskrit source for the Tibetan translation. The Gilgit manuscript, Sāṃkṛtyāyana manuscript, and the Nepalese manuscripts do not diverge very much from each other in our portion of chapter 32, and when they do, the variant that was in the Sanskrit source text of the Tibetans is almost always easily determinable, except in certain cases, such as different pronoun forms, alternate Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit endings, etc. For the edition of the Tibetan text, I have presented a cleaned-up and edited version of the original translation, as far as was possible. The thirty-eight Nepalese witnesses all fall into the four main branches as determined by Skilton; I obtained digital scans of representatives of each of these branches from the National Archives in Kathmandu. Here, I use one representative each of groups A, B, and D, as, according to Skilton, group C does not vary significantly from group A.28 I have also used digital scans of the Gilgit manuscript obtained from the National Archives of India in Delhi. There are a few verses from the beginning of chapter 32 preserved in a fragment from the Schøyen collection, edited by Skilton. Aside from one variant (found in v. 12), this source adds nothing of value for our portion of the text, so I have cited it only in this one case. I have also utilized scans of photographs of the Sāṃkṛtyāyana manuscript; one of the frames is missing from these photographs, and unfortunately it is the frame that contains chapter 32, so that half of the text of this chapter is missing from this source. Where this manuscript drops off and continues is noted in the critical apparatus. For the Tibetan edition, I have used the Stog pho brang edition to represent the Thems spangs ma line, the Peking edition for the Tshal pa line, and the Phug brag manuscript as an extra source. In addition to this, I have consulted a version of the sūtra from an unpublished manuscript edition of the Bka’ ’gyur, first surveyed in 2000 by Heller and Pritzker-Roncoroni, at Gnas gsar Gompa in Dolpo, Nepal. The photographs that I used from this source were made at the behest of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes by the volumes’ owner, Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen and his daughter Tashi Bhuti in 2012–2013 at Gnas gsar.

7

The Status of the Phug brag Manuscript

From the evidence I have gathered in the course of editing the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, it appears that the text contained in the Phug brag Bka’ ’gyur stems from the same source as those found in the other Bka’ ’gyur editions, but

28

Skilton, personal communication, 2015.

24

thomas

was corrected against another Sanskrit manuscript at some later date. The identity of this Sanskrit manuscript is unknown to me. For the vast majority of the text presented here, Phug brag does not diverge from the other Tibetan sources beyond the normal minor variants. However, there are a few passages in which Phug brag carries a radically different reading that matches a reading in some or all of the Sanskrit sources. For these passages I have checked the readings of the Lhasa, Snar thang, Li thang, and Sde dge Bka’ ’gyurs, and they all agree with the non-Phug brag Bka’ ’gyurs used in this edition; that is, none of them share the corrections found in Phug brag. There is a group of such divergences that occur from the last pāda of verse 5 up through verse 7. Before verse 5d and after verse 7, Phug brag does not diverge at all from the other editions. From verse 5d through verse 7, however, it diverges from the other Bka’ ’gyurs in phrasing, word order, and, in a few crucial places, in meaning. The fourth pāda from verse 5 of the Sanskrit reads na śakyaṃ parikīrtitum, and this is translated by all Bka’ ’gyurs besides Phug brag as thams cad brjod par nus ma yin, which adds an element missing from the Sanskrit, thams cad (sarva), and also translates parikīrtitum simply as brjod pa and not yongs su brjod pa, which would be a more mechanically exact translation. Phug brag, however, correctly reflects the Sanskrit, reading yongs su brjod par mi nus so, both leaving out the extraneous element of thams cad and representing the verbal prefix pari from the Sanskrit parikīrtitum. The next discrepancy occurs in the following pāda, the first pāda of verse 6. The Sanskrit reads ekaṃ padārthaṃ cintetvā, which all other Bka’ ’gyurs translate as tshig gcig rnam par bsgoms na ni. This translation mistranslates padārtha as tshig (which should be representing simply pada), and misrepresents cintetvā as rnam par bsgoms na (*vibhāvya), when it properly should be bsam na. Now, Phug brag, which reads gcig gi tshig don bsam na ni, corrects both of these mistakes. Also, Phug brag reads thams cad shin tu sgoms par ’gyur for the second pāda of this verse, the verbal form shin tu sgoms pa perhaps reflecting the reading vibhāvitāḥ found in the Gilgit manuscript. Similarly, the first pāda of verse 7 in the Sanskrit reads nairātmyaṃ sarvadharmāṇāṃ, which all other Bka’ ’gyurs translate as chos rnams thams cad stong pa nyid, translating nairātmyam as stong pa nyid (śūnyatā), when we would expect bdag med or bdag med pa. Now, this is exactly how Phug brag has it; for this pāda it reads: chos rnam kun la bdag med pa. Also, it represents the final phrase of the verse, na durlabhāḥ, as rnyed mi dka’; the other Bka’ ’gyurs have dkon ma yin, which is not really incorrect, but is not as precise as the reading from Phug brag. Phug brag also changes the more obscure ltag na med pa to bla na med pa in verse 11b. After these anomalies, Phug brag picks right back up, following the other Bka’ ’gyurs as closely as they do each other.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

25

There is an even more interesting case found in verse 12. Here all the Bka’ ’gyurs aside from Phug brag agree, and they also agree with all the Sanskrit witnesses besides the Schøyen fragment, which agrees with Phug brag. For the first pāda of this verse the Sanskrit witnesses besides Schøyen all read (with minor insignificant variants) aṇu notpadyate dharmo, and all Bka’ ’gyurs besides Phug brag translate accordingly: chos ni rdul tsam mi skye ste. Now, there is a variant here found in Schøyen, which reads aṇur na labhyate dharmo. This is reflected by Phug brag, which has chos ni rdul tsam mi rnyed de.29 This is the only variant in Phug brag from this verse, and from verse 7 up until this point it matches the other editions, and goes on doing so after this point as well; this indicates that this portion of the Phug brag manuscript was originally identical to the other translations, and that it was deliberately changed. The final cases I will present occur in vv. 61–63, which correspond to vv. 63– 65 in the Sanskrit edition. Phug brag rearranges the order of the phrases in verses 61 and 62 to match the Sanskrit, and corrects one word in the first pāda of verse 63 to match what presumably was the reading in the Sanskrit manuscript used for the corrections. All Tibetan sources for this pāda read (with minor insignificant variants) sangs rgyas kun gyis bsten pa yi, which matches the reading from the Gilgit manuscript, sarvabuddhair niṣevitam. However, Phug brag reads sangs rgyas nga mas sten pa yi, which matches the reading from the Nepalese manuscripts and from the Sāṃkṛtyāyana manuscript, pūrvabuddhair niṣevitam. Thus, for this passage the Sanskrit manuscript used for the Bka’ ’gyur translation retained the reading found in the Gilgit manuscript, and the Sanskrit text used for the corrections in the Phug brag manuscript contained this alternate reading that is also found in the later Sanskrit manuscripts. The above evidence demonstrates that the text of the Phug brag manuscript for this portion of the Samādhirājasūtra shares a common source with the other Bka’ ’gyur editions, and was later corrected using an unknown Sanskrit manuscript that differed from the Sanskrit source text used for the original translation. The fact that outside of the passages detailed above Phug brag is more or less identical with the other Bka’ ’gyurs indicates that all of the Bka’ ’gyurs including Phug brag shared the same source, and that the passages in Phug brag that diverge from the other editions were changed at some later date. The only passages in which Phug brag diverges significantly from the other editions are ones in which Phug brag, in contrast to the other editions, correctly reflects some Sanskrit sources; and, furthermore, 29

It should be noted that there is a lacuna in the Gilgit manuscript here: it reads aṇu no++te dharmo, which suggests that it shares the reading notpadyate with the Nepalese manuscripts.

26

thomas

it diverges only where there is some egregious discrepancy between some Sanskrit sources and the other Tibetan editions. In other words, it does not change the text where there is nothing that could be perceived as a mistake that would need to be corrected. In some cases, it matches all the Sanskrit sources that I have used, the reading in the other Bka’ ’gyurs not correctly reflecting any of them; and sometimes it matches a reading from some Sanskrit sources, the other Sanskrit sources matching the other Tibetan editions. Thus, in the case of the reading mi rnyed/na labhyate from verse 12, we can see that the Schøyen manuscript shared this reading with the Sanskrit source text used to correct Phug brag, while the source text for the initial Tibetan translation shared the reading notpadyate with the Nepalese manuscripts and likely the Gilgit manuscript. Also, the reading nga mas/pūrva from verse 63/65 demonstrates that the source text for the Phug brag corrections shared this reading with the Nepalese manuscripts, while the initial translation used a source that shared the reading found in the Gilgit manuscript, i.e., sarva/kun gyis. Aside from these interesting considerations about the Phug brag manuscript, there is not much of importance to say about the other Tibetan sources. They all follow each other quite closely, with the Gnas gsar Bka’ ’gyur edition showing a few more mistakes and other variants, which all seem to be due merely to scribal error and other inadvertent errors in transmission. The Gnas gsar Bka’ ’gyur is quite a new discovery and has barely begun to be examined; aside from this edition, Amy Heller has done some work on it and Michael Zimmermann has critically examined the text of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra found in it.

8

The Language of the Samādhirājasūtra

Like most Mahāyāna sūtras, the Samādhirājasūtra is written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS), with the prose sections closer to standard Classical Sanskrit and the verses retaining more Middle Indic influence. To aid those unfamiliar with the characteristics of BHS, I will here outline the most salient features of the language that appear in this portion of the sūtra, all of which one may find comprehensively and meticulously described in Edgerton’s Grammar (BHSG). – Irregular Application of Sandhi: Sandhi is applied only sporadically; generally sandhi rules may be disregarded in order to maintain the meter. – Irregular Case Endings: There is a great deal of freedom with regard to the case endings of nouns. For example, short a (without visarga) is often found

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

27

as an ending for the first-case singular and plural of nouns ending in a/ā, again often metri causa. Also common are -ebhis or -ehi (in place of -ais) as endings for third-case plural masculines and neuters in short a, and -āna (in place of -ānām) for sixth-case plural of nouns ending in a/ā. For the third-case plural of nouns ending in i, we often find -īhi in place of -ibhis. For the masculine/neuter locative singular we also find -asmi/-esmi in place of -e. – Irregular Usage of Verbs: As a corollary to the irregular case endings found in BHS, the usage of verb forms also shows a large amount of flexibility. The third-person singular forms may be used for third-person plural, and also sometimes for the first and second person. There are also many uniquely BHS verb forms; the most prominent here is the third-person singular aorist form ending in ī. The tense of this form is not restricted to the past like the standard aorist, and in fact in our portion of the sūtra it always carries the sense of the present or future tense. Examples include pravartayī, v. 14b; prakāśayī, vv. 14d and 16d; vinayī, v. 20c, etc. – Variation in Vowel Forms: Vowels may be shortened or lengthened at will, most often metri causa. For example, in verse 1 we have parīkarma for parikarma, m.c., and in verse 38 we find ti for the first-case plural masculine pronoun te, also m.c. We often have -u in place of an -o that would result from a visarga sandhi, e.g., gocaru for first case singular gocaro (gocaraḥ) in verse 19, and saṃjñātu for saṃjñāto (saṃjñātaḥ) in verse 95, both m.c. Also note jānatī for jānāti in verse 43, and (pra) jānati in vv. 3, 18, and 92. The substitution of e for aya and of o for ava is also extremely common; thus instead of the Sanskrit bhavati BHS has bhoti, and in causative and class 10 verb forms there is e in place of aya, e.g., cinteti for cintayati, etc.

9

BHS Metrical Principles

Despite its idiosyncrasies, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit follows rather strict metrical principles. These are described in the work of Edgerton, most notably in his 1946 essay “Meter, Phonology, and Orthography in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.” One of the main differences between classical Sanskrit meter and BHS meter is that a word-initial consonant cluster (e.g., the cluster sth from the word sthānam) is treated as if it were a single consonant, so that a short vowel preceding it does not become guru (“heavy”), but remains laghu (“light”). This is the divergence most commonly observed in our text. According to Edgerton, this a strict rule, so that a short vowel coming before such a cluster cannot ever

28

thomas

be guru, but it seems that in our text it is sometimes allowed. For example, the second pāda of v. 33 reads aprati pratideśitāḥ; in this case the final i in the word aprati would have to be guru to satisfy the meter. Another example is the fourth pāda from v. 35, which reads tena śramaṇa ucyate. Here the a at the end of tena should be guru. Another deviation from classical Sanskrit metrical principles is that occasionally a pair of laghu syllables may be treated as one guru syllable. This is rather unusual in our text; one example of this is from the first pāda of verse 27, which reads parinirvṛtasya buddhasya. This gives us a pāda with nine syllables, when it should have eight. In this case, the two laghu syllables that make up pari are to be read as one guru syllable, thus satisfying the rules of the meter. This rule may be in effect also in the third pāda of v. 26, which is only found in the Gilgit manuscript. It reads aparyāpannā daśadiśe; here perhaps the first two syllables apa are to be read as a single guru syllable, although they are followed by a non-initial conjunct consonant, which would in theory not allow this. It seems this phenomenon is more common at the beginning of pādas.30

10

Editorial Approach

To the extent possible, I have standardized and “cleaned up” the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts found in the manuscripts. Throughout all the Sanskrit manuscripts, a visarga is used as punctuation; in all such cases I have taken it out and standardized the text. As is common in BHS, the Nepalese manuscripts take liberty with final nasals. For example, they would read buddhāṃ or buddhām for buddhān, etc. No such cases have been noted as variants in the apparatus, unless there is some ambiguity as to the identity of the word. In the Nepalese manuscripts especially, the sandhi of a doubled consonant following an r has been standardized to a single character (e.g., sarvva to sarva). The spelling of sattva as satva (as in bodhisatva) has been kept, as it is found consistently in all manuscripts. When there is a b in place of a v or a ś in place of s (or vice versa) it has not been noted as a variant in the apparatus, again excepting cases in which there is some cause for ambiguity with regards to the word that is intended. In manuscript B, a vṛddhi grade vowel is often used in place of the standard guṇa grade, e.g., kampainti for kampenti, anutteraiṇa for anuttareṇa, or dharmau for dharmo. Also, in this manuscript, the strokes that come above the main characters, i.e., repha as the first in a conjunct consonant cluster, the symbols for

30

Edgerton 1946: §10.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

29

e and o, and the anusvāra, are omitted sporadically. As there is no philological value in reporting these irregularities, they have not been expressly noted in the apparatus. There is not as much need for cleaning up the Tibetan sources, except as regards the Gnas gsar manuscript. Here we consistently find the da drag, as well as a subscribed y on m when it is combined with either of the vowels i or e, thus making myin for min and myed for med, etc. Also, in this manuscript there is always a tsheg at the end of every pāda, regardless of the letter preceding, and the genitive and instrumental particles are often confused. It seems the scribe rarely recorded gyi or gyis, usually replacing it with gi or gis; he also uses ’i and ’is for the genitive and instrumental particles yi and yis. This latter convention is also found in places in the Phug brag edition. I have generally not noted any of these irregularities in the apparatus, standardizing everything to conform to the conventions of modern Tibetan typesetting. For both the Sanskrit and the Tibetan editions, the punctuation (consisting of daṇḍas and shads) has been standardized without comment. Although all of these irregularities are passed over and corrected without being mentioned in the apparatus, if there is a variant that contains such an irregularity, it is recorded in the apparatus exactly as it is written. For example, if in the Sanskrit there is a variant reading sarvvāḥ for satvāḥ, it is recorded in the apparatus as it stands, without changing the double v to a single v. Likewise for the Tibetan text; if, for example, there is a variant bstand | (with a tsheg following the word) for bsten |, it will be recorded in the apparatus as it is written, without editing out the da drag or the superfluous tsheg.

11

Editorial Conventions

I have used a positive approach for recording variants in the apparatus. For every variant listed, I record the readings of all manuscripts that contain the passage in question. The lemma from the text is followed by a square bracket ( ] ), which is again followed by the siglum/sigla of the manuscript(s) that record(s) it, or if it is a reading that is conjectural or one that I have emended, it will be followed by “conj.” or “em.” After this are listed the variant readings in alphabetical order by siglum. Each variant is separated by a semicolon. In the introductory prose section, the variants in the text are referred to in the apparatus by line number, which is found on either side of the text. In the verse section, the variants are referred to by verse and pāda number. For example, if there is a variant in the third pāda of the fourth verse, it will be referred to by “4 || c:” If there is a variant for an entire pāda, it will be referred to by “Pāda

30

thomas

x – ” For example, if there is a variant from A, B, and C for the second pāda of the first verse, and the reading chosen for the edition is from G, the entry in the apparatus will read as follows: “1 || Pāda b – G; (variant) A, B, D.” In the prose section, the variants are recorded in the first register and pagination information is recorded in the second register. In the verse section, the variants are recorded in the first register, and the pagination and other miscellaneous notes concerning the texts are given in the second register. For the pagination of the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources, I use an opening square bracket followed by the passage that begins a new page in the source. For example, if folio 145a from the Sanskrit manuscript A starts with the word buddhasya from verse 13a, there will be a note in the second register of the apparatus that reads: “13 || a: [ buddhasya A 145a.” I have also marked where the Sankrityayana manuscript cuts off, as the verso of the folios of this portion of chapter 32 are missing in the photographs. Where the recto of a folio ends, I have marked it by including the final phrase found in it followed by a closing square bracket in the apparatus. So, for example, if the Sankrityayana manuscript’s folio 81a ends with the phrase na labhyate in the third pāda of verse 38, there will be an entry in the second register of the apparatus reading “38 || c: na labhyate ] S 81a.”

Acknowledgements This edition and translation would not have been possible without the support and guidance of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes, who provided the opportunity and means for me to undertake this work, in addition to offering invaluable assistance in the processes of editing and translation. Prof. Andrew Skilton also kindly supplied me with materials related to his previous study of the Samādhirājasūtra, in addition to providing guidance in the editing process. Christoph Cüppers also offered his assistance for this project; to all of these individuals I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

Bibliography Primary Sources The Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa: With Commentary of Rāghavabhaṭṭa, Various Readings, Introduction, Literal Translation, Exhaustive Notes and Appendices by M.R. Kale. Edited by M.R. Kale. Reprint of 1969 10th edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

31

Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa, Cantos I–VIII. Edited with Commentary of Mallinātha, a Literal English Translation, Notes and Introduction. Edited by M.R. Kale. Reprint of 1981 7th edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2011. Nāmaliṅgānuśāsanaṃ nāma Amarakośa of Amarasiṃha. With the commentary Vyākhyāsudhā or Ramāśramī of Bhānuji Dikṣit. Edited with notes by Paṇḍit Śivadatta. Bombay: Pāndurang Jāwajī, 1929. Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung. Edited by Chos grags rgya mtsho. 3 vols. Derge: Dpal spungs dgon pa, n.d. Samādhirājasūtra, chapters 8, 19, and 22, Sanskrit text with English translation. In Régamey, 1990. Samādhirājasūtra. In Gilgit Manuscripts. Vol. 2, pts. 1–3. Edited by Nalinaksha Dutt Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984 [Originally published in 1941 by the Calcutta Oriental Press]. Samādhirājasūtra. In Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts, edited by Lokesh Chandra and Raghu Vira. Revised and enlarged compact facsimile edition. Vol. 2. (Bibliotheca IndoBuddhica Series 151.) Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1959. Samādhirājasūtra. Edited by Vaidya, P.L. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts. Vol. 2:. Darbhanga, Bihar: Mithila Institute, 1961. Samādhirājasūtra, chapters 1–7. In Matsunami (1975). Samādhirājasūtra, chapter 9. Edited together with the Tibetan text and with an English translation; in Cüppers (1990). Samādhirājasūtra (fragments). In Manuscripts from the Schøyen Collection. Vol. 2: Buddhist Manuscripts. Edited by Andrew Skilton, 97–177. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002. Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla. In Isaacson and Sferra (2014). Shes bya kun khyab mdzod of ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas. 3 vols. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982. Tattvadaśaka of Maitrīpā, in Mathes (2015), pp. 485–488. Tattvadaśakaṭīkā of *Sahajavajra. (De kho na nyid bcu pa zhes bya ba’i rgya cher bshad pa). In Peking Bstan ’gyur (no. 3099) rgyud ’grel, vol. mi; 176a.2–195a.3. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long (DRSM) of ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal. Edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. (Nepal Research Center Publications 24.) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003. Ting nge ’dzin gyi rgyal po’i mdo’i ’grel pa grags pa’i phreng ba (*Samādhirājasūtravṛttikīrtimālānāma). In Peking Bstan ’gyur (no. 5511, iii) vol. 105; 1–189a.6.

Secondary Sources Cüppers, Christoph, ed. 1990. The IXth Chapter of the Samādahirājasūtra: A Text-critical Contribution to the Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

32

thomas

Edgerton, Franklin. 1946. “Meter, Phonology, and Orthography in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 66.3: 197–206. Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gomez, Luis, and Silk, Jonathon, eds. 1989. Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle: Three Mahāyāna Buddhist Texts. Ann Arbor: University of Michagan Press. Isaacson, Harunaga and Francesco Sferra. 2014. The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla: Critical Editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproductions of the MSS. Naples: Università Degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2005. “´Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal´s Commentary on the Dharmatā Chapter of the Dharma dharmatāvibhāgakārikās.” Studies in Indian Philosophy and Buddhism, University of Tokyo 12: 3–39. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2006. “Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and his Circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools.” In Buddhist Literature and Praxis. Studies in its Formative Period 900–1400. Proceedings of the 10th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, 2003. Vol. 4. Edited by Ronald M. Davidson and Christian K. Wedemeyer, 201–227. Leiden: Brill. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-Conceptual Realization. (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 90). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2019. “*Sahajavajra’s Integration of Tantra into Mainstream Buddhism. An Analysis of his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and *Sthitisamāsa.” In Tantric Communities in Context. Edited by Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger, 137–169. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Matsunami, Seiren. “Samādhirājasūtra.” 1975. In Memoirs of Taisho University, the Departments of Buddhism and Literature. Vol. 60, pp. 244–188 (= SRS, chapters 1–4); vol. 61, pp. 796–761 (= SRS, chapters 5–7). Tokyo: Taisho University Press. Régamey, Konstanty. 1990. Philosophy in the Samādhirājasūtra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Originally published in Warsaw, 1938.] Rospatt, Alexander von. Forthcoming. “The Survival of Indian Buddhism in Nepal.” Forthcoming in The Blackwell Companions to Buddhism. Vol. 1: Blackwell Companion to South and Southeast Asian Buddhism. Edited by Michael Zimmermann. Skilton, Andrew. 1997. “The Samādhirāja Sūtra: A Study Incorporating a Critical Edition and Translation of Chapter 17.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford. Skilton, Andrew. 1999a. “Dating the Samādirājasūtra.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 27.6: 635–652.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

33

Skilton, Andrew. 1999b. “Four Recensions of the Samādhirājasūtra.” Indo-Iranian Journal 42.4: 335–356. Skilton, Andrew. 2000. “The Gilgit Manuscript of the Samādhirāja Sūtra.” Central Asiatic Journal 44.1: 67–86. Skilton, Andrew. 2002. “State or Statement? ‘Samādhi’ in Some Early Mahāyāna Sutras’.” The Eastern Buddhist (New Series), 34.2: 51–93. Zimmermann, Michael. 2002. A Buddha Within: The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Earliest Exposition of the Buddha-nature Teaching in India. (Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, 6.) Edited by Hiroshi Kanno. Tokyo: Soka University.

34

thomas

Key to Sources Used in This Edition Sanskrit Manuscripts

Siglum

Description

A

Representative of Skilton's “group A.” Dated 1740 (N.S. 860). 234 folios; paper, complete. Newari script. Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project (NGMPP) # D-53/6. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 144a.6 – 150a.5. Representative of Skilton's “group B.” Dated 1685 (N.S. 805). 285 folios; paper, complete. Newari script. NGMPP C-43/3. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 176a.5 – 182b.5. Representative of Skilton's “group D.” Dated 1667 (N.S. 787). 183 folios; paper, complete. Newari script. NGMPP B-93/5. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 113a.3 – 117b.2. Gilgit manuscript. 6th century. 162 folios from an original total of 177; birch bark. Gupta script. National Archives of India in Delhi, Serial no. 46. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 108a.1 – 113b.4 Sāṅkṛtyāyana manuscript. C. 11th century. 107 folios; palm leaf, incomplete. North Indian Nāgarī script. Photographic prints available from the University of Göttingen: Göttingen Xc 14/31 (Bandurski #30). Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 78a.6 – 81a.5 (frame 9a – 9b, fols. 6.6 – 9.5)

B

D

G

S

Tibetan Sources

Siglum

Description

N

Näsar Kangyur (gnas gsar) mdo sde rgyas pa, vol. nga; fols. 40b.5 – 219b.4. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 149a.2 – 153b.4. Peking Kangyur. mdo sde, vol. thu; fols. 1b.1 – 185a.8. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1962. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: fols. 110b.4 – 115b.2. Phukdrak Kangyur (phug brag). mdo sde, vol. tsha; fols. 1b.1 – 249a.3. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: 157a.5 – 163a.1. Tok Palace Kangyur (stog pho brang). mdo sde, vol. ja; fols. 145a.7 – 405a.1. Leh: Mentsi Sherik Pedzöd (sman rtsis shes rig dpe mzod), 1975. Ch. 32 vv. 1–188: 303a.4 – 309b.2.

Q P S

36

thomas

Critical Edition

ततर् भगवान् पुनरिप च दर्पर्भं कुमारभूतम् आमन्तर्यते म॥ त मात् तिहर् कुमार बोिधसत्वेन महासत्वेन सवर्धमार्णां महािभज्ञापिरकमर् पिरशोधियतुकामेनायं सवर्धमर्स्वभावसमतािवपिञ्जतसमािधः शर्ोत य उद्गर्हीत यः पयर्वाप्त यो धारियत यो वाचियत यः पर्वर्तियत य उद्देष्ट य स्वा यात यो ऽरणाभावनया भावियत यो बहुलीकतर् यः परे यश्च िव तरे ण संपर्काशियत यः॥ कतमच्च तत्

5

कुमार सवर्धमार्णां महािभज्ञापिरकमर्। यदुत सवर्धमार्णामपिरगर्हः। अपरामषर्ः शील क ध य। अम यना समािध क ध य। अपर्चारः पर्ज्ञा क ध य। िववेकदशर्नं िवमुिक्त क ध य। यथाभूतदशर्नं िवमुिक्तज्ञानदशर्न क ध य॥ ययािभज्ञया सम वागतो बोिधसत्वो महासत्वः सवर्समािधिवकुिवर्तािन िवकुवर्न् सत्वानां धमर्ं देशयित। इदमु यते कुमार सवर्धमार्णां महािभज्ञापिरकमेर्ित॥ अथ खलु भगवां त यां वेलायां च दर्पर्भ य कुमारभूत येमं सवर्धमार्णां महािभज्ञापिरकमर्िनदेर्शधमर्पयार्यं

10

गाथािभगीतेन िव तरे ण संपर्काशयित म॥

1 ततर्] A, B, D, S; ततर् खलु G. ‖ पुनरिप] A, B, D, S; पुनरे व G. ‖ कुमारभूतम्] A, B, D, S; मारभूतं G.

2 सवर्-

धमार्णां] A, D, S; सवैर्धमार्णा B; om. G. ‖ महािभज्ञापिरकमर्] B, D, G, S; महािभज्ञपिरकमर् A. ‖ पिरशोधियतु॰] S; शोधियतु॰ A, B, D; पिर++ियतु॰ G. िञ्चतः समािधः B, D, S; समािध G.

2–3 सवर्धमर्स्वभावसमतािवपिञ्जतसमािधः] em.; ॰िव पिञ्चतः समािधः A; ॰िवप3 शर्ोत य] A, B, D, S; धारियत य G. ‖ पर्वर्तियत य उद्देष्ट य] D, G; पर्वर्तियत य

देशियत य उपदेष्ट यः A; पर्वर्तियत य उद्यष्ट यः B.

4 ऽरणाभावनया] A, D; अरणार्भावणाया B; om. G. ‖ बहुली-

कतर् यः] A, B, D; om. in G. ‖ कतमच्च तत्] B, D, G; कतमश्च तत् A.

conj.; om. A, B, D; सवर्धमार्णाम् अिभज्ञापिरकमर्ः यदुत G.

5 सवर्धमार्णां महािभज्ञापिरकमर्। यदुत]

6 अम यना] A, D, G; अम यनाम B. ‖ िववेकदशर्नं

िवमुिक्त॰] G; िववेकदशर्ननं िवमुिक्त॰ A; िववेकदशर्निवमुिक्त॰ B, D.

7 यथाभूतदशर्नं िवमुिक्तज्ञानदशर्न क ध य॥]

A, D; ॰दशर्निवमुिक्तज्ञानदशन॰ B; यथाभूतदशर्नं िवमुिक्तज्ञानदशर्न क ध य। स्वभावशू यतादशर्नं सवर्धमार्णाम्॥ G. ‖ ययािभज्ञया] G; यथािभज्ञया A, B, D.

8 ॰िवकुिवर्तािन िवकवर्न्] B, D; ॰िवकुिवर्तािन िवक्तव्वर्ं A; ॰िवकुवार्िभिवकु -

वर्न् G. ‖ सत्वानां] A, G; सवर्सत्वानां B, D. ‖ देशयित। इदमु यते] G; देशयतीयदमु यते A; देशयीतीदमु यते B, D. ‖ सवर्धमार्णां] B, D; सवर्धमार्णा A; om. G.

G.

8–10 अथ … म॥] अथ खलु भगवां त यां वेलायाम् इमा गाथा अभाषत॥

9 च दर्पर्भ य] A, D; च दर्पर्भं B. ‖ सवर्धमार्णां महा॰] B, D; सव्वर्धमार्महा॰ A. ‖ ॰िनदेश र् धमर्पयार्यं गाथा॰] B;

॰िनदेश र् ं धमर्ं पयार्यां गाथा॰ A; ॰िनदेश र् ं धमर्पयार्यं गाथा॰ D.

10 संपर्काशयित म॥] B, D; संपर्काशिय यित म॥ A.

1 A 144a.6; B 176a.5; D 113a.3; G 108a.1; S 78a.6 (frame 9, fol. 6.6) उद्गर्हीत यः] S 78a ‖ [ उद्गर्हीत यः A 144b

10 [ ॰गीतेन िव तरे ण D 113b

2 [ अयं सवर्धमर्स्वभाव॰ B 176b

3

37

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

དེ་ནས་ཡང་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ཀྱིས་ཟླ་འོད་གཞོན་ནུར་གྱུར་པ་ལ་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། གཞོན་ནུ་དེ་ལྟ་བས་ན་བྱང་ཆུབ་ སེམས་དཔའ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཆེན་པོ་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་ཡོངས་སུ་སྦྱང་བར་ འདོད་པས་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་མཉམ་པ་ཉིད་རྣམ་པར་སྤྲོས་པའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་འདི་མཉན་པར་བྱ། གཟུང་ བར་བྱ། ཀུན་ཆུབ་པར་བྱ། བཅང་བར་བྱ། ཀླག་པར་བྱ། རབ་ཏུ་གདོན་པར་བྱ། ལུང་གནོད་ཅིང་ཁ་ཏོན་ཁ་ཏོན་དུ་བྱ། ཉོན་ མོངས་པ་མེད་པའི་སྒོམ་པས་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། མང་དུ་བྱ། གཞན་ལ་ཡང་རྒྱ་ཆེར་ཡང་དག་པར་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་པར་བྱའོ།།

5

གཞོན་ནུ་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་གང་ཞེ་ན། འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ ཡོངས་སུ་འཛིན་པ་མེད་ཅིང་ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་ཀྱི་ཕུང་པོ་མཆོག་ཏུ་མི་འཛིན་པ། ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་ཕུང་པོ་རློམ་སེམས་མེད་པ། ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕུང་པོ་རྒྱུ་བ་མེད་པ། རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བའི་ཕུང་པོ་དབེན་པར་མཐོང་བ། རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་མཐོང་ བའི་ཕུང་པོ་ཡང་དག་པ་ཇི་ལྟ་བ་བཞིན་དུ་མཐོང་བ་སྟེ། བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཆེན་པོ་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ དེ་དང་ལྡན་པས་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་རྣམ་པར་འཕྲུལ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས་རྣམ་པར་འཕྲུལ་ཞིང་སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་ལ་ཆོས་ སྟོན་པ་འདི་ནི་གཞོན་ནུ་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ནས་དེའི་ཚེ་བཅོམ་ ལྡན་འདས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་བསྟན་པའི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་གྲངས་འདི་ཟླ་ འོད་གཞོན་ནུར་གྱུར་པ་ལ་ཚིགས་སུ་བཅད་པའི་དབྱངས་ཀྱིས་རྒྱ་ཆེར་ཡང་དག་པར་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་ཏོ།།

1 གཞོན་ནུ] P, Q, S; གཞོ་ནུ N ff. ‖ སྩལ་པ།] Q, P, S; བསྩལད་པ་། N. 2–3 སྦྱང་བར་འདོད་པས་] S; སྦྱངས་པར་འདོད་པས་ Q; སྦྱངས་ བར་འདོད་པས་ P; སྦྱངས་འདོད་པས་ N. 3 ཀྱི་] N, Q, S; ཀྱིས་ P. ‖ མཉན་] N, Q, S; མཉམ་ P. 3–4 གཟུང་] Q, S; བཟུང་ P, N. 4 བཅང་] N, Q, S; ཅང་ P. ‖ ཀླག་] N, P, Q; བཀླགས་ S. ‖ གདོན་] P, Q, S; འདོན་ N. ‖ གནོད་] P, Q; ནོད་ N; མནོད་ S. ‖ ཁ་ཏོན་ ] N, Q, S; ཁ་དོན་ P. 4–5 ཉོན་མོངས་པ་མེད་པའི་སྒོམ་པས་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ།] N; ཉོན་མོངས་པ་མེད་པས་བསྒོམས་པར་བྱ། P; ཉོན་མོངས་པ་མེད་པས་ བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། Q; ཉོན་མོངས་པ་མེད་པའི་བསྒོམ་པས་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། S.

5 མང་དུ་བྱ།] P, Q, S; མང་དུ་བྱད། N, corr. from མང་དུ་བྱེད། 6 ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་] N, Q, S; ཆེན་པོ་བྱི་དོར་ P. ‖ གང་ཞེ་ན།] N, Q, S; ཞེ་ན་ P. 7 མི་འཛིན་པ།] N, Q, S; མི་སྙོམས་པ། P. ‖ ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་] P, Q, S; ཏིང་འཛིནད་ N. ‖ རློམ་སེམས་] N, Q, S; རློམས་སེམས་ P. 8–9 རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་མཐོང་བའི་ཕུང་པོ་] Q, S; རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་ བའི་ཕུང་པོ་ N; རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་མཐོང་བ་ལ། ཕུང་པོ་ P. 9 མཐོང་བ་སྟེ།] N, Q, S; མི་མཐོང་བ་སྟེ། P. 9–10 མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་དེ་དང་ ལྡན་པས་] P, S; མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་དེ་དང་ལྡན་པས་ N; མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པ་དེ་དེག་དང་ལྡན་པས་ Q.

10 ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་རྣམ་པར་འཕྲུལ་ པ་] Q; ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིནད་རྣམ་པར་སྤྲུལ་པ་ N; ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱིས་རྣམ་པར་སྤྲུལ་པ་ P; ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་རྣམ་པར་སྤྲུལ་པ་ S. 12 བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་བསྟན་པའི་] Q; བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བ་བསྟན་པ་ P, S; བྱི་དོར་བྱ་བར་བསྟནད་པ་ N.

1 N 149a.2; P 157a.8; Q 110b.4; S 303a.4 10 [ གྱི་རྣམ་པར་འཕྲུལ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ Q 111a

13 ཡང་དག་པར་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་ཏོ།།] Q, S; རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་ཏོ།། N; ཡང་དག་རབ་ཏུ་སྟན་ཏོ།། P. 6 [ ཤེས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་བྱི་དོར་ S 303b

7 [ པོ་མཆོག་ཏུ་མི་འཛིན་པ། P 157b

10

38

thomas

महािभज्ञापरीकमर् अिववादेन देिशतम्। िववादे य तु चरित नोद्ग ृह्णन् स िवमु यते॥१॥ अिभज्ञा त य सा पर्ज्ञा बोद्धं ज्ञानमिचिन्तयम्। उद्गर्हे यः ि थतो भोित ज्ञानं त य न िवद्यते॥२॥ बहवो ऽिचिन्तया धमार् ये श देन पर्कािशताः। य ततर् िनिवशे छ दे स धाभा यं न जानित॥३॥ स धाभा यमजानानः िकं स धायै तु भािषतम्। अधमर्ं भाषते धमर्ं धमर्तायामिशिक्षतः॥४॥ लोकधातुसहसर्ेषु ये मया सूतर् भािषताः। नाना यञ्जन एकाथार् न शक्यं पिरकीितर्तुम्॥५॥ एकं पदाथर्ं िचन्तेत्वा सवेर् ते भोिन्त भािवताः। यावन्तः सवर्बुद्धेिभबर्हुधमार्ः पर्कािशताः॥६॥

1 ‖ a: ॰परीकमर् ] G, m.c.; पिरकमर् A, B, D. ‖ b: अिववादेन देिशतम्। ] B, D, G; अिववादेिशतं। A. ‖ c: चरित ] A, B, D; चपरित G. ‖ d: िवमु यते॥ ] D, G; +मु यते। A; िवमु येते॥ B.

2 ‖ a: सा पर्ज्ञा ] A, D; शा पर्ज्ञा B; पंचत ै े G. ‖ b:

बोद्धं ] A, G; बौद्धं B, D. ‖ b: अिचिन्तयम्। ] A, B, D; अिचन्तयं। G. ‖ c: उद्गर्हे ] A, D, G; उद्गर्ह B.

3 ‖ b: पर्कािशताः

] A, B, D; िपकािशताः G. ‖ c: य ततर् ] A, D, G; य तर् B. ‖ c: िनिवशे छ दे ] D, G; िनिवसे छ दे A; िनिवशे छ द B. ‖ d: स धाभा यं ] D, G; सत्वाभा यं A, B

4 ‖ a: स धाभा यम् ] D, G; सत्वाभा यम् A, B. ‖ a: अजानानः ] A, D;

अजानान G; अजातानः B. ‖ b: स धायै ] D, G; सत्वाये A; सत्वायै B. ‖ b: भािषतम्। ] B, D, G; भािषतुम् A. ‖ c: भाषते धमर्ं ] B, D; भाषते A; om. G. ‖ d: धमर्तायाम् ] A, D, G; धमर्भायाम् B.

‖ b: ये ] A, D, G; य B.

5 ‖ a: ॰सहसर्ेषु ] A, D, G; ॰सहातर्ष्टा B.

6 ‖ a: िचन्तेत्वा ] D, G; िचत्तेत्वा A, B. ‖ b: भोिन्त ] A, B, G; शािन्त D. ‖ b: भािवताः। ] B, D;

भािषताः। A; िवभािवताः G. ‖ c–d: ॰बुद्धेिभबर्हुधमार्ः पर्कािशताः॥ ] G; ॰बुद्धे बहुमार्नदुलर्भा॥ A, cf. 7d; ॰बुद्धेिह बुद्धधमार्ः पर्कािशताः॥ B; ॰बुद्धेिभ बहू धमार्ः पर्कािशताः। D.

1 ‖ b: [ ॰िववादेन देिक्षतम्। G 108b ‖ c: [ य तु चरित B 177a

3 ‖ c: [ य ततर् A 145a

4 ‖ b: Here संधायै

seems to be used as a gerund, normally spelled संधाय. I could find no explanation for the alternate spelling; however, as it is possible that it is an acceptable BHS form not recorded by Edgerton, I have kept it without emending.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

39

།མངོན་ཤེས་ཆེན་པོ་ཡོངས་སྦྱངས་པ། །རྩོད་པ་མེད་པར་བསྟན་པ་སྟེ། །རྩོད་པ་དག་ལ་གང་སྤྱོད་ཅིང་། །འཛིན་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་མི་ཐར། ༡ །མངོན་ཤེས་དེ་ཡི་ཤེས་རབ་སྟེ། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །འཛིན་པ་ལ་ནི་གང་གནས་པ། །དེ་ལ་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཡོད་མི་འགྱུར། ༢ །གང་དག་སྒྲ་ཡིས་བསྟན་པ་ཡི། །ཆོས་རྣམས་མང་པོ་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །སྒྲ་དེ་ལ་ཡང་གང་ཆགས་པ། །དགོངས་པའི་བཤད་པ་མི་ཤེས་སོ། ༣ །ཅི་ལ་དགོངས་ཏེ་བཤད་པ་ཡིན། །དགོངས་པ་དག་ནི་མི་ཤེས་པ། །ཆོས་ཉིད་ལ་ནི་མ་བསླབས་པས། །ཆོས་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཆོས་སུ་འཆད། ༤ །འཇིག་རྟེན་ཁམས་ནི་སྟོང་དག་ཏུ། །ངས་ནི་མདོ་སྡེ་གང་བཤད་པ། །ཚིག་འབྲུ་ཐ་དད་དོན་གཅིག་སྟེ། །ཐམས་ཅད་བརྗོད་པར་ནུས་མ་ཡིན། ༥ །ཚིག་གཅིག་རྣམ་པར་བསྒོམས་ན་ནི། །དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་བསྒོམས་པར་འགྱུར། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཇི་སྙེད་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས། །ཆོས་རྣམས་མང་པོ་རབ་བཤད་པ། ༦

1 ‖ b: །རྩོད་ ] Q, S; །བརྩོད་ N; །གཙོད་ P. ‖ c: །རྩོད་ ] Q; །བརྩོད་ N; །གཙོད་ P; །བརྩོད་ S. ‖ d: འཛིན་ ] P, Q, S; འཇིགས་ N. ‖ d: བྱེད་པ་ ] N, P, S; བྱེད་དེ་ Q. ‖ d: ཐར། ] P, Q, N; མཐར། S.

2 ‖ a: དེ་ཡི་ཤེས་རབ་ ] N, Q, S; དེའི་རབ་ཤེས་ P.

3 ‖ a: སྒྲ་ཡིས་བསྟན་པ་ཡི།

] P, Q, S; སྒྲའིས་ཡོངས་བསྟནད་པའི། ] N. ‖ Pāda b – P, Q, S; ཆོས་རྣམས་བསམ་མྱི་ཁྱབ། N, corr. to ཆོས་རྣམས་བསམ་གྱིས་མྱིས་ཁྱབ་བོ་ །

P.

4 ‖ a: ཅི་ལ་ ] N, P, Q; ཅིང་ལ་ S. ‖ a: ཡིན། ] N; ཡིས། P; ཡི། Q, S.

5 ‖ Pāda d – N, Q, S; །ཡོངས་སུ་བརྗོད་པར་མི་ནུས་སོ།

6 ‖ Pādas a–c – N, Q, S; །གཅིག་གི་ཚིག་དོན་བསམ་ན་ནི། །ཐམས་ཅད་ཤིན་ཏུ་སྒོམས་པར་འགྱུར། །ཇི་སྙེད་སངས་རྒྱས་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས། P.

‖ d: མང་པོ་རབ་བཤད་པ། ] N, Q; མང་པོ་བཤད་པ་ཡང་། P; མང་པོར་རབ་བཤད་པ། S. 2 ‖ b: [ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་ N 149b

5 ‖ a: [ ཁམས་ནི་སྟོང་ S 304a

6 ‖ c: [ །སངས་རྒྱས་ P 158a

40

thomas

नैरा यं सवर्धमार्णां ये नरा अथर्कोिवदा। अि मन् पदे तु िशिक्षत्वा बुद्धधमार् न दुलर्भाः॥७॥ सवर्धमार् बुद्धधमार् धमर्तायां य िशिक्षताः। ये धमर्तां पर्जानन्तो न िवरोधेिन्त धमर्ताम्॥८॥ सवार् वाग्बुद्धवागेव सवर्श दो ह्यव तुकः। िदशो दश गवेिषत्वा बुद्धवाङ्नै व ल यते॥९॥ एषा वाचा बुद्धवाचा गवेिषत्वा िदशो दश। न ल यते ऽनुत्तरै षा न ल धा न च ल यते॥१०॥ अनुत्तरा बुद्धवाचा बुद्धवाचा िनरुत्तरा। अणुनर् ल यते ऽतर्ेित तेनोक्तेयमनुत्तरा॥११॥ अणु नो पद्यते धमोर् अणु श देन देिशतः। अणुमातर्ो न चो ल धो लोके श देन देिशतः॥१२॥ अलि धलर् ि ध धमार्णां ल धौ लि धनर् िवद्यते। य एवं धमर् जानिन्त बु यन्ते बोिधमुत्तमाम्॥१३॥

7 ‖ a: नैरा यं ] D, G; नैयार् यं B. ‖ c: अि मन् ] G; यि मन् B, D. ‖ d: दुलर्भाः॥ ] D, G; दुत्तभा॥ B. ‖ V. 7 om. A.

8

‖ b: य ] A, B, D; यः G. ‖ c: पर्जानन्तो ] G; िवजानिन्त A, B, D. ‖ d: िवरोधेिन्त धमर्ताम्॥ ] G; ते रोधिन्त धमर्ताम्॥ A, D; ते एविन्त धमर्ता॥ B.

9 ‖ Pāda a – G; सवर्बुद्धवागेव A, B, D. ‖ b: ह्यव तुकः। ] B, D, G; हुव तुकः। A.

c: ल यते ] A, B, D; बु यते G. ] A, B, D; लप यते G.

10 ‖

11 ‖ b: बुद्धवाचा ] B, D; om. A, G. ‖ c: अणुनर् ] G; अनु A; अनुनर् B, D. ‖ c: ल यते

12 ‖ a: अणु ] G; अनु A; अण्य B; अणुर् D, Schøyen. ‖ a: नो पद्यते धमोर् ] D; नो पद्यते

धमार् A; नो पद्यते धमौर् B; नो++ते धमोर् G; न ल यते धमोर् Schøyen. ‖ b: अणु ] D, G; अनु A; अण B. This is the

only word legible in this pāda in G. ‖ c: अणु॰ ] D, G; अनु॰ A; अण॰ B. ‖ c: चो ] A, B, G; वा D.

13 ‖

a: अलि धलर् ि ध ] G; अलि ध लि द A; अलि ध लि ध B, D. ‖ b: ल धौ ] B, D; ल धो A; om. G. ‖ b: लि धनर् ] B, G; लि ध न A, D. ‖ c: धमर् ] A, B, G; धमुर् D. ‖ c: जानिन्त ] A, D, G; जनिन्त B. ‖ d: उत्तमाम्॥ ] D; उत्तमान्॥ A, B; lac.

in G. 11 ‖ b: [ ॰द्धवाचा B 177b

12 ‖ c: [ अणुमातर्ो G 109a

41

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐམས་ཅད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད། །མི་གང་དོན་ལ་མཁས་པ་དག །ཚིག་འདི་བསླབས་པར་གྱུར་པ་ལ། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་རྣམས་དཀོན་མ་ཡིན། ༧ །ཆོས་ཀུན་སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་ཡིན་ཏེ། །ཆོས་ཉིད་ལ་ཡང་གང་བསླབས་པ། །ཆོས་ཉིད་རབ་ཏུ་ཤེས་པ་ནི། །ཆོས་ཉིད་དང་ཡང་འགལ་མི་བྱེད། ༨ །ཚིག་ཀུན་ཀྱང་ནི་སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག །སྒྲ་ཀུན་དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་སྟེ། །ཕྱོགས་བཅུ་དག་ཏུ་བཙལ་ན་ཡང་། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག་ནི་མི་རྙེད་དོ། ༩ །ཚིག་འདི་སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག་ཡིན་ཏེ། །ཕྱོགས་བཅུ་དག་ཏུ་རབ་བཙལ་ཀྱང་། །བླ་མེད་འདི་ནི་མི་རྙེད་དེ། །མ་རྙེད་རྙེད་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། ༡༠ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག་ནི་བླ་ན་མེད། །ལྟག་ན་མེད་པ་སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག །དེ་ལ་རྡུལ་ཙམ་མི་རྙེད་པས། །དེ་ཚེ་བླ་ན་མེད་ཅེས་བརྗོད། ༡༡ །ཆོས་ནི་རྡུལ་ཙམ་མི་སྐྱེ་སྟེ། །རྡུལ་ཙམ་སྒྲར་ནི་བཤད་པ་ཡིན། །རྡུལ་ཙམ་རྙད་པར་མ་གྱུར་ཀྱང་། །འཇིག་རྟེན་དུ་ནི་སྒྲ་ཡིས་བཤད། ༡༢ །ཆོས་རྣམས་རྙེད་མེད་རྙེད་པ་སྟེ། །རྙེད་པ་ལ་ཡང་རྙེད་པ་མེད། །དེ་ལྟར་ཆོས་རྣམས་གང་ཤེས་པ། །བྱང་ཆུབ་དམ་པ་རྟོགས་པར་འགྱུར། ༡༣

7 ‖ Pādas a–d – N, Q, S; །ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀུན་ལ་བདག་མེད་པ། །མི་གང་དོན་ལ་མཁས་པ་ཡིས། །ཚིག་འདི་དག་ལ་བསླབས་པ་ནི། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་ རྣམས་རྙེད་མི་དཀའ། P.

8 ‖ d: ཡང་ ] P, Q, S; ལ་ N.

10 ‖ c: དེ། ] N, P, Q; དོ། S.

‖ a: ནི་ ] N, P, S; མི་ Q. ‖ a: མི་སྐྱེ་སྟེ། ] N, Q, S; མི་རྙེད་དེ། P. 11 ‖ b: [ མེད་པ་སངས་རྒྱས་ཚིག Q 111b

11 ‖ b: །ལྟག་ ] N, Q, S; །བླ་ P.

12

42

thomas

ते बु वानुत्तरां बोिधं धमर्चकर्ं पर्वतर्यी। धमर्चकर्ं पर्वतेर्त्वा बुद्धधमार्न् पर्काशयी॥१४॥ बोिधसत्वाश्च बु यन्ते बुद्धज्ञानमनुत्तरम्। तेन बुद्धा इित पर्ोक्ता बुद्धज्ञानावबोधनात्॥१५॥ अभावो अपर्िणिहतमािनिमत्तं च शू यता। एिभिवर्मोक्षद्वारे िभ द्वारं बुद्धः पर्काशयी॥१६॥ चक्षुः शर्ोतर्ं च घर्ाणं च िजह्वा कायो मन तथा। एते शू याः स्वभावेन संबुद्धैः संपर्कािशताः॥१७॥ एतादृशानां धमार्णां स्वभावं यः पर्जानित। नासौ िववादं कुरुते ज्ञात्वा धमार्ण लक्षणम्॥१८॥ एष गोचरु शूराणां बोिधसत्वान ताियनाम्। न ते कदािचत् काङ्क्षिन्त जानन्तो धमर्शू यताम्॥१९॥

14 ‖ a: बोिधं ] A, B, D; lac. in G. ‖ c: पर्वतेर्त्वा ] G; पर्वितर्त्वा A, B, D. ‖ d: बुद्धधमार्न् ] A, B, D; बुद्धधमार्न G. ‖ a: बोिधसत्वाश्च ] A, D, G; बोिधसव्वार्श्च B. ‖ b: अनुत्तरम्। ] B, D, G; अनुत्तरां। A.

15

16 ‖ c: एिभिवर्मोक्षद्वारे िभ ] G;

एिभ िवमोक्षद्वारे िभ A; एिभ िवमोक्षद्वारे ित B; एिभिवर्मोक्षद्वारे िभर् D. ‖ d: बुद्धः ] B, D, G, S; om. A. ‖ d: पर्काशयी॥ ] A,

B, D, S; पर्काशये॥ G.

18 ‖ a: एतादृशानां ] A, B, D, S; एतादृशानं G. ‖ c: नासौ ] A, B, D, S; न सो G.

19 ‖ a:

एष ] G, S; एषो A, B, D. ‖ a: शूराणां ] A, D, G, S; शराणां B. ‖ c: काङ्क्षिन्त ] A, B, D, S; काक्षंित G. ‖ d: जानन्तो ] A,

B, D, S; जानन्ती G. ‖ d: ॰शू यताम्॥ ] G; ॰शू यकाम्॥ A, B, D, S. 15 ‖ a: [ बोिधसत्वाश्च D 114a 15 ‖ c: [ तेन बुद्धा A 145b

16 ‖ c: [ द्वारं S 79a

18 ‖ a: It seems एतादृशानां here

should be taken to be modifying स्वभावं and not धमार्णां despite it’s apparent case ending. Syntactic relations are much looser in BHS, perhaps allowing for this possibility. Also note the reading of G, which smacks of an accusative.

19 ‖ d: Here the reading शू यकाम् (from the Nepalese mss.)

seems to be a corruption from शू यताम्, as the latter reading, found in G, has more sense. शू यक (vide BHSD s.v.) is a BHS word that means “empty,” i.e. it is the equivalent of the Classical Sanskrit शू य. This is how the Tibetan translators interpreted it, although the syntax of the Sanskrit makes

no sense with this reading.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

43

།བྱང་ཆུབ་བླ་མེད་དེས་རྟོགས་ནས། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་འཁོར་ལོ་རབ་ཏུ་བསྐོར། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་འཁོར་ལོ་རབ་བསྐོར་ནས། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་རྣམས་སྟོན་པར་བྱེད། ༡༤ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་བླ་མེད་ནི། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་རྟོགས་པར་བྱེད། །སངས་ཡེ་ཤེས་རྟོགས་བྱེད་པས། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཞེས་ཀྱང་དེ་ཕྱིར་བརྗོད། ༡༥ །དངོས་མེད་སྨོན་པ་མེད་པ་དང་། །མཚན་མ་མེད་དང་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད། །རྣམ་ཐར་སྒོ་ནི་འདི་དག་གིས། །སྒོ་དག་སངས་རྒྱས་རབ་ཏུ་སྟོན། ༡༦ །མིག་དང་རྣ་བ་སྣ་དག་དང་། །ལྕེ་དང་ལུས་དང་དེ་བཞིན་ཡིད། །དེ་དག་རང་བཞིན་སྟོང་པར་ནི། །སངས་རྒྱས་དག་གིས་རབ་ཏུ་བཤད། ༡༧ །དེ་ལྟ་བུ་ཡི་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀྱི། །རང་བཞིན་དག་ནི་སུས་ཤེས་པ། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཤེས་ནས་ནི། །དེ་ནི་རྩོད་པར་མི་བྱེད་དོ། ༡༨ །འདི་ནི་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་དག །དཔའ་བོ་སྐྱོབ་པའི་སྤྱོད་ཡུལ་ཏེ། །ཆོས་རྣམས་སྟོང་པར་ཤེས་པ་ནི། །དེ་དག་ནམ་ཡང་ནེམ་ནུར་མེད། ༡༩

14 ‖ a: དེས་] P, S; དེ་ N, Q. ‖ c: བསྐོར་ནས། ] Q, S; སྐོར་ན་། N; སྐོར་ནས། P. ‖ b: རྟོགས་ ] N, Q, S; གཏོགས་ P. ‖ d: ཞེས་ ] N, Q; ཤེས་ P, S. N.

17 ‖ c: པར་ ] N, P, Q; པ་ S.

15 ‖ a: [ རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་ S 304b

15 ‖ a: ཡེ་ཤེས་བླ་མེད་ནི། ] N, P, Q; བླ་ན་མེད་པ་ནི། S.

16 ‖ c: ཐར་ ] P, Q, S; པའི་ N. ‖ d: སྟོན། ] P, Q, S; བསྟནད།

18 ‖ c: ནས་ནི། ] P; པས་ན། N, S; པས་ནི། Q. ‖ d: །དེ་ནི་རྩོད་ ] Q; །དེ་ནི་བརྩོད་ N, S; །དེའི་རྩོད་ P.

16 ‖ a: [ །དངོས་མེད་ N 150a

17 ‖ c: [ །དེ་དག་རང་བཞིན་ P 158b

44

thomas

धमर्स्वभावं जानाित बुद्ध तेनो यते िह स। बोधये िवनयी सत्वानपर्मेयानिचिन्तयान्॥२०॥ यः कृतो बुद्धश देन शीलश देन सो कृतः। शीलश दो बुद्धश द उभौ तावेकलक्षणौ॥२१॥ यावन्तः कीितर्ताः श दा हीनउ कृष्टम यमाः। समािहते एकश दे बुद्धश देन देिशताः॥२२॥ बुद्धधमार् न देश था न पर्देश थ कीितर्ताः। न चो पन्ना िनरुद्धा वा एकत्वेन पृथक् तथा॥२३॥ न ते नवाः पुराणा वा न तेषामि त म यना। न च नीला च पीता वा नावदाता न लोिहताः॥२४॥ अनािभला या अगर्ाह्या एवं घोषेण देिशताः। न च घोष य सा भूिमः पर्ाितहायर्ं मुनेिरदम्॥२५॥ अनासर्वा िह ते धमार् तेन उ यिन्त िनःशृताः। अपयार्पन्ना दशिदशे एषा बुद्धान देशना॥२६॥

20 ‖ a: जानाित ] A, B, D, S; जानिन्त G. ‖ c: बोधये ] A, D, G, S; बोधाय B. ‖ c–d: सत्वानपर्मेयान् ] A, B, D; सत्वां अपर्मेयान् S; सत्वा धमर्धातुम् G. ‖ d: अिचिन्तयान्॥ ] A, D, G, S; अिचिन्तया॥ B.

21 ‖ a: यः कृतो ] A, D, S; य कृतो

B; स कृतो G. ‖ b: शीलश देन ] A, B, D, S; शीलश द य G. ‖ b: सो ] A, D, G, S; भो B. ‖ c: बुद्धश दो ] A, B, S; बुद्धश द G, D. ‖ d: उभौ ] B, D, G, S; उभा A.

22 ‖ c–d: एकश दे बुद्धश देन देिशताः॥ ] S. एकश दो न बुद्धज्ञानेन

देिशताः॥ A; एकश देन बुद्धश देन देिशताः॥ B, D; एकश दे देिशताः॥ G.

23 ‖ Pāda a – S; न बुद्धधमार् देश था A, B,

D, G. ‖ c: न चो पन्ना ] A, D, G, S; तथा पन्ना B. ‖ d: पृथक् तथा॥ ] B, D, S; पृथ पृथा॥ A; पृथ तथाः॥ G. a: पुराणा ] A, B, D, S; पराणे G. ‖ b: म यना। ] B, D, G, S; म यता। A.

24 ‖

25 ‖ a: अनािभला या ] D; अनािभल या

A, B, G, S. ‖ c: भूिमः ] A, B, D, S; भूिम G. ‖ d: मुनेिरदम्॥ ] A, B, D, G; मुने िदं॥ S.

26 ‖ b: तेन ] em.; नेन ms.

‖ c: दशिदशे ] em.; दशिद्दशे ms. ‖ V. 26 om. A, B, D, S, and Tib. 20 ‖ d: [ अपर्मेयान् B 178a

22 ‖ c: It seems समािहते should be taken as a modifier of श दाः, with the

BHS ending ए for the 1st case plural masculine. A 146a

23 ‖ c: [ ॰रुद्धा वा G 109b

25 ‖ d: [ ॰ितहायर्ं मुनेर्

45

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།ཆོས་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་ཤེས་པས་ན། །དེ་ཕྱིར་སངས་རྒྱས་ཞེས་བྱ་སྟེ། །སེམས་ཅན་བསམ་གྱིས་མི་ཁྱབ་ཅིང་། །དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པ་བྱང་ཆུབ་འདུལ། ༢༠ །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲས་ནི་གང་བྱས་པ། །ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲས་ཀྱང་དེ་བྱས་ཏེ། །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲ་དང་ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲ། །དེ་དག་གཉི་ག་མཚན་ཉིད་གཅིག ༢༡ །ཇི་སྙེད་སྒྲ་དག་བརྗོད་པ་ནི། །རབ་དང་འབྲིང་དང་ཐ་མ་རྣམས། །མཉམ་པར་བཞག་པའི་སྒྲ་གཅིག་ལ། །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲས་ནི་བསྟན་པ་ཡིན། ༢༢ །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲ་ནི་ཡུལ་མི་གནས། །ཕྱོགས་ལའང་གནས་པ་མ་ཡིན་བརྗོད། །སྐྱེས་དང་འགགས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། །དེ་བཞིན་གཅིག་དང་ཐ་དད་མིན། ༢༣ །དེ་དག་གསར་རམ་རྙིང་མ་ཡིན། །དེ་དག་ལ་ནི་རློམ་སེམས་མེད། །སེར་པོ་མ་ཡིན་སྔོན་པོ་མིན། །དཀར་པོ་མ་ཡིན་དམར་པོ་མིན། ༢༤ །བརྗོད་དུ་མེད་ཅིང་གཟུང་མེད་པར། །དེ་ལྟར་དབྱངས་ཀྱིས་བསྟན་མོད་ཀྱི། །དེ་ནི་དབྱངས་ཀྱི་ས་མ་ཡིན། །ཐུབ་པ་དག་གི་ཆོ་འཕྲུལ་འདི། ༢༥

20 ‖ a: ཤེས་པས་ ] P, Q, S; ཤེས་པ་ N. ‖ d: །དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པ་ ] Q; །བདག་ཏུ་མེད་པར་ N; །དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པས་ P; །དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པར་ S.

21

‖ a: །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲས་ ] N, Q, S; །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲ་ P. ‖ c: །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲ་ ] N, P, S; །སངས་རྒྱས་སྒྲས་ Q. ‖ d: གཉི་ག་ ] N, P, Q; གཉི་གའི་ S. ‖ d: མཚན་ཉིད་ ] N, Q, S; མཚན་དག་ P.

22 ‖ a: །ཇི་སྙེད་ ] S; །ཅི་སྙེད་ N; །ཇི་རྙེད་ P; །འཇིག་རྟེན་ Q. ‖ c: བཞག་ ] N, P; གཞག་

Q, S. ‖ c: གཅིག་ ] P, Q, S; ཅི N. d: སྒྲས་ ] N, Q, S; སྒྲ་ P. P.

23 ‖ a: སྒྲ་ ] P, Q, S; སྒྲས་ N. ‖ c: འགགས་ ] Q, S; འགག་ N,

24 ‖ a. རྙིང་ ] N, Q, S; སྙིང་ P. ‖ c: མིན། ] N, Q, S; ཡིན། P. ‖ d: དཀར་པོ་ ] N, Q, S; དཀར་མོ་ P.

25 ‖ a: གཟུང་ ] N, P,

Q; བཟུང་ S. ‖ b: དབྱངས་ ] Q, P, S; དབྱིངས་ N. ‖ c: དབྱངས་ཀྱི་ས་ ] Q; དབྱིངས་ཀྱི་ས་ N; དབྱངས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ P; དབྱངས་ཀྱིས་ས་ S. ‖ Pāda d – Q, S; །ཐུབ་པ་གང་གི་ཆོ་འཕྲུལ་འདི་། N; །ཐུབ་པ་དག་གིས་ཆོ་ཕྲུལ་འདི། P. 24 ‖ b: [ ནི་རློམ་སེམས་མེད། Q 112a

25 ‖ a: [ དུ་མེད་ཅིང་ S 305a

46

thomas

पिरिनवृर्त य बुद्ध य दृ यते बुद्धिवगर्हः। त थानं मनसीकुवर्न् पर्ाितहायर्ं स प यित॥२७॥ न चासौ ल यते सत्वो िनवृर्ितयेर्न पिशर्ता। एवं च देिशतो धमोर् बहवः सत्व मोिचताः॥२८॥ यथा च दर्श्च सूयर्श्च कांसपातर्ीय दृ यते। न च याित स्वकं िब बमेवं धमार्ण लक्षणम्॥२९॥ पर्ितभासोपमा धमार् यैिहर् ज्ञाताः स्वभावतः। नैव ते रूपकायेन प यन्ते बुद्धिवगर्हम्॥३०॥ अिवगर्हो ह्ययं धमोर् िवगर्हो नातर् कश्चन। अिवगर्हश्च यो धमर् एष बुद्ध य िवगर्हः॥३१॥ धमर्कायेन प यिन्त ये ते प यिन्त नायकम्। धमर्काया िह संबुद्धा एत संबुद्धदशर्नम्॥३२॥ पर्ती य पर्ितिनिदर्ष्टा अपर्ित पर्ितदेिशताः। इमां गितं िवजानीत शर्ामण्येन िह येऽिथर्काः॥३३॥ अपर्ािप्तः पर्ािप्त िनिदर्ष्टा सत्वानां ज्ञाित आशयम्। यो संधाभा योत्तरते न सो केनिच ह यते॥३४॥ 27 ‖ a: पिरिनवृर्त य ] A, B, D, S; पिरिनत य बुद्ध य G. ‖ c: मनसीकुवर्न् ] A, B, D, S; मनसीकुवर्त् G. ‖ d: पर्ाितहायर्ं ] D, G, S; पर्ाितहायर् A, B.

28 ‖ b: िनवृर्ितयेर्न पिशर्ता। ] G, S; िनवृर्ितषर्नदिशर्ता। A; िनवृित येन देिशता। B; िनवृितयेर्न

देिशता। D. ‖ c: च देिशतो धमोर् ] A, G, S; देिशतौ स धमार् B; देिशतो धमोर् D. कंसपातर्ीय G. ‖ d: एवं ] A, B, D, S; एव G.

S; ॰िवगर्हः। B; ॰िवगर्हाः। D. ] A, G, D, S; पतन् B.

29 ‖ b: कांसपातर्ीय ] A, B, D, S;

30 ‖ b: यैिहर् ] G, S; यै िह A; येिहर् B; ये िह D. ‖ d: ॰िवगर्हम्। ] A, G,

31 ‖ b: नातर् ] A, D, G, S; मातर् B. ‖ c: धमर् ] D, G; धमोर् A, B, S.

32 ‖ d: एतत्

33 ‖ b: पर्ितदेिशताः। ] B, D, G, S; पितदेिशताः। A. ‖ c: गितं ] A, G, S; गती B; गतीं D. ‖

d: शर्ामण्येन ] A, D, G, S; शर्ामणैन B. ‖ d: येऽिथर्काः॥ ] A, D, S; येऽिथकाः॥ B; ये अिथर्काः॥ G.

34 ‖ a: पर्ािप्त ]

conj.; om. ms. V. 34 is found in G, but not in A, B, D, S, and Tib. 29 ‖ b: [ ॰ यते। D 114b 35.49.

31 ‖ c: [ अिवगर्हश्च B 178b

34 ‖ b: ज्ञाित is a gerund, on which see BHSG §

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

47

།སངས་རྒྱས་མྱ་ངན་འདས་པ་ཡི། །སངས་རྒྱས་སྐུ་གཟུགས་སྣང་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །དེ་གནས་ཡིད་ལ་བྱས་པ་ན། །ཆོ་འཕྲུལ་རྣམས་ཀྱང་དེ་ཡིས་མཐོང༌། ༢༦ །གང་གིས་མྱ་ངན་འདས་རེག་པ། །སེམས་ཅན་དེ་ནི་མི་རྙེད་དེ། །དེ་བཞིན་ཆོས་རྣམས་རབ་བསྟན་ཅིང༌། །སེམས་ཅན་མང་པོ་གྲོལ་བར་བྱས། ༢༧ །ཇི་ལྟར་ཉི་མ་ཟླ་བ་དག །འཁར་བའི་སྣོད་དུ་སྣང་བ་ཡང༌། །རང་གི་གཟུགས་ནི་མི་འཕོ་ལྟར། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་འདྲའོ། ༢༨ །ཆོས་རྣམས་མིག་ཡོར་ལྟ་བུར་ཡང༌། །གང་གིས་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཤེས་པ། །དེ་དག་གཟུགས་ཀྱི་ལུས་སུ་ནི། །སངས་རྒྱས་སྐུ་ལ་མི་བལྟའོ། ༢༩ །ཆོས་འདི་ལུས་གཟུགས་མེད་པ་སྟེ། །འདི་ལ་ལུས་གཟུགས་གང་ཡང་མེད། །ཆོས་གང་ལུས་གཟུགས་མེད་པ་ནི། །དེ་ནི་སངས་རྒྱས་སྐུ་ལུས་སོ། ༣༠ །སུ་དག་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུར་ལྟ་བ། །དེ་དག་གིས་ནི་འདྲེན་པ་མཐོང༌། །རྫོགས་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ། །དེ་ནི་རྫོགས་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་མཐོང༌། ༣༡ །རྟེན་ཅིང་སོ་སོར་བསྟན་པ་སྟེ། །སོ་སོ་མ་ཡིན་སོ་སོར་བཤད། །དགེ་སྦྱོང་ཉིད་ནི་སུ་འདོད་པ། །འཇུག་པ་འདི་ནི་རིག་པར་གྱིས། ༣༢

26 ‖ a: ཡི། ] N, Q; ཡིན། P, S. ‖ b: འགྱུར་ ] N, P, S; གྱུར་ Q. ‖ c: གནས་ ] Q, P, S; ནས་ N. ‖ c: པ་ན། ] Q; པས་ནི། N; པས་ན། P; པ་ནི། S. ‖ d: དེ་ཡིས་མཐོང་། ] P, Q, S; དེ་མཐོང་ན། N.

27 ‖ a: འདས་རེག་པ། ] N, P, Q; འདས་པ་རེག S. ‖ b: དེ། ] N, Q, S; དོ། P.

‖ c: རྣམས་ ] N, Q, S; རྣམ་ P. ‖ c: བསྟན་ ] N, P, S; བསྟེན་ Q. c: མི་འཕོ་ ] N, Q, S; འཆི་འཕོ་ P.

Q, S; །ཆོས་གག་ N. ‖ d: སོ། ] N, P, Q; སུ། S. རྒྱས་མཐོང་བའོ། P.

28 ‖ b: །འཁར་བའི་ ] em.; །ཁར་བའི་ N, P, Q; །འཁར་པའི་ S. ‖

29 ‖ a: ཡོར་ ] P, Q, S; གཡོར་ N. ‖ d: བལྟའོ། ] N, Q; ལྟའོ། P, S.

30 ‖ c: །ཆོས་གང་ ] P,

31 ‖ a: སྐུར་ ] Q, S; སྐུ་ N, P. ‖ d: རྫོགས་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་མཐོང་། ] N, Q, S; སངས་

32 ‖ a: རྟེན་ ] N, P, Q; བརྟེན་ S. ‖ a: སྟེ། ] P, Q, S; ནི། N. ‖ d: རིག་པར་གྱིས། ] Q, P; རིག་པར་གིས་། N; རིགས་

པར་གྱིས། S.

29 ‖ a: [ ལྟ་བུར་ཡང་། P 159a

30 ‖ b: [ གང་ཡང་མེད། N 150b

48

thomas

य य भोित मया पर्ाप्त अपर्ाप्तं तेन चो यते॥ येन शर्ामण्यमपर्ाप्तं तेन शर्मण उ यते॥३५॥ कथं ग भीिरमे धमार् व यन्ते ये न िशिक्षताः। ते च ग भीरनामेन न शक्यं पिरकीितर्तुम्॥३६॥ अव तुकाः पञ्च क धा अभूत्वा एत उि थताः। नातर् उ थापकोऽ यि त य य क धाः समुि थताः॥३७॥ यल्लक्षणाः पञ्च क धाः सवर्धमार् तलक्षणाः। तल्लक्षणात् ित िनिदर्ष्टा लक्षणं च न िवद्यते॥३८॥ यथान्तरीक्षं गगनमेवं धमार्ण लक्षणम्। पूवार्न्तमपरान्तं च पर् यु पन्नं च प यतः॥३९॥ अगर्ाह्यं गगनं पर्ोक्तं गर्ाह्यमतर् न ल यते। एष स्वभावो धमार्णामगर्ाह्यो गगनोपमः॥४०॥

35 ‖ a–b: पर्ाप्त अपर्ाप्तं ] G; वाप्तं A; वाप्तमपर्ाप्तं B, D, S. ‖ c: शर्ामण्यमपर्ाप्तं ] A, B, D, S; शर्ामपर्ाप्तं G. ‖ d: शर्मण ] A, B, D, G; शर्ामण्य S. ‖ d: उ यते ] B, D, G, S; यते A.

36 ‖ a: ग भीिरमे ] B, D, G, S; ग भीर इमे A. ‖ c: ते च ] A, B,

D; स च G; तेन S. ‖ d: न ] A, B, D, S; om. G. ‖ d: शक्यं ] B, G, S; शक्य A; +क्यं D.

37 ‖ b: एत उि थताः। ] A,

B, C, G; एकमुि थताः। S. ‖ c: उ थापको ] G, S; उ थपको A; उ था यका B; उ था यको D. ‖ c: ऽ यि त ] A, B, D, S; ह्यि त G. ‖ d: क धाः ] B, D, S; क धाः A; सत्वा G. ‖ d: समुि थताः॥ ] A, D, G, S; सुमुि थताः॥ B.

38 ‖ a: यल्लक्षणाः

] A, D, G, S; यः लक्षणाः B. ‖ a: पञ्च क धाः ] A, B, D, S; lac. in G. ‖ b: तलक्षणाः ] em. m.c.; तल्लक्षणाः A, B, D, S. तलक्षण G. ‖ c: तल्लक्षणात् ित ] G; तल्लक्षणा ते A, B, D, S.

39 ‖ a: ॰अन्तरीक्षं गगनम् ] A, B, D, S; ॰अन्तरीक्षगगनम्

G. ‖ b: एवं ] A, B, G, S; एव D. ‖ Pāda c – G, S; पूवार्न्तापरान्तञ्च A; पूवार्न्तपरान्तञ्च B; पूवार्न्तंपरान्तं च D.

40 ‖ a:

पर्ोक्तं ] A, D, G, S; याक्तं B. ‖ b: गर्ाह्यमतर् ] B, D, G, S; गर्ाह्यममतर् A.

35 ‖ a: [ ॰ित मया पर्ाप्त G 110a

36 ‖ a: In the phrase ग भीिरमे the pronoun इमे has been conjoined

with a reduced form of the word ग भीर, viz., ग भीर् .

38 ‖ a: [ पञ्च क धाः A 146b. 38 ‖ c: It seems the

Tibetan translators here interpreted तल्लक्षणात् ित िनिदर्ष्टा in the sense of तल्लक्षणाि त िनिदर्ष्टा. However, this is grammatically impossible; ित is actually the masculine pronoun ते shortened to conform with the meter. In the later Nepalese mss. this was again lengthened to ते.

40 ‖ b: ल य॰ ] S 79a

49

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།གང་དག་བདག་གིས་ཐོབ་སྙམ་པ། །དེ་ཕྱིར་མ་ཐོབ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ། །གང་གིས་དགེ་སྦྱོང་ཉིད་མ་ཐོབ། །དེ་ཕྱིར་དགེ་སྦྱོང་ཞེས་ཀྱང་བྱ། ༣༣ །སུ་དག་བསླབས་པར་མ་གྱུར་པ། །ཟབ་མོའི་ཆོས་འདི་ག་ལ་སྨྲ། །དེ་དག་ཟབ་མོའི་མིང་དུ་ཡང༌། །ཡོངས་སུ་བརྗོད་པར་མི་ནུས་སོ། ༣༤ །ཕུང་པོ་ལྔ་ནི་དངོས་མེད་དེ། །མེད་པ་ལས་ནི་འདི་དག་བྱུང༌། །སུ་ཡི་ཕུང་པོ་བྱུང་བ་ཡང༌། །དེ་ལ་སློང་བར་བྱེད་པ་མེད། ༣༥ །ཕུང་པོའི་མཚན་ཉིད་གང་ཡིན་པ། །ཆོས་ཀུན་དེ་ཡི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡིན། །དེ་ཡི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡོད་བཤད་དེ། །མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱང་ནི་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། ༣༦ །ཇི་ལྟར་བར་སྣང་ནམ་མཁའ་བཞིན། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་འདྲ་བར། །སྔོན་གྱི་མཐའ་དང་ཕྱི་མའི་མཐའ། །ད་ལྟར་བྱུང་བའང་མཐོང་བར་འགྱུར། ༣༧ །ནམ་མཁའ་གཟུང་བ་མེད་པར་བཤད། །དེ་ལ་གཟུང་བ་མི་རྙེད་དེ། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་འདི་ཉིད་ཡིན། །གཟུང་བ་མེད་པ་ནམ་མཁའ་འདྲ། ༣༨

33 ‖ a: ཐོབ་སྙམ་པ། ] P, Q, S ཐོས་སྙམ་པ། N. ‖ b: མ་ཐོབ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ། ] N, Q, S; མ་ཐོབ་ཞེས་ཀྱང་བྱ། P. ‖ c: དགེ་སྦྱོང་ཉིད་མ་ཐོབ། ] Q, S; དགེའ་སྦྱོང་ཉིད་མ་ཐོབ་པ། N; དགེ་སྦྱོང་མ་ཐོབ་པ། P.

34 ‖ a: བསླབས་པར་མ་གྱུར་པ། ] P, Q, S; བསླབས་པ་མ་བྱས་པ། N.

N, Q, S; དོ། P. ‖ b: བྱུང༌། ] P, Q, S; འབྱུང་། N. ‖ c: བྱུང་བ་ ] P, S; འབྱུང་བ་ N; བྱུང་བའི་ Q.

35 ‖ a: དེ། ]

36 ‖ Pādas a–b – N, Q, S; །ཕུང་

པོ་ལྔའི་གང་ཡིན་པ། །ཆོས་ཀུན་དེའི་མཚན་ཉིད་གང་ཡིན་པ། P. ‖ c: ཡོད་བཤད་དེ། ] Q, S; ཡོངས་བཤད་པའི། N; ཡོངས་བཤད་དེ། P. ‖ d: ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། ]

N, Q, S; ཡོད་པ་མི་ཡིན། P.

37 ‖ c: །སྔོན་གྱི་ ] N, Q, S; །སྔོན་གྱིས་ P. ‖ d: །ད་ལྟར་ ] P, Q, S; །དེ་ལྟར་ N.

38 ‖ a: གཟུང་བ་ ] P,

Q; བཟུང་བ་ N; གཟུང་བར་ S. ‖ b: གཟུང་བ་ ] Q, S; བཟུང་བ་ N, P. ‖ b: དེ། ] N, P, S; དོ། Q. ‖ d: །གཟུང་བ་ ] Q, S; །བཟུང་བ་ N, P. 35 ‖ b: [ དག་བྱུང་། S 305b

37 ‖ b: [ འདྲ་བར། Q 112b

50

thomas

एवं च देिशतो धमोर् न चातर्ो कोिच प यित। यश्चो न प यती धमर्ं त य धमार् अिचिन्तयाः॥४१॥ अस्वभावा इमे धमार्ः स्वभावैषां न ल यते। योिगनां गोचरो ह्येष ये युक्ता बुद्धबोधये॥४२॥ य एवं जानती धमार्न् न स धमेर्षु सज्जते। असज्जमानो धमेर्षु धमर्संज्ञा पर्बोधयी॥४३॥ िवभािवताः सवर्धमार् बोिधसत्वेन ताियना। धमर्सज्ञ ं ां िवभािवत्वा बुद्धधमार्न्न म यते॥४४॥ अमि यता िह सा कोटी क पेत्वा कोिट याहृता। य एवं कोिट जानाित क पकोटीन्न म यते॥४५॥ पुिरमा कोिट कि पत्वा बालः संसािर संसरी। न चा य ल यते थानं गवेिषत्वा िदशो दश॥४६॥ शू यं ज्ञात्वा च संसारं न सज्जन्ते िजनौरसाः। चरिन्त चैव बो यथर्ं चिर तेषां न ल यते॥४७॥

41 ‖ a: एवं च देिशतो ] B, D, G; एवं देिशवो A. ‖ b: चातर्ो कोिच प यित। ] G; शर्ावको िवप यित। A; शर्ावका िवप यित। B; शर्ावक िवप यित। D. ‖ c: न ] A, D, G; त B. ‖ c: धमर्ं ] G; धमोर् A, D; धमौर् B. स्वभोषान् A. ‖ c: ह्येष ] A, B, G; ह्यष D.

43 ‖ a: धमार्न् ] A, D; धमार् B, G.

B, D. ‖ d: बुद्धधमार्न् ] A, G; बुद्धाधमार्न् B; बुद्धो धमार्न् D.

42 ‖ b: स्वभावैषां ] B, D, G; 44 ‖ c: धमर्सज्ञ ं ां ] A, G; धमर्सज्ञ ं ा

45 ‖ a: अमि यता ] G; अमि यना A, D; अनि यनो B.

‖ b: क पेत्वा ] D, G; क प A; क पत्वा B. ‖ b: याहृता। ] G; याकृता A, B, D.

46 ‖ a: पुिरमा ] G; पिरमा A, B;

पुिरमां D. ‖ a: कि पत्वा ] A, B, D; क पात्वा G. ‖ b: संसािर ] G, D; संसार A, B. ‖ d: िदशो दश॥ ] A, B, D; दशो िदश॥

G.

47 ‖ a: ज्ञात्वा च ] G; ज्ञात्वािद A; ज्ञात्वा िह B, D. ‖ Pāda b – D; न सजत्ते िजनौरसा। A; न सज्जन्त िजनोरसा।

B; बोिधसत्वो न सज्जते। G. ‖ c: चैव ] B, D, G; चेव A. ‖ d: चिरस् ] A, D, G; चिरन् B. 42 ‖ b: [ ॰वैषां न ल यते। B 149a

44 ‖ a–b: [ ॰धमार् बोिधसत्वेन D 115a

46 ‖ b–c: [ ॰री। न चा य G 110b

51

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།དེ་ལྟ་བུར་ནི་ཆོས་བསྟན་ཏེ། །དེ་ལ་གང་ཡང་མཐོང་བ་མེད། །སུ་དག་ཆོས་འདི་མི་མཐོང་བ། །དེ་ཡི་ཆོས་རྣམས་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། ༣༩ །ཆོས་འདི་རྣམས་ནི་རང་བཞིན་མེད། །འདི་དག་རང་བཞིན་མི་རྙེད་དེ། །སངས་རྒྱས་བྱང་ཆུབ་སུ་བརྩོན་པ། །རྣལ་འབྱོར་པ་ཡི་སྤྱོད་ཡུལ་འདི། ༤༠ །དེ་ལྟ་བུར་ནི་སུས་ཤེས་པ། །དེ་ནི་ཆོས་ལ་མི་ཆགས་ཏེ། །ཆོས་རྣམས་ལ་ཡང་མི་ཆགས་པས། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་འདུ་ཤེས་རབ་ཏུ་རྟོགས། ༤༡ །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་སྐྱོབ་པ་ཡིས། །ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐམས་ཅད་རྣམ་པར་བཤིག །ཆོས་ཀྱི་འདུ་ཤེས་རྣམ་བཤིག་ནས། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་ལ་རློམ་སེམས་མེད། ༤༢ །མཐའ་དེ་རློམ་སེམས་མ་བྱས་པ། །བརྟགས་ནས་མཐར་ནི་བཤད་པ་སྟེ། །དེ་ལྟར་མཐའ་ནི་སུས་ཤེས་པ། །བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་རློམ་སེམས་མེད། ༤༣ །བྱིས་པས་སྔོན་གྱི་མཐའ་བརྟགས་པས། །འཁོར་བ་རྣམས་སུ་འཁོར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །ཕྱོགས་བཅུ་དག་ཏུ་བཙལ་ན་ཡང༌། །དེ་ཡི་གནས་ནི་མི་རྙེད་དོ། ༤༤ །འཁོར་བ་སྟོང་པར་རིག་ནས་ནི། །རྒྱལ་བའི་ཐུགས་སྲས་ཆགས་མི་འགྱུར། །བྱང་ཆུབ་དོན་ཕྱིར་སྤྱོད་མོད་ཀྱི། །དེ་དག་སྤྱོད་པ་མི་རྙེད་དོ། ༤༥

39 ‖ b: གང་ཡང་མཐོང་བ་མེད། ] P, Q, S; མཐོང་བར་གང་ཡང་མེད་། N. ‖ c: བ། ] N, P, S; བར། Q. c: མི་ཆགས་པས། ] P, Q, S; མ་ཆགས་པ། N. Q, S; འདུ་ཤེས་ N.

41 ‖ a: སུས་ ] P, Q, S; སུ་ N. ‖

42 ‖ a: ཡིས། ] N, P, Q; ཡི། S. ‖ b: བཤིག ] N, P, Q; ཤིག S. ‖ d: རློམ་སེམས་ ] P,

43 ‖ a: །བརྟགས་ ] Q, S; །བཏགས་ N; །རྟགས་ P. ‖ c: མཐའ་ ] N, Q; མཐར་ P; མཐོ་ S. ‖ c: སུས་ ] P, Q, S;

སུ་ N. ‖ d: །བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་ ] N, Q; །སྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་ P; །བསྐལ་པ་བྱེད་པར་ S.

44 ‖ a: སྔོན་གྱི་མཐའ་བརྟགས་པས། ] Q, S; སྔོན་གི་མཐའ་

རྟགས་པས་། N; སྔོན་གྱིས་མཐའ་བརྟགས་པ། P. ‖ c: བཙལ་ ] N, Q, S; བརྩལ་ P. ‖ d: དོ། ] P, Q, S; དེ་། N.

45 ‖ a: །འཁོར་བ་ ] N, Q,

S; །འཁོར་བར་ P. ‖ b: །རྒྱལ་བའི་ ] N, P, Q; །རྒྱལ་བ་ S. ‖ c: མོད་ ] N, P, Q; མོས་ S. ‖ d: དོ། ] N, S; དང་། Q; དེ། P. 40 ‖ c: [ ཆུབ་སུ་བརྩོན་པ། P 159b

44 ‖ b: [ སུ་འཁོར་འགྱུར་ N 151a

45 ‖ d: [ །དེ་དག་སྤྱོད་པ་ S 306a

52

thomas

शकुनानां यथाकाशे पदं तेषां न ल यते। एवंस्वभावा सा बोिधबोर्िधसत्वश्च बु यते॥४८॥ यथा मायां िवदशेर्ित मायाकारः सुिशिक्षतः। नानापर्काररूपािण न च रूपोपल यते॥४९॥ अलि ध लि ध नो म ये ल धो लि ध न िवद्यते। मायोपमं च तज्ञानं न च मायाय तं ि थतम्॥५०॥ एवं शू येषु धमेर्षु बालबुद्धी िवकि पय। िवक पे चरमाणानां गतयःषट्परायणम्॥५१॥ जातीजरोपगाः सत्वा जाित तेषां न क्षीयते। जातीमरण क धानां दुःखं तेषामनन्तकम्॥५२॥

48 ‖ Pāda a – A, D, G; शक्तनाना यथाकाश B. ‖ c: ॰स्वभावा ] A, D, G; ॰स्वभाव B. ‖ c: बोिधर् ] D, G; बोिध A, B. ‖ d: बोिधसत्वश्च ] B, G; बोिधसत्व य A; बोिधसत्वैश्च D. D. ‖ Pāda c – G; नानारूपपर्कारािण A, B, D.

49 ‖ a: िवदशेर्ित ] G; िनद्देर्शेित A; िनदशैित B; िनदशेर्ित

50 ‖ Pāda a – A; अलिथ लिथना म य B; अलि धलर् ि धनोर् म ये

D; अलि धनोर् म ये G. ‖ b: ल धो लि ध न ] A; ल धा लि ध न B; ल धौ लि धनर् D; लि ध तेषां न G. ‖ c: तज्ञानं ] A, B, G; तज्ज्ञानं D. ‖ d: तं ] G; तत् A, D; त B.

51 ‖ a: शू येषु ] A, D, G; शू यर्षु B. ‖ b: ॰बुद्धी ] B, D, G; ॰बुिद्ध A. ‖ c:

िवक पे ] A, D, G; िवक प B. ‖ d: गतयः ] A, B, D; गतः G. ‖ d: ॰यणम्॥ ] G; ॰यनाः॥ A; ॰यणाः॥ B, D.

52 ‖

a: जातीजरो॰ ] D, G; जातीजरा॰ A; जातीजारो॰ B. ‖ b: जाितस् ] G; जाती A, B, D. ‖ d: तेषामनन्तकम्॥ ] D, G; तेषामनतकं॥ A; तेषांमनन्तकं॥ B.

49 ‖ a: [ यथा मायां A 147a

50 ‖ a: म ये is here a BHS third pers. sing. optative; cf. भवे, v. 115a (in

G). 50 ‖ b: Here ल धो is a locative, what would be in classical Skt. ल धौ, with the common BHS change from औ to ओ. The reading ल धौ from ms. D is perhaps an emendation. 50 ‖ d: मायाय is here an instance of a general form for the oblique cases of feminine nouns ending in आ, in this case likely a locative. Cf. गङ्गाय, vv. 72b and 84b. 50 ‖ d: तम् (or तं) is a common BHS replacement for तत्, on which see BHSG § 21.11.

51 ‖ b: On ई as a n-acc. pl. ending (as in बुद्धी), see BHSG §

10.177; following the Tib. it could be an instrumental, which is also possible in the singular for this ending (on which see § 10.65 ff.) 51 ‖ b: िवकि पय is here a gerund. 51 ‖ d: [ ॰यषःट्परायणम्॥ B 179b 51 ‖ d: The compound गतयःषट्परायाणम् is an instance of the BHS practice of irregular retention of case endings inside compounds.

53

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།ནམ་མཁའ་ལ་ནི་བྱ་རྗེས་བཞིན། །དེ་དག་རྙེད་པར་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །དེ་འདྲའི་རང་བཞིན་བྱང་ཆུབ་དེ། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔས་རྟོགས་པར་འགྱུར། ༤༦ །སྒྱུ་མ་བྱེད་པ་རབ་བསླབས་པ། །སྒྱུ་མ་དག་ནི་སྟོན་པ་ལྟར། །རྣམ་པ་སྣ་ཚོགས་གཟུགས་རྣམས་ཀྱང༌། །གཟུགས་ནི་དམིགས་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། ༤༧ །རྙེད་དང་མི་རྙེད་རློམ་སེམས་མེད། །རྙེད་པ་ལ་ཡང་རྙེད་མེད་དོ། །ཡེ་ཤེས་དེ་ནི་སྒྱུ་མ་འདྲ། །སྒྱུ་མ་དེ་ལ་གནས་པ་མིན། ༤༨ །དེ་བཞིན་ཆོས་རྣམས་སྟོང་པ་ལ། །བྱིས་པའི་བློ་ཡིས་རྣམ་བརྟགས་ནས། །རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་ལ་སྤྱོད་པ་དག །འགྲོ་བ་དྲུག་ཏུ་གཞོལ་བར་འགྱུར། ༤༩ །ཕུང་པོ་སྐྱེ་རྒ་ཉེར་འགྲོ་སྟེ། །དེ་དག་སྐྱེ་བ་ཟད་མི་འགྱུར། །སྐྱེ་ཞིང་འཆི་བའི་ཕུང་པོ་རྣམས། །དེ་དག་སྡུག་བསྔལ་མཐའ་ཡས་སོ། ༥༠

46 ‖ b: འགྱུར་ཏེ། ] N, Q, S; འགྱུར་རོ། P. ‖ c: ཆུབ་དེ། ] N, Q, S; ཆུབ་སྟེ། P. ‖ d: དཔས་ ] Q, S; དཔའ་ N, P.

47 ‖ a: བསླབས་པ།

] N, Q, P; སླབས་པ། S. ‖ Pāda d – N, Q, S; །གཟུགས་ནི་དམིགས་དིམར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། P.

48 ‖ a: མི་རྙེད་ ] N, Q, S; མ་རྙེད་ P. ‖ b:

རྙེད་མེད་དོ། ] P; རྙེད་མེད་དེ། N, Q; མིད་རྙེད་དེ། S. ‖ d: །སྒྱུ་མ་དེ་ལ་ ] N, Q, S; །སྒྱུ་མ་དེ་ནི་ P.

49 ‖ b: །བྱིས་པའི་ ] Q, P, S; །བྱིས་པ་ N.

‖ b: རྣམ་བརྟགས་ནས། ] N, Q; རྣམས་བརྟགས་ནས། P; རྣམ་བརྟགས་པས། S. ‖ d: དྲུག་ཏུ་ ] P, Q, S; དྲུག་ལ་ N. Q; སྐྱེས་རྒ་ P; སྐྱེ་དགའ་ S. 50 ‖ a: [ འགྲོ་སྟེ། Q 113a

50 ‖ a: སྐྱེ་རྒ་ ] N,

54

thomas

दुःखो िह जाितसंसारो बालबुद्धीिह कि पतः। क पा तेषां न क्षीयन्ते क पकोट्यश्च संसरी॥५३॥ अयुक्ताः संपर्युक्ताश्च कमर्योगि म ये ि थताः। कमर्ण ते न मु यन्ते कमोर्पादािन ये रताः॥५४॥ कमोर्घेनोह्यतां तेषां कमर् न क्षीयते सदा। पुनः पुनश्च मर्ीयन्ते मारपक्षे ि थता िह ये॥५५॥ मारािभभूता दु पर्ज्ञाः संिक्लष्टेन िह कमर्णा। अनुभोिन्त जाितमरणं ततर् ततर्ोपपित्तषु॥५६॥ मरणं ते िनग छिन्त अ धा बाल पृथग्जनाः। ह यन्ते च िवह यन्ते गितश्चैषां न भिदर्का॥५७॥ पर परं च घातेिन्त श ेिभबार्लबुद्धयः। एवं पर्यु यमानानां दुःखं तेषां पर्वधर्ते॥५८॥ पुतर्ा मह्यं धनं मह्यं बालबुद्धीिह कि पतम्। असतं धमर् कि पत्वा संसारो भूयु वधर्ते॥५९॥ 53 ‖ c: तेषां न ] A, D, G; तेवान्त B.

54 ‖ b: ॰योगि म ] A, D, G; ॰योगि मर् B. ‖ b: ये ] A, B, D; ते G. ‖ c: कमर्ण ते

] A, D, G; कमर्णा ते B. ‖ d: कमोर्पादािन ] A, B, D; कमर्पादािन G. ‖ d: ये ] A, B, D; ते G.

55 ‖ a: कमोर्घेनोह्यतां

] G; कमोर्घेनोद्वत्तीन् A; कमौर्घेनाह्यन्तां B; कमोर्घेनोहन्तां D. ‖ b: कमर् न ] D, G; कमर्ं A, B. ‖ c: पुनः पनुश्च ] A, B, D; पुनछ्पुनश्च G. ‖ d: िह ये॥ ] A, B, D; सदा॥ G.

B, D; अनुित्त G.

56 ‖ b: संिक्लष्टेन िह ] A, B, G; संिकिलष्टेन D. ‖ c: अनुभोिन्त ] A,

57 ‖ a: मरणं ] D, G; मरन् A; मरणान् B. ‖ b: बाल ] A, B, G; बालाः D. ‖ c: िवह यन्ते ] A, D,

G; िवह य त B. ‖ d: गितश्चैषां ] G; गित तेषां A, B; गित तेषां D.

58 ‖ a: घातेिन्त ] G; घातेित A, D; घतेित B. ‖ b:

श ेिभर् ] G; श ेभ A; श ेिभ B, D. ‖ c: पर् यमानानां ] A, B, D; पर् यमानां G. ‖ d: दुःखं ] A, D, G; दुखं B. ‖ d: पर्वधर्ते॥ ] G; पर्वद्धर्ते॥ A, D; पर्वद्धते॥ B.

59 ‖ Pāda a – D; पुतर्ा मह्यत्वनं मह्यं A; पुतर्ा मह्यं धनं मह्य B; पुतर्ा मह्यं

धनं G. ‖ c: असतं ] G; अशन्तं A; असन्त B; असन्तं D. ‖ c: धमर् ] conj.; कमर् A, B, D; om. G. ‖ c: कि पत्वा ] B, D,

G; ि पत्वा A. ‖ d: भूयु ] D, G; भूय A; तर्यु B. ‖ d: वधर्ते॥ ] G; वद्धर्ते॥ A, B, D. 55 ‖ a: On the confusion of active and passive endings for the pres. part., as here with उह्यताम् see BHSG § 37.15.

57 ‖ d: [ भिदर्का॥ G 111a 57 ‖ d: [ चैषां न भिदर्का॥ D 115b

genitive. 59 ‖ c–d: [ ॰ि पत्वा संसारो A 147b

59 ‖ a: मह्यम् is here a BHS

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

55

།སྐྱེ་ཞིང་འཁོར་བ་སྡུག་བསྔལ་ཏེ། །བྱིས་པའི་བློ་ཡིས་བརྟགས་པས་ན། །དེ་དག་རྟོག་པ་མི་ཟད་དེ། །དེ་དག་བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་འཁོར། ༥༡ །མི་སྦྱོར་བ་དང་རབ་སྦྱོར་དང༌། །ལས་ཀྱི་སྦྱོར་ལ་གང་གནས་དང༌། །ལས་རྣམས་ལེན་པ་གང་དགའ་བ། །དེ་དག་ལས་ལས་མི་ཐར་རོ། ༥༢ །ལས་ཀྱི་ཆུ་བོས་ཁྱེར་བ་དེ། །ལས་ནི་རྟག་ཏུ་ཟད་མི་འགྱུར། །བདུད་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་ལ་གང་གནས་པ། །ཡང་དང་ཡང་ནི་འཆི་བར་འགྱུར། ༥༣ །བདུད་ཀྱིས་ཟིལ་ནོན་ཤེས་རབ་འཆལ། །ཉོན་མོངས་པ་ཡི་ལས་རྣམས་ཀྱིས། །སྐྱེ་བ་དེ་དང་དེ་དག་ཏུ། །སྐྱེ་ཞིང་འཆི་བ་མྱོང་བར་འགྱུར། ༥༤ །སོ་སོའི་སྐྱེ་བོ་ལོང་བ་ཡི། །བྱིས་པ་དེ་དག་འཆི་བར་འགྱུར། །དེ་དག་བཏག་ཅིང་རྣམ་པར་གཞོམ། །དེ་དག་འགྲོ་བ་མི་བཟང་འགྱུར། ༥༥ །བྱིས་པའི་བློ་ཅན་མཚོན་ཆ་ཡིས། །གཅིག་ལ་གཅིག་ནི་གསོད་པར་བྱེད། །དེ་ལྟ་བུར་ནི་སྦྱོར་བ་དག །དེ་དག་སྦྱོར་བ་རབ་ཏུ་འཕེལ། ༥༦ །ངའི་བུ་ང་ཡི་ནོར་སྙམ་དུ། །བྱིས་པའི་བློ་ཡིས་རབ་བརྟགས་ཏེ། །མེད་པའི་ཆོས་རྣམས་བརྟགས་པས་ན། །འཁོར་བ་དག་ནི་ཕྱིར་ཞིང་འཕེལ། ༥༧

51 ‖ b: །བྱིས་པའི་བློ་ཡིས་ ] P, Q, S; །བྱིས་པའིས་ནི་ N. ‖ c: རྟོག་པ་ ] P, Q, S; རྟོགས་པ་ N. ‖ d: བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་ ] Q, S; སྐལད་པ་བྱེ་བར་ N; སྐལ་པ་བྱེད་པར་ P.

52 ‖ b: །ལས་ཀྱི་སྦྱོར་ལ་ ] N, Q, S; །ལུས་ཀྱི་སྦྱོར་བ་ P. ‖ c: །ལས་རྣམས་ ] N, Q, S; །ལུས་རྣམས་ P. ‖ d: ལས་

ལས་ ] Q, S; ལ་ལས་ N, P. ‖ d: ཐར་ ] N, P, Q; འཐར་ S. གར་ P.

53 ‖ b: ཟད་མི་འགྱུར། ] P, Q, S; མྱི་ཟད་འགྱུར་། N. ‖ c: གང་ ] N, Q, S;

54 ‖ a: །བདུད་ཀྱིས་ཟིལ་ནོན་ ] N, Q; །བདུད་ཀྱི་ཟིལ་གནོན་ P, S. ‖ a: འཆལ། ] N, P, S; འཚལ། Q. ‖ b: ཡི་ ] N, Q, S; ཡིས་

P. ‖ d: འཆི་བ་ ] N, P, S; འཆི་བར་ Q.

55 ‖ a: ཡི། ] N, Q, S; ཡིས། P. ‖ b: འགྱུར། ] P, Q, S; མཆི་། N. ‖ c: །དེ་དག་བཏག་ ] Q;

།དེ་གནག་རྟག་ N; །དེ་དག་བཏབས་ P; །དེ་དག་རྟག་ S. ‖ c: གཞོམ། ] N, P, Q; ཞོམ། S. ‖ d: མི་བཟང་ ] N; མི་བཟད་ P, Q, S.

56 ‖ a:

ཡིས། ] N, P, Q; ཡི། S. ‖ b: གསོད་པར་ ] N, S; བསོད་པར་ P; གསོད་པ་ Q. ‖ c: །དེ་ལྟ་བུར་ ] N, P, Q; །དེ་ལྟ་བུས་ S. ‖ d: རབ་ཏུ་ ] P, Q,

S; དག་ཏུ་ N.

57 ‖ a: །ངའི་བུ་ང་ཡི་ ] Q; །ང་ཡི་བུ་ནི་ N; །ངའི་བུ་དང་ P; །ང་ཡི་བུ་ཡི་ S. ‖ c: ཆོས་རྣམས་ ] N, Q, S; ཆོས་ལ་ P.

51 ‖ c: [ །དེ་དག་རྟོག་པ་ P 169a

55 ‖ d: [ འགྱུར། S 306b

56

thomas

संसारं वधर्यन्त ते संसरिन्त पृथग्जनाः। पृथक् पृथक् च ग छिन्त तेन चोक्ताः पृथग्जनाः॥६०॥ पृथू धमार् पर्व यिन्त उि झत्वा बुद्धशासनम्। न ते मोक्षं लिभ यिन्त मार य वशमागताः॥६१॥ कामानां कारणं बालाः ि यं सेविन्त पूितकाम्। पूितकां गित ग छिन्त पतन्ते तेन दुगर्ितम्॥६२॥ कामान्न बुद्धा वणेर्िन्त नािप

ीणां िनषेवणम्।

महाभयो िह पाशो ऽयिमि पाशः सुदारुणः॥६३॥ िववजर्यिन्त तं धीराश्चण्डमाशीिवषं यथा। न िवश्वसिन्त इ ीणां नैष मागोर् िह बोधये॥६४॥ भावेिन्त बोिधमागर्ं च सवर्बुद्धैिनर्षेिवतम्। भावियत्वा च तं मागर्ं भोिन्त बुद्धा अनुत्तराः॥६५॥ अनुत्तराश्च ते भोिन्त भोिन्त लोक य चेितयाः। अनुत्तरे ण ज्ञानेन भोिन्त बुद्धा अनुत्तराः॥६६॥

60 ‖ a: वधर्यन्त ते ] G; वद्धर्ते ते A; वधयन्ते ते B; वद्धर्यन्त ते D. ‖ c: पृथक् पृथक् च ] B, D; पृथक् पृथक् A; पृथक्च गित G.

61 ‖ a: पृथू ] G; पृथुन् A; युषुन B; पृथून् D. ‖ a: धमार् ] G; धमार्न् A, B, D. ‖ b: उि झत्वा ] D, G; उिजत्वा A;

उिज्जर्त्वा B. ‖ c: मोक्षं ] A, D, G; मोक्ष B. ‖ d: मार य ] A, B, D; मारस्+ G.

62 ‖ a: कारणं ] A, D, G; कारणां B. ‖

b: ि यं ] D, G; ि य A; ि तयं B. ‖ c: गित ] B, m.c.; गितं A, D, G, S. ‖ d: तेन ] B, D, S; न A, G. ‖ d: दुगर्ितम्॥ ] A, D, G, S; दुगर्ित॥ B.

ीणां ] A, D, G, S;

ीणा B. ‖ b: िनषेवणम्। ]

A, D, G, S; िनषेवणा। B. ‖ c–d: पाशो ऽयिमि पाशः ] A, D, G, S; पासायिमि त पाशः B.

63 ‖ a: कामान्न ] A, D, G, S; कामान्त B. ‖ b:

64 ‖ a: तं ] D, G, S; ते

A, B. ‖ b: चण्डम् ] A, D, G, S; चण्डाम् B. ‖ b: ॰िवषं ] D, G, S; ॰िवष A, B. ‖ c: न ] A, B, D, S; िन G. ‖ c: इ ीणां ] A, G, S; इि णां B, D. ‖ d: मागोर् ] A, D, G, S; मागार् B.

65 ‖ b: सवर्बुद्धैर् ] G; पूवर्बुद्धै A, B; पूवर्बुद्धैर् D, S. ‖

c: मागर्ं ] B, D, G, S; मागर् A. ‖ d: अनुत्तराः॥ ] A, G, S; अनुत्तना॥ B; अनुत्तमाः॥ D.

66 ‖ a: भोिन्त ] S; यु या D;

om. A, B, G. ‖ b: चेितयाः। ] A, B, D, S; चेितयान् G. ‖ d: भोिन्त बुद्धा ] A, B, D, S; बुद्धा भोिन्त G. ‖ d: अनुत्तराः॥ ] B, D, G, S; अनुत्तरायाः॥ A. 61 ‖ b–c: [ सनम्। न ते मोक्षं B 180a

62 ‖ c: [ गित S 80a

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

57

།འཁོར་བ་དག་ནི་འཕེལ་བྱེད་ཅིང༌། །སོ་སོའི་སྐྱེ་བོ་དེ་དག་འཁོར། །སོ་སོ་ཐ་དད་འགྲོ་བས་ན། །སོ་སོའི་སྐྱེ་བོར་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན། ༥༨ །སངས་རྒྱས་བསྟན་པ་བོར་ནས་ནི། །ཆོས་རྣམས་མང་པོ་རབ་ཏུ་འཆད། །བདུད་ཀྱི་དབང་དུ་སོང་བས་ན། །དེ་དག་ཐར་པ་རྙེད་མི་འགྱུར། ༥༩ །འདོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ནི་བྱིས་པ་རྣམས། །བུད་མེད་རུལ་ལ་བསྟེན་བྱེད་དེ། །འགྲོ་བ་རུལ་པར་འགྲོ་འགྱུར་ཞིང༌། །དེས་ནི་ངན་འགྲོར་ལྟུང་བར་འགྱུར། ༦༠ །འཇིགས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཞགས་པ་ནི། །བུད་མེད་ཞགས་པ་མི་བཟད་པས། །སངས་རྒྱས་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་འདོད་པ་དང༌། །བུད་མེད་བསྟེན་པའང་མ་བསྔགས་སོ། ༦༡ །ལམ་འདི་བྱང་ཆུབ་མི་འགྱུར་བས། །བུད་མེད་རྣམས་ལ་མ་རྟེན་པར། །སྦྲུལ་གདུག་ཤིན་ཏུ་ཁྲོ་བོ་ལྟར། །མཁས་པས་དེ་ནི་རྣམ་པར་སྤང༌། ༦༢ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཀུན་གྱིས་བསྟེན་པ་ཡི། །བྱང་ཆུབ་ལམ་ལ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱེད། །ལམ་དེ་གོམས་པར་བསྒོམ་བྱས་ནས། །བླ་མེད་སངས་རྒྱས་འགྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར། ༦༣ །དེ་དག་བླ་ན་མེད་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ནི་མཆོད་རྟེན་འགྱུར། །བླ་ན་མེད་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱིས། །སངས་རྒྱས་བླ་ན་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༦༤

58 ‖ c: །སོ་སོ་ ] P, Q, S; །སོ་སོར་ N. ན། ] N, Q, S; སོང་བ་ནས། P.

59 ‖ a: བསྟན་པ་ ] N, Q, S; བརྟན་ལ་ P. ‖ a: བོར་ ] P, Q ཐོས་ N; ཐོབ་ S. ‖ c: སོང་བས་

60 ‖ Pāda a – N, Q, S; །བྱིས་པ་དག་ནི་འདོད་པའི་ཕྱིར། P. ‖ b: རུལ་ལ་བསྟེན་བྱེད་དེ། ] Q; རུལ་པ་སྟེན་

བྱེད་དེ་། N; རུལ་པ་བསྟེན་པར་བྱེད། P; རུལ་ལ་སྟེན་བྱེད་དེ། S. ‖ c: འགྲོ་འགྱུར་ཞིང༌། ] N, Q, S; དེ་འགྲོ་སྟེ། P. ‖ Pāda d – N, Q, S; །དེ་དག་ངན་ འགྲོར་རབ་ཏུ་ལྟུང་། P.

61 ‖ a: ཆེན་པོའི་ཞགས་པ་ནི། ] Q, S; ཆེད་པོའི་ཞགས་པ་ཡི། N. ‖ b: ཞགས་པ་ ] Q, S; ཞགས་པས་ N. ‖ d: བསྟེན་

པ་ ] Q, S; བསྙེནད་པ་ N. ‖ Pādas a–d – །སངས་རྒྱས་འདོད་པ་སྔགས་མ་གསུང་། །བུད་མེད་སྟེན་པའང་སྔགས་པ་མིན། །སྙིང་འདི་འཇིགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ སྟེ། །བུད་མེད་སྙིང་ནི་མ་རུངས་པ། P.

62 ‖ b: རྟེན་ ] Q, S; རྟོག་ N. ‖ c: ཁྲོ་བོ་ ] Q, S; འཁྲོ་བ་ N. ‖ d: །མཁས་པས་ ] N, S; །མཁས་པ་

Q. ‖ d: སྤང༌། ] Q; སྤོང་། N, S. ‖ Pādas a–d – །ཤིན་དུ་གདུག་པའི་སྦྲུལ་བཞིན་དུ་། །གཏན་པ་རབ་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་སྤོང༌། །འདི་ནི་བྱང་ཆུབ་ལམ་མིན་ཞེས། །བུད་མེད་ལ་ནི་ཡིད་མི་སྟོན། P.

63 ‖ a: ཀུན་གྱིས་ ] N, S; ཀུན་གྱི་ Q. ‖ a: བསྟེན་པ་ཡི། ] em.; བསྟནད་པའོ་། N; བསྟན་པ་ཡི། Q, S. ‖ b:

བསྒོམ་ ] N, Q; སྒོམ་ S. ‖ c: གོམས་པར་བསྒོམ་བྱས་ནས། ] N; གོམས་པར་བསྒོམ་བྱས་ན། Q; གོམས་པར་བསྒོམས་བྱས་ན། S. ‖ d: འགྲུབ་ ] N,

Q; གྲུབ་ S. ‖ Pādas a–d – །སངས་རྒྱས་སྔ་མས་སྟེན་པ་ཡིས། །བྱང་ཆུབ་ལམ་ནི་སྒོམ་བྱེད་དོ། །ལམ་དེ་རབ་ཏུ་སྒོམས་ནས་ནི། །སངས་རྒྱས་བླ་ན་མེད་པར་ འགྱུར། P. 64 ‖ a: མེད་འགྱུར་ཏེ། ] P, Q, S; མེད་པར་གྱུརད་ཏེ་། N. 58 ‖ a: [ དག་ནི་འཕེལ་བྱེད་ N 151b

62 ‖ b: [ པ་རབ་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་སྤོང་། P 160b 62 ‖ c: [ དུ་ཁྲོ་བོ་ལྟར། Q 113b

58

thomas

पोषधं च िनषेविन्त शील क धे समादपी। समादपेिन्त बोधाय सत्वकोटीरिचिन्तयाः॥६७॥ कुवर्िन्त तेऽथर्ं सत्वानामपर्मेयमिचिन्तयम्। ते ते शूरा महापर्ज्ञा ताडे यमृतदु दुिभम्॥६८॥ क पेिन्त मारभवनाञ्चाले न्ती मारकाियकान्। समादपेिन्त बोधाय मारकोटीरिचिन्तयाः॥६९॥ परवादीिन्नगृह्णिन्त िनिजर्निन्त च तीिथर्कान्। क पेिन्त वसुधां सवार्ं ससमुदर्ां सपवर्ताम्॥७०॥ िवकुवर्माणा कायेिभरनेकिधर्वृषािभतै:। िनदशेर्िन्त महापर्ज्ञाः पर्ाितहायार्निचिन्तयान्॥७१॥ क्षेतर्कोटी पर्क पेिन्त यथा गङ्गाय वािलकाः। परािजिनत्व ते मारान् भोिन्त बुद्धा महायशाः॥७२॥

67 ‖ a: पोषधं ] A, B, D, S; पोषथं G. ‖ b: समादपी। ] A, S; समादषी। B; समादयी। D; समादपे G. ‖ c: समादपेिन्त ] A, G, S; समादयिन्त B; समादयेिन्त D. ‖ d: अिचिन्तयाः॥ ] A, B, D, G; अिचिन्तयाम्॥ S.

68 ‖ a: कुवर्िन्त ] A, B, D,

S; कुवर्ित G. ‖ a: तेऽथर्ं ] D, G, S; ते अथर् A; ते वयं B. ‖ a: सत्वानाम् ] A, D, G, S; सत्वा+ B. ‖ c: ते ते शूरा ] A, D, G, S; तेन शूरो B. ‖ d: ताडे यमृत॰ ] G, S; ता यमृत॰ A; ताद्य यमृत॰ B; ताड्य यमृत॰ D.

69 ‖ a: ॰भवनाञ् ] A, B, D;

॰भवनं G; ॰भवानां S. ‖ b: चाले न्ती ] A, B, G, S, m.c.; चाले िन्त D. ‖ c: समादपेिन्त ] G, S; समादयिन्त A; समादापिन्त

B; समादयेिन्त D. ‖ d: ॰कोटीरिचिन्तयाः॥ ] G; ॰कोिटरिचिन्तयं॥ A; ॰कोिटरिचिन्तयां॥ B, D, S. D, G, S; क पिन्त A; क पैित B. ‖ d: ससमुदर्ां ] B, D, G, S; समुदर्ां A.

70 ‖ c: क पेिन्त ]

71 ‖ a: कायेिभर् ] A, D, G, S; कायेितर्

B. ‖ Pāda b – S; अनेकिधिनकुिवर्तैः। A; अनेकिविधकुिवतैः। B; अनेकिद्धर्िवकुिवर्तैः। D; अनेकिधर्वृषािभता:। G. ‖ c: िनदशेर्िन्त ] A, D, S; िनदशैिन्त B; िनदेश र् िन्त G. ‖ c: महापर्ज्ञाः ] A, D, G; महापर्ज्ञ B; महापर्ज्ञा S. ‖ d: पर्ाितहायार्निच॰ ] A,

B, D; पर्ाितहायार्न्निच॰ G; पर्ाितहायानिचिन्तयाम्॥ S.

72 ‖ a: क्षेतर्कोटी ] A, G; क्षतर्कोटी B; क्षेतर्कोटीं D; क्षेतर्कोटीः

S. ‖ c: परािजिनत्व ] G, m.c.; परािजिनत्वा A, D, S; पराजियत्वा B. ‖ c: मारान् ] A, B, D; मारा G. ‖ Pāda d – A, B, D, S; बोिधं बु य यनुत्तराम्॥ G. 68 ‖ d: [ ताडे यमृ॰ G 111b D 116a

70 ‖ b: [ तीिथर्कान्। A 148a

71 ‖ a: [ िवकुवर्माणा B 180b 71 ‖ b: [ ॰िधर्वृषािभताः।

59

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།གསོ་སྦྱོང་དག་ལ་བསྙེན་བྱེད་ཅིང༌། །ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་ཕུང་པོར་ཡང་དག་འཛུད། །སེམས་ཅན་བྱེ་བ་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །བྱང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་ཡང་ཡང་དག་འཛུད། ༦༥ །དེ་དག་སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་ཀྱི་ནི། །བསམ་ཡས་དཔག་མེད་དོན་བྱེད་དེ། །དཔའ་བོ་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེན་པོ་དེ། །བདུད་རྩི་ཡི་ནི་རྔ་ཡང་རྡུང༌། ༦༦ །བདུད་ཀྱི་གནས་རྣམས་གཡོ་བྱེད་ཅིང༌། །བདུད་ཀྱི་རིས་ཀྱང་གཡོ་བར་བྱེད། །བདུད་རྣམས་བྱེ་བ་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །བྱང་ཆུབ་ལ་ནི་ཡང་དག་འཛུད། ༦༧ །ཕ་རོལ་རྒོལ་བ་ཚར་གཅོད་ཅིང༌། །མུ་སྟེགས་ཅན་ནི་ཕམ་པར་བྱེད། །རི་དང་རྒྱ་མཚོར་བཅས་པ་ཡི། །ས་ཡང་རབ་ཏུ་གཡོ་བར་བྱེད། ༦༨ །ཁྱུ་མཆོག་གྱུར་པ་དུ་མ་ཡིས། །ལུས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པར་འཕྲུལ་བྱེད་ཅིང༌། །ཤེས་རབ་ཆེན་པོ་དེ་དག་ནི། །ཆོ་འཕྲུལ་བསམ་གྱིས་མི་ཁྱབ་སྟོན། ༦༩ །ཞིང་རྣམས་བྱེ་བ་གཡོ་བྱེད་དེ། །གངྒཱ་ཡི་ནི་བྱེ་མ་སྙེད། །དེ་དག་བདུད་རྣམས་ཕམ་བྱས་ནས། །སངས་རྒྱས་གྲགས་པ་ཆེན་པོར་འགྱུར། ༧༠

65 ‖ a: །གསོ་སྦྱོང་དག་ལ་བསྙེན་བྱེད་ ] Q, S; །གསོའ་སྦྱོང་དག་ལ་སྙེན་བྱེད་ N; །གསོས་སྦྱོངས་དག་ལ་བརྟེན་བྱེད་ P. ‖ b: ཡང་དག་འཛུད། ] P, Q, S; ཡང་དག་འཇུག་། N. ‖ d: །བྱང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་ཡང་ ] N, Q, S; །བྱང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་ནི་ P.

66 ‖ a: ཀྱི་ནི། ] N, P, Q; ཀྱིས་ནི། S. ‖ b: དེ། ] N, Q, S; དོ།

P. ‖ c: ཆེན་པོ་དེ། ] N, Q, S; ཆེན་པོ་ཏེ། P. ‖ d: རྡུང་། ] N, P, Q; བརྡུང༌། S.

67 ‖ a: གཡོ་བྱེད་ཅིང༌། ] N, Q, S; གཡོ་བྱས་ཅིང་། P. ‖ b:

རིས་ ] N, Q, S; རིག་ P. ‖ b: གཡོ་བར་བྱེད། ] P; གཡོ་བར་བྱས། N, Q, S. ‖ d: ལ་ནི་ ] N, P, Q; ལམ་ནི་ S.

S; བཅོད་ P. ‖ b: བྱེད། ] N, Q, S; བྱས། P.

68 ‖ a: གཅོད་ ] N, Q,

69 ‖ b: འཕྲུལ་ ] N, Q, S; ཕྲུལ་ P. ‖ d: བསམ་གྱིས་ ] N, Q, S; བསམ་གྱི་ P.

70 ‖

a: དེ། ] P, Q, S; སྟེ། N. ‖ b: །གངྒཱ་ ] N, Q, S; །ག་གྷ་ P. ‖ b: སྙེད། ] N, Q, S; རྙེད། P. ‖ c: ཕམ་ ] P, Q, S; འཕམ་ N. ‖ d: གྲགས་པ་ ] P, Q, S; དྲགས་པ་ N. 65 ‖ d: [ འཛུད། S 307a

60

thomas

िनिमर्ण्विन्त च ते वृक्षान् रतनैः सुिविचितर्तान्। फलपु पेिह संपन्नान् ग धवन्तो मनोरमान्॥७३॥ पर्ासादांश्च िवमानािन कूटागारान् सहिमर्कान्। िनिमर्ण्विन्त च ते शूराः पुि किरण्यो मनोरमाः॥७४॥ अष्टाङ्गजलसंपन्ना अ छाः शीता अनािवलाः। िपबिन्त ये ततो वािर ितसर् तृ णान् जहिन्त ते॥७५॥ अिवव यार्श्च ते भोिन्त पीत्वा वािर िनरुत्तरम्। अनुत्तरे ण ज्ञानेन भोिन्त बुद्धा अनुत्तराः॥७६॥ अनुत्तरां गितं शान्तां ग छन्तीित िवजानथ। इमां गितं अजानन्तः पर्नष्टा औपलि भकाः॥७७॥ ते च तद्भािगकाः सत्वा ये तेषां भोिन्त िनिशर्ताः। पित यिन्त महाघोरामवीिचमपरायणाः॥७८॥

73 ‖ c: संपन्नान् ] B, S; संपन्नं A; संपन्ना D; संयुक्तान् G. ‖ Pāda d – G; ग धमन्तो मनोरमान् A; ग धमन्ता मनोरमा॥ B; ग धमन्तान् मनोरमान्॥ D; ग धवन्तो मनोरमाः S.

74 ‖ a: िवमानािन ] D, G, S; मानािन A, B. ‖ Pāda b – A, G,

S; कूटांगारां सहिषर्का। B; कूटागारां सहिषर्कां। D. ‖ c: िनिमर्ण्विन्त ] A, D, G, S; िनिमर्त्तािन्त B.

75 ‖ b: अ छाः ]

A, B, G, S; स्व छाः D. ‖ b: शीता ] A, B, D, S; शीतला G. ‖ d: ितसर् तृ णां ] S; िममर् तृ णां A; िनशर् तृ णां B; ितसर् तृ णा D; ि तसर्ितर् णा G. िनरुत्तरां। A.

76 ‖ a: अिवव यार्श्च ] D, G, S; अिववर् याश्च A; अिवव याश्च B. ‖ b: िनरुत्तरम्। ] B, D, G, S;

77 ‖ a: अनुत्तरां ] A, B, D, S; अनुत्तरा G. ‖ a: गितं ] D, G, S; गित A, B. ‖ c: गितं अजानन्तः ] G;

गिति वजानन्तः A; गित िवजानन्तः B; गितं िवजानन्तः D; गित न जानन्तः S. ‖ d: औपलि भकाः ] A, D, S; तैपलिभकाः॥

B; सवर्तीिथर्काः॥ G.

78 ‖ a: ते च तद्भािगकाः ] G, S; त च तद्भािगकाः A; ते च तङ्गीकाः B; ते च तद्गंितकाः D. ‖ b:

िनिशर्ताः। ] B, D, S; िनिसर्ताः। A; िनःशृता। G. ‖ c: पित यिन्त ] B, D, G; पर्ित यिन्त A. ‖ c: ॰घोराम् ] A, B, D, S; ॰घोरम्

G. ‖ d: अपरायणाः॥ ] A, B, D, S; अपरायण्॥ G. 73 ‖ ग धवन्तो is here a BHS accusative plural.

75 ‖ d: आन् , here found as the ending for तृ णा, is

an acceptable BHS ending for feminines ending in आ for the accusative plural.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

61

།དེ་དག་ཤིང་རྣམས་སྤྲུལ་བྱེད་དེ། །རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཡིས་རྣམ་པར་བརྒྱན། །མེ་ཏོག་འབྲས་བུ་ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས། །དྲི་དང་ལྡན་ཞིང་ཡིད་དུ་འོང༌། ༧༡ །ཁང་པ་དང་ནི་གཞལ་མེད་ཁང༌། །ཁང་པ་བརྩེགས་པ་པུ་ཤུར་བཅས། །དཔའ་བོ་དེ་དག་སྤྲུལ་པར་བྱེད། །རྫིང་བུ་ཡིད་དུ་འོང་བ་དག ༧༢ །ཡན་ལག་བརྒྱད་ལྡན་ཆུ་ཡིས་གང༌། །དང་ཞིང་བསིལ་ལ་རྙོག་པ་མེད། །དེ་ལས་ཆུ་ནི་སུས་འཐུངས་པ། །སྲེད་པ་གསུམ་ཡང་སྤོང་བར་འགྱུར། ༧༣ །བླ་ན་མེད་པའི་ཆུ་འཐུངས་ནས། །དེ་དག་ཕྱིར་ཡང་མི་ལྡོག་འགྱུར། །བླ་ན་མེད་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱིས། །སངས་རྒྱས་བླ་ན་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༧༤ །བླ་མེད་ཞི་བའི་འཇུག་པར་ནི། །འགྲོ་བར་ཤིན་ཏུ་རིག་པར་གྱིས། །འཇུག་པ་འདི་ནི་མི་ཤེས་པས། །དམིགས་པ་ཅན་དག་ཤིན་ཏུ་བརླག ༧༥ །སུ་དག་དེ་ལ་རྟེན་གྱུར་ཅིང༌། །དེ་དང་སྐལ་མཉམ་སེམས་ཅན་དེ། །མནར་མེད་པར་ནི་དེ་འགྲོ་སྟེ། །མི་བཟད་པ་ནི་ཆེན་པོར་ལྟུང༌། ༧༦

71 ‖ a: ཤིང་ ] em.; ཞིང་ N, P, Q, S. ‖ b: བརྒྱན། ] N, P, Q; རྒྱན། S. ‖ c: ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས། ] P, Q, S; ཕུན་གསུམ་འཚོགས་། N. d: །དྲི་ ] P, S; །དྲའི་ N; །གྲི་ Q.

72 ‖ Pāda a om. P. ‖ b: པུ་ཤུར་ ] P, Q, S; བུ་ཤུ་ N. ‖ c: སྤྲུལ་པར་ ] em.; སྤྲུལ་པ་ N, Q, S; འཕྲུལ་བར་

P. ‖ d: དག ] N, Q, S; དང་། P.

73 ‖ b: བསིལ་ ] N, Q, S; གསིལ་ P. ‖ Pāda c – N, Q; །དེ་ལ་ཆུ་ནི་སུ་འཐུང་པ། P; །དེ་ལས་ཆུ་ནི་སུ་

འཐུངས་པ། S. ‖ d: །སྲེད་པ་ ] N, S; །སྲིད་པ་ P, Q. ‖ d: གསུམ་ ] P, Q, S; བསུམ་ N.

‖ b: མི་ལྡོག་འགྱུར། ] Q, P, S; ལྡོག་མི་འགྱུར། N. བརླག ] N, Q, S; རླག P.

74 ‖ a: འཐུངས་ནས། ] N, P, Q; འཐུང་ནས། S.

75 ‖ a: ཞི་བའི་ ] N, Q, S; ཞི་བར་ P. ‖ b: །འགྲོ་བར་ ] N, P, Q; །འགྲོ་བ་ S. ‖ d:

76 ‖ a: གྱུར་ཅིང༌། ] P, Q, S; འགྱུར་ཞིང་། N. ‖ b: །དེ་དང་སྐལ་མཉམ་སེམས་ཅན་ ] P; །དེ་དག་སེམས་ཅན་སྐལ་

མཉམ་ N; །དེ་དག་བསྐལ་མཉམ་སེམས་ཅན་ Q; །དེ་དག་སྐལ་མཉམ་སེམས་ཅན་ S. ‖ c: དེ་འགྲོ་ ] P, Q, S; དེར་འགྲོ་ N. ‖ d: ལྟུང༌། ] P, Q; ལྷུང་།

N, S. 71 ‖ b: [ རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ N 152a

73 ‖ d: [ །སྲེད་པ་གསུམ་ P 161a

75 ‖ d: [ པ་ཅན་དག་ Q 114a 75 ‖ d: [ ཏུ་བརླག S 307b

62

thomas

या ततर् वेदना तीवर्ा न शक्यं ताः पर्कीितर्तुम्। अहं च ताः पर्जानािम बोिधसत्वाश्च ताियनः॥७९॥ ये चेह धमेर् काङ्क्षिन्त एवंग भीरदुदृर्शे। अभूिम ततर् बालानामुपल भि म ये ि थताः॥८०॥ िनिमर्ण्विन्त िवयूहां ते नैकरूपिनदशर्नान्। येन ते सिवर् ग छिन्त बुद्धक्षेतर्ान् अनुत्तरान्॥८१॥ याव यो बुद्धक्षेतर्ेषु रूपिनहार्रसंपदः। सवार् ता इह दशेर्िन्त बोिधसत्वा महिधर्काः॥८२॥ महाधमेर्ण संनद्धा महावीरा महाबलाः। महाशू याथर्वजर्ेण पर्हारािण ददिन्त ते॥८३॥ रि मकोटीसहसर्ािण यथा गङ्गाय वािलकाः। कायतो िनश्चर येषां येिभ लोकः पर्भासते॥८४॥

79 ‖ Pāda a – S; या ततर् देवता वर्ाः A; या ततर् थदना तीवर्ा B; या ततर् वेदना ीवर्ा D; या ततर् वेदना घोरा G. ‖ b: पर्कीितर्तुम्। ] G, m.c.; पिरकीितर्तं।ु A, B, D, S. ‖ c: ताः ] A, B, D, S; तां G. ‖ d: ताियनः॥ ] A, D, G, S; ताियनाः॥ B.

80

ुर् े। G. ‖ ‖ a: धमेर् ] A, D, G, S; धमर् B. ‖ b: ॰ग भीर॰ ] A, B, D, S; ॰ग भीिर॰ G. ‖ b: दुदृर्शे। ] A, D, S; दुदृसे। B; दुदश

Pāda c – G; अभूिम यतर् बालाम् A; अभूिम यतर् वा पनाम् B; अभूिमयर्तर् बालानाम् D; अभूिम यतर् बालानाम् S.

81 ‖

a: िनिमर्ण्विन्त ] A, D, G, S; िनिमर्त्तािन्त B. ‖ b: ॰िनदशर्नान्। ] B, D, G, S; ॰िनदशर्तानां। A. ‖ c: सिवर् ] B, D, G, S; सिव A. ‖ d: बुद्धक्षेतर्ान् ] A, B, D, S; ॰क्षेतर्ा G.

82 ‖ a: याव यो ] B, D, G; यावन्तो A. ‖ b: ॰िनहार्र॰ ] B, D, G; ॰िनहार॰

A. ‖ b: संपदः। ] A, D; संपदं। B; सपदः G. ‖ d: महिधर्काः॥ ] G, S; महिद्धर्काः॥ A, D; महिद्धकाः॥ B.

83 ‖ a:

॰धमेर्ण ] A, D, S; ॰धमैर्ण B; ॰वषेर्ण G. ‖ d: पर्हारािण ] G; पर्हरािण A, B, D. ‖ d: ददिन्त ते॥ ] A, B, D; ददंते॥ G.

84

‖ a: रि म॰ ] B, D, G; नि म॰ A. ‖ d: येिभ ] A, B, G; येिभर् D. ‖ d: पर्भासते॥ ] D, G; पर्भाशतैः॥ A; पर्भाषत॥ B. 79 ‖ d: [ ॰श्च ताियनः॥ G 112a

80 ‖ b: [ ॰ भीरदुदृर्शे। B 181a 80 ‖ b: On उ in place of ऋ (as here in

ुर् े from G), see BHSG § 3.92. 80 ‖ d: [ ॰ि म ये ि थताः॥ A 148b the reading दुदश

word of this verse is visible in the photographs of S.

82 ‖ Only the final

83 ‖ a: It is possible that the reading वषेर्ण

in G was corrupted from वमेर्ण, as म and ष are easily confused in the Gupta script of the Gilgit ms. Furthermore it is also possible that the व of वमेर्ण was corrupted into a ध, giving us धमेर्ण, the reading found in the Nepalese mss. and the Tibetan translation. 83 ‖ b: महाबलाः। ] S 80a c–d: [ ॰षां येिभ D 116b

84 ‖

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

63

།དེ་ཡི་སྡུག་བསྔལ་དྲག་པོ་ནི། །བརྗོད་པར་ནུས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་སྐྱོབ་པ་དང༌། །ངས་ནི་དེ་དག་རབ་ཏུ་ཤེས། ༧༧ །འདི་འདྲ་ཟབ་མོ་མཐོང་དཀའ་ཡི། །ཆོས་ལ་སུ་དག་ནེམ་ནུར་བྱེད། །སུ་དག་དམིགས་ལ་གནས་པ་ཡི། །བྱིས་པ་དག་གི་ས་མ་ཡིན། ༧༨ །བླ་མེད་སངས་རྒྱས་ཞིང་དུ་ནི། །གང་གིས་དེ་དག་འགྲོ་འགྱུར་བ། །གཟུགས་སྟོན་པ་ནི་དུ་མ་ཡི། །བཀོད་པ་དག་ནི་སྤྲུལ་པར་བྱེད། ༧༩ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཞིང་ནི་ཇི་སྙེད་ཀྱི། །གཟུགས་འགྲུབ་ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས་ཡོད་པ། །དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་འདིར་ཡང་ནི། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་འཕྲུལ་ཆེ་སྟོན། ༨༠ །ཆོས་ཆེན་གྱིས་ནི་གོ་བགོས་ཏེ། །དཔའ་ཆེན་སྟོབས་ཀྱང་ཆེ་བ་དག །སྟོང་པའི་དོན་ཆེན་རྡོ་རྗེ་ཡིས། །གདབ་པ་དག་ཀྱང་དེ་དག་འདེབས། ༨༡ །འོད་ཟེར་བྱེ་བ་ཕྲག་སྟོང་དག །གངྒཱ་ཡི་ནི་བྱེ་མ་སྙེད། །དེ་ཡི་ལུས་ལས་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར། །དེས་ནི་འཇིག་རྟེན་རབ་ཏུ་སྣང༌། ༨༢

77 ‖ a: དྲག་པོ་ ] N, Q, S; ཆེན་པོ་ P.

Between vv. 77 and 78, N. inserts one pāda: །དེ་ལ་ཅུང་ཟད་བསྟནད་པ་མྱེད་།

78

‖ a: །འདི་འདྲ་ ] N, P, Q; །འདི་འདྲའི་ S. ‖ a: མཐོང་དཀའ་ ] N, Q, S; ལྟ་དཀའ་ P. ‖ c: དམིགས་ལ་ ] P, Q, S; དམྱིགས་པར་ N. ‖ d: མ་ ཡིན། ] P, Q; མ་བསྟནད་། N; མ་བསྟན། S. མྱེད་མ་ཡིན་། N.

79 ‖ b: །གང་གིས་ ] N, Q, S; །གང་གི་ P. ‖ c: སྟོན་པ་ནི་དུ་མ་ཡི། ] P, Q, S; བསྟནད་པ་ཡང་

80 ‖ a: ཇི་སྙེད་ ] N, Q, S; ཇི་རྙེད་ P. ‖ b: འགྲུབ་ ] P, Q, S; གྲུབ་ N. ‖ d: འཕྲུལ་ཆེ་ ] N, Q, S; འཕྲུལ་ཆེན་ P.

81

‖ a: གྱིས་ ] N, P; གྱི་ Q, S. ‖ c: །སྟོང་པའི་ ] P, Q, S; །སྟོནད་པའི་ N. ‖ Pāda d – P, Q; །གདབ་པ་དག་དང་དེ་ལ་འདེབས་། N; །གདབས་པ་ དག་ཀྱང་དེ་དག་འདེབས། S.

82 ‖ a: བྱེ་བ་ཕྲག་སྟོང་དག ] P, Q, S; བྱེ་བ་སྟོང་ཕྲག་དག་། N. ‖ b: གངྒཱ་ཡི་ ] Q, S; གང་གའི་ N; ག་གྷ་ཡི་ P.

64 न ते

thomas ी विभर यन्ते न च तेषां िवरागता।

िवभािवतैषां सा संज्ञा इि संज्ञा स्वभावतः॥ ८५॥ अशू या बुद्धक्षेतर्ा ते येषु शूरा वसिन्त ते। िकं तेषां मारु पापीयान् अन्तरायं किर यित॥८६॥ दृष्टीकृतेषु ि थत्वा तै बहुबुद्धा िवरािगताः। यापादेन उप त धा इ छालोभपर्ितिष्ठताः॥८७॥ त एव मारा िवज्ञेयाः सवर्दृिष्टपर्ितिष्ठताः। न तेषां मारु पापीयान् अन्तरायाय यु यते॥८८॥ सवर्सज्ञ ं ा िवभावेत्वा संज्ञावैवितर् य ि थतः। स एवं ज्ञा यते ज्ञानं बुद्धज्ञानमिचिन्तयम्॥८९॥ पूवार्न्तमपरान्तं च पर् यु पन्नं च प यित। एवं च देिशतो धमोर् न चातर्ो िकंिच देिशतम्॥९०॥ न च ज्ञानेन जानाित न चाज्ञानेन सीदित। ज्ञानाज्ञाने िवक पेत्वा बुद्धज्ञानं ित वुच्चित॥९१॥

85 ‖ b: िवरागता। ] A, G; िवरािगता। B, D. ‖ c: िवभािवतैषां ] A, B; िवभािवतैषा D, G. ‖ c: सा ] A, B, D; om. G.

86

‖ a: ॰क्षेतर्ास् ] D, G; ॰क्षेतर्स् A; ॰क्षतर्ास् B. ‖ b: शूरा ] A, B, G; सूतर्ा D. ‖ b: वसिन्त ] A, B, D; भविन्त G. ‖ c: पापीयान् ] B, D, G; पीपीयोन् A. ‖ d: किर यित॥ ] B, D, G; किर यिन्त॥ A.

87 ‖ Pāda a – A, B; दृष्टीकृतेषु ि थत्वा तैर् D;

दृष्टीकृताये ि थता ये तैर् G. ‖ b: बहु ] B, D; om. A; बहू G. ‖ c: उप त धा ] B, D, G; उप ते धा A. ‖ d: ॰लोभ॰ ] A,

D, G; ॰लाभ॰ B.

88 ‖ a: त एव ] A, D; तपव B. ‖ a: िवज्ञेयाः ] D; िवज्ञेषा A; िवज्ञाया B. ‖ c: मारु ] D; मार A, B.

‖ Pāda d – A, B; अन्तरायं पर्यु यते॥ D. ‖ V. 88 om. G.

89 ‖ a: िवभावेत्वा ] A, G; िवभावत्वा B; िवभािवत्वा D. ‖

b: य ] G; ये A, B, D. ‖ b: ि थत:। ] em.; ि थताः। A, B, D; ि थता G. ‖ c: स एवं ] G; य एवं A, B, D. ‖ c: ज्ञा यते ] G; ज्ञा यती A, B, D.

90 ‖ a: पूवार्न्तमपर॰ ] G; पूवार्न्तामपर॰ A; पूवार्न्तपर॰ B; पूवार्न्तंपर॰ D. ‖ d: चातर्ो ] A, G; चातर्ौ

B; चातर् D. ‖ d: देिशतम्॥ ] A, B, D; देिशतः॥ G.

91 ‖ a: जानाित ] G; जानिन्त A, B, D. ‖ b: न चा॰ ] A, G; नाचा॰

B; नो चा॰ D. ‖ c: ज्ञानाज्ञाने ] G; ज्ञानाज्ञानं A, B, D. ‖ d: बुद्धज्ञानं ित ] A, B, D; बुद्धज्ञान ित G. 90 ‖ a: [ ॰न्तमपरान्तं B 181b

91 ‖ a–b: [ ॰नाित न चाज्ञानेन A 149a

65

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།དེ་དག་བུད་མེད་མི་ཆགས་ཏེ། །དེ་དག་ཡིད་བྱུང་མི་བྱེད་ལ། །བུད་མེད་འདུ་ཤེས་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས། །འདུ་ཤེས་དེ་དག་རྣམ་པར་བཤིག ༨༣ །དཔའ་བོ་དེ་དག་གར་གནས་པ། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཞིང་དེ་མི་སྟོང་སྟེ། །དེ་དག་ལ་ནི་སྡིག་ཅན་བདུད། །བར་ཆད་བྱེད་པར་ག་ལ་འགྱུར། ༨༤ །ལྟ་བ་དག་ལ་དེ་གནས་པས། །སངས་རྒྱས་མང་པོ་མཉེས་མ་བྱས། །གནོད་སེམས་ཀྱིས་ནི་ཉེར་བརྟེན་ཅིང༌། །འདོད་དང་ཆགས་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་གནས། ༨༥ །ལྟ་ལ་གནས་པ་དེ་དག་ཀུན། །བདུད་ཡིན་པར་ནི་རིག་པར་བྱ། །དེ་ལ་སྡིག་ཅན་བདུད་རྣམས་ཀྱང༌། །བར་ཆད་བྱེད་པར་མི་འཇུག་གོ ༨༦ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །ཡེ་ཤེས་དེ་ལྟར་སུས་ཤེས་པ། །འདུ་ཤེས་ཐམས་ཅད་རྣམ་བཤིག་ནས། །འདུ་ཤེས་དག་ནི་མི་ལྡོག་གནས། ༨༧ །སྔོན་གྱི་མཐའ་དང་ཕྱི་མའི་མཐའ། །ད་ལྟར་མཐའ་ཡང་མཐོང་བར་འགྱུར། །དེ་ལྟར་ཆོས་རྣམས་བསྟན་མོད་ཀྱི། །དེ་ལ་ཅུང་ཟད་བསྟན་པ་མེད། ༨༨ །ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་ཤེས་པ་མེད། །མི་ཤེས་པས་ཀྱང་ཞུམ་མི་འགྱུར། །ཡེ་ཤེས་མི་ཤེས་རྣམ་བརྟགས་ནས། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན། ༨༩

83 ‖ a: མི་ཆགས་ ] P, Q, S; མེད་ཆགས་ N. ‖ b: ཡིད་བྱུང་མི་བྱེད་ལ། ] S; ཡི་བྱུང་མྱི་བྱེད་ཅིང་། N; ཡིད་འབྱུང་མི་བྱེད་ཅིང་། P; ཡི་བྱུང་མི་བྱེད་ལ། Q. ‖ c: རང་བཞིན་ ] P, Q, S; རང་འབྱུང་ N.

85 ‖ a: དག་ལ་ ] P, Q, S; དག་པ་ N. ‖ b: མཉེས་མ་བྱས། ] Q, S; མཉེས་པ་བྱས་། N; སྙེས་མ་

བྱས། P. ‖ c: ཉེར་བརྟེན་ ] Q, P; གཉེར་གཏད་ N; ཉེ་བརྟན་ S. དག་ནི་ ] P, S; དག་ལ་ N; དག་པ་ Q.

84 ‖ c: [ ནི་སྡིག་ཅན་ N 152b

87 ‖ b: སུས་ ] P, Q, S; སུ་ N. ‖ c: བཤིག་ ] N, Q, S; བཞིག་ P. ‖ d:

88 ‖ c: བསྟན་མོད་ ] P, Q, S; སྟོནད་མོད་ N.

85 ‖ a: [ ལྟ་བ་དག་ P 161b

89 ‖ d: ཡིན། ] N, Q, S; ཡིས། P.

86 ‖ b: [ དག་ཀུན། S 308a

89 ‖ b: [ པས་ཀྱང་ཞུམ་ Q 114b

66

thomas

िवज्ञिप्तवाक्यसंकेतं बोिधसत्वः पर्जानित। करोित सोऽथर्ं सत्वानामपर्मेयमिचिन्तयम्॥९२॥ संज्ञासंजाननाथेन र् उद्गर्हेण िनदिशर्ता। अनुद्गर्हश्च सा संज्ञा िविवक्ताथेर्न देिशता॥९३॥ यं चो िविवक्तं सा संज्ञा या िविवक्ता स देशना। संज्ञास्वभावो ज्ञातश्च एवं संज्ञा न भे यित॥९४॥ पर्हा यािम इमां संज्ञां य य संज्ञा पर्वतर्ते। संज्ञापर्पञ्चे चरित न स संज्ञातु मु यते॥९५॥ क येयं संज्ञ उ पन्ना केन संज्ञा उ पािदता। केन सा पिशर्ता संज्ञा केन संज्ञा िनरोिधता॥९६॥ धमोर् न ल धु बुद्धेन य य संज्ञा उ पद्यते। इह िचन्तेथ तं अथर्ं ततः संज्ञा न भे यित॥९७॥

92 ‖ c: सोऽथर्ं ] A, B, D; अथर्ं G.

93 ‖ a: ॰संजाननाथेन र् ] D, G; ॰संजाननाथेन A; ॰संजनेनाथैन B. ‖ b: उद्गर्हेण

] D, G; उद्गर्ेन A; उद्गर्हण B. ‖ d: िविवक्ताथेन र् ] D, G; िविवक्ताथेर् A; िविवक्तावैन B. ‖ d: देिशता॥ ] A, B, D; दिशर्ता॥ G.

94 ‖ a: िविवक्तं ] B, D; िविवक्तां A; िविवक्ता G. ‖ b: िविवक्ता ] A, D, G; िविवक्त B. ‖ b: स देशना ] B, D,

G; देशनां A. ‖ d: न भे यित॥ ] A, B, D; स भे यित॥ G. A, D, G; ॰पर्पर्ंचे B. ‖ d: स ] A, B, D; om. G. B, D. ‖ c: सा ] conj.; om. A, B, D, G.

95 ‖ a: पर्हा यािम ] A, B, D; पर्हा याम G. ‖ c: ॰पर्पञ्चे ]

96 ‖ a: क येयं ] A, B, D; य येयं G. ‖ a: संज्ञ ] G, m.c.; संज्ञा A,

97 ‖ a: ल धु ] D, G; ल ध A, B. ‖ a: बुद्धेन ] A, B, D; बुद्धे G. ‖ c: िचन्तेथ

तं ] D; िचत्तेथ तं A; िचत्तेष तं B; िचन्तेत त G. ‖ d: ततः ] B, D, G; +तः A. ‖ d: भे यित ] A, B, D; भेसित G.

92 ‖ a–b: [ ॰केतं बोिध त्वः G 112b

95 ‖ d: संज्ञातु is an ablative, on which see BHSG § 9.35.

97 ‖ c:

On the use of anusvāra before a vowel, as in तं अथर्ं here, see BHSG § 2.64. 97 ‖ c: The ending -थ in िचन्तेथ is a common BHS ending for the 2nd person imperative plural, which normally would be

-त .

67

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།རྣམ་རིག་ཚིག་དང་བརྡ་རྣམས་ནི། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔས་རབ་ཏུ་ཤེས། །དེ་ནི་སེམས་ཅན་དོན་རྣམས་ཀྱང༌། །དཔག་མེད་བསམ་ཡས་བྱེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༠ །འདུ་ཤེས་ཀུན་ཏུ་ཤེས་པའི་ཕྱིར། །འཛིན་པར་ཡང་ནི་དེ་བསྟན་ཏེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་དེ་ནི་མི་འཛིན་པ། །དབེན་པའི་དོན་དུ་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན། ༩༡ །དབེན་པ་གང་ཡིན་འདུ་ཤེས་ཏེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་གང་ཡིན་བསྟན་པ་དེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་རང་བཞིན་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཏེ། །དེ་ལྟར་འདུ་ཤེས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༢ །འདུ་ཤེས་འདི་ནི་སྤང་སྙམ་དུ། །གང་གི་འདུ་ཤེས་འབྱུང་བ་ནི། །འདུ་ཤེས་སྤྲོས་ལ་སྤྱོད་པ་སྟེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་ལས་ནི་དེ་མི་ཐར། ༩༣ །སུ་ཡི་འདུ་ཤེས་འདི་དག་བྱུང༌། །སུ་ཡིས་འདུ་ཤེས་འདི་བསྐྱེད་བྱས། །སུས་ནི་འདུ་ཤེས་རེག་པར་བྱས། །སུས་ནི་འདུ་ཤེས་བཀག་པར་གྱུར། ༩༤ །གང་གི་འདུ་ཤེས་འབྱུང་བ་ནི། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་ཆོས་མ་བརྙེས། །འདིར་ནི་དོན་དེ་བསམ་པར་གྱིས། །དེ་ནས་འདུ་ཤེས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༥

90 ‖ b: སེམས་དཔས་ ] P, Q; སེམས་དཔའ་ N, S.

91 ‖ b: བསྟན་ཏེ། ] N, Q, S; བསྟན་དེ། P. ‖ Pāda c – N, S; །འདུ་ཤེས་དུ་ནི་མི་

འཛིན་པ། Q; །དེ་ལྟར་འདུ་ཤེས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། P, cf. 92d ‖ d: །དབེན་པའི་ ] N, P, S; །དཔན་པའི་ Q.

92 ‖ a: ཏེ། ] N, Q, S; དེ། P. ‖ b:

བསྟན་པ་དེ། ] N, Q, S; བསྟན་པས་དེ། P. ‖ c: ཡེ་ཤེས་ཏེ། ] N, P, S; ཡེ་ཤེས་དེ། Q. ‖ Bewteen pādas c. and d., N. inserts །འདུ་ ཤེས་ཀུན་ཏུ་ཤེས་པའི་ཕྱིར་། (cf. 91a.) ‖ d: མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ] P, Q, S; རང་བཞིན་འགྱུར་། N.

93 ‖ a: སྤང་སྙམ་དུ། ] P, Q; སྤང་ནས་སུ་། N;

སྤངས་སྙམ་དུ། S. ‖ b: ནི། ] P, Q, S; ཡིན་། N. ‖ c: སྤྲོས་ལ་ ] Q, S; སྤོང་བ་ N; སྤྲོས་པ་ P. ‖ d: ཐར་། ] N, P; འཐར། Q; མཐར། S.

94

‖ a: འདི་དག་བྱུང་། ] P, Q; དེ་དག་འབྱུང་། N; དེ་དག་བྱུང་། S. ‖ b: །སུ་ཡིས་ ] N, P, S; །སུ་ཡི་ Q. ‖ c: །སུས་ནི་ ] P, Q; །སུ་ནི་ N, S. ‖ d: བཀག་པར་གྱུར ] S; དཀའ་བར་གྱུརད་། N; རྣམ་པར་རྟོགས། P; བཀག་པར་འགྱུར། Q.

95 ‖ a: འབྱུང་བ་ ] N, Q, S; བྱུང་བ་ P. ‖ b: ཀྱིས་ ] N,

Q, S; ཀྱི་ P. 95 ‖ b: བརྙེས། ] N, Q; རྙེས། P; བསྙེས། S. c: །འདིར་ནི་དོན་དེ་ ] Q, S; །འདི་ནི་དོན་དེ་ N; །འདི་ནི་དོན་མེད་ P. ‖ c: གྱིས། ] N, P, S; བགྱིས། Q. 92 ‖ c: It seems the Tibetan translators read ज्ञानं च here for ज्ञातश्च. b: [ མ་བརྙེས། S 308b

95 ‖ b: [ རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་ཆོས་ P 162a ‖

68

thomas

यदा संज्ञा अनु पन्ना क य संज्ञा िनरु यते। िवमोक्षिश्चत्तधार य कथं ततर्ोपपद्यते॥९८॥ यदा िवमोक्षं पृशित सवर्िचन्ता अिचिन्तयाः। अिचिन्तया यदा िचन्ता तदा भोित अिचिन्तयः॥९९॥ िचन्ताभूमौ ि थिहत्वान पूवर्मेवं िविचिन्तता। सवर्िचन्ता जिहत्वान ततो भे य यिचिन्तयः॥१००॥ शुक्लधमर्िवपाकोऽयमसं कारे ण प यित। एकक्षणेन जानाित सवर्सत्विविचिन्ततम्॥१०१॥ यथा सत्वा तथा िचन्ता यथा िचन्ता तथा िजनाः। अिचिन्तयेन बुद्धेन इयं िचन्ता पर्कािशता॥१०२॥ यो रहो एकु िचन्तेित कदा िचन्ता न भे यित। न िचन्ता िचन्तयन्त य सवर्िचन्ता िवग छित॥१०३॥ युते मृते कालगते य य िचन्ता पर्वतर्ते। िचन्तानुसािर िवज्ञानं नासौ िचन्तातु मु यते॥१०४॥

98 ‖ a: संज्ञा अनु पन्ना ] A, B, G; संज्ञानु पन्ना D. ‖ Pāda c – A, B, D; िवमोक्षिचत्तचार य G. ‖ d: ततर्ोपपद्यते॥ ] A, B; ततर्ोपल यते॥ D; ततर् उ पद्यते॥ G.

99 ‖ b: अिचिन्तयाः ] D; अिचिन्तयां A, B; अिचिन्तय G. ‖ c: यदा ] A, B, D; सदा

G. ‖ d: भोित अिचिन्तयः ] G; भोिन्त अिचिन्तयाः B; भोिन्त अिचिन्तयः A, D.

100 ‖ b: पूवर्मेवं ] G; पूव्वम र् ेवं A; पूवार्मेव

B; पूवर्मेव D. ‖ c: ॰िचन्ता ] B, G; ॰िचन्तां A, D. ‖ d: भे य यिचिन्तयः॥ ] D; भे यमिचिन्तयः॥ A; भे येमिचिन्तयः॥ B; भे यामिचिन्तयः॥ G.

101 ‖ b–c: ऽयमसं क॰ ] A, B, D; योसं क॰ G. ‖ c: जानाित ] B, D, G; जानानाित A.

‖ b: तथा िजनाः ] A, D; तथा िजनः G; वहु िजनाः B.

102

103 ‖ a: िचन्तेित ] D, G; िचत्तेित A; िचन्नेित B. ‖ b: भे यित ] A,

B, D; वे यते G. ‖ c: िचन्ता ] G; िचत्ता A. ‖ c: िचन्तयन्त य ] em.; िचत्तय त य A; िचन्त य G. ‖ d: सवर्िचन्ता ] A; सवार् िचन्ता G. ‖ d: िवग छित॥ ] A; िव छित॥ G. ‖ Pādas c–d om. B and D.

104 ‖ c: िचन्तानुसािर ] A, B, D, G;

िचत्तानुसािर S. ‖ c: िवज्ञानं ] A, B, D. िवज्ञानो G. ‖ d: िचन्तातु ] B, D, G, S; िचन्तानु A.

98 ‖ c–d: [ ॰र य खथं D 117a BHS gerunds.

99 ‖ d: [ भोित अिचिन्तयः॥ B 182a

101 ‖ c–d: [ ॰नाित सवर्सत्व॰ A 149b

from a BHS stem िचन्तयन्त. 103 ‖ d: [ ॰ित॥ G 113a

100 ‖ ि थिहत्वान and जिहत्वान are both

103 ‖ c: Here the word िचन्तयन्त य is formed

104 ‖ b–c: [ ॰ते। िचत्तानुसािर S 81a

69

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།ནམ་ཚེ་འདུ་ཤེས་སྐྱེས་པ་ན། །སུ་ཡི་འདུ་ཤེས་ཡིན་ཞེས་བརྗོད། །སེམས་ཀྱི་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་རྣམ་ཐར་ཡང༌། །དེ་ལ་ཇི་ལྟར་རུང་བར་འགྱུར། ༩༦ །གང་ཚེ་རྣམ་ཐར་རེག་པ་ན། །བསམ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་བསམ་པ་མེད། །གང་ཚེ་བསམ་པ་བསམ་མེད་པ། །དེ་ཚེ་བསམ་དུ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༧ །བསམ་པའི་ས་ལ་གནས་ནས་ནི། །མཐར་གྱིས་རྣམ་པར་བསམ་བྱས་ཏེ། །བསམ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་རྣམ་སྤངས་ན། །དེ་ནས་བསམ་དུ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༨ །འདི་ནི་དཀར་ཆོས་རྣམ་སྨིན་ཏེ། །འདུ་བྱེད་མེད་པས་མཐོང་བར་འགྱུར། །སེམས་ཅན་ཀུན་གྱིས་རྣམ་བསམས་པ། །སྐད་ཅིག་གཅིག་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་ཤེས། ༩༩ །སེམས་ཅན་ཅི་འདྲ་དེ་བཞིན་བསམ། །བསམ་བཞིན་རྒྱལ་བ་དེ་འདྲ་སྟེ། །སངས་རྒྱས་བསམ་དུ་མེད་པ་ཡིས། །བསམ་པ་འདི་ནི་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན། ༡༠༠ །གཅིག་པུ་དབེན་སོང་གང་སེམས་པ། །ནམ་ཞིག་སེམས་པ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། །བསམ་པ་དག་ནི་མི་སེམས་ན། །བསམ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༡༠༡ །ཤི་འཕོས་དུས་བྱས་ཤི་བའི་ཚེ། །གང་གི་བསམ་པ་རབ་འཇུག་པ། །བསམ་པའི་རྗེས་སུ་རྣམ་ཤེས་འབྲང༌། །བསམ་ལས་དེ་ནི་མི་ཐར་རོ། ༡༠༢ 96 ‖ Pāda a – N, Q, S; །ན་ཚེ་འདུ་ཤེས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། P. ‖ Pāda c – Q; །སེམས་ཀྱི་རྒྱུད་ནི་རྣམ་ཐརད་ཡང༌། N; །སེམས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པར་ཐར་པ་ ཡང་། P; །སེམས་ཀྱི་རྒྱུད་ཀྱིས་རྣམ་ཐར་ཡང༌། S.

97 ‖ a: རེག་པ་ན། ] Q, S; རིག་པ་ན་། N; རེག་པ་ནི། P.

Q, S; གནས་པར་བསམ་ཡས་ཏེ་། N; རྣམ་པར་བསམ་བྱ་སྟེ། P. ‖ c: སྤངས་ན། ] P, Q; སྤངས་ནས་། N, S.

98 ‖ b: རྣམ་པར་བསམ་བྱས་ཏེ། ] 99 ‖ a: རྣམ་སྨིན་ ] N, Q, S; སྨིན་

པ་ P. ‖ b: །འདུ་བྱེད་མེད་པས་ ] P, Q, S; །འདུ་ཤེས་མྱེད་པར་ N. ‖ c: བསམས་པ། ] P; བསམས་ན་། N; བསམ་པ། Q, S. ‖ d: གཅིག་ལ་ ] N,

Q, S; གཅིག་གིས་ P.

100 ‖ d: །བསམ་པ་ ] N, P, Q; །བསམས་པ་ S.

101 ‖ b: སེམས་པ་ ] N, Q, S; སེམས་དཔའ་ P.

102

‖ a: །ཤི་འཕོས་དུས་བྱས་ ] P, Q; །ཤི་འཕོས་འདུས་བྱས་ N; །ཤི་འཕོ་འདུ་བྱས་ S. ‖ b: །གང་གི་ ] N, Q, S; །གང་གིས་ P. ‖ d: དེ་ནི་མི་ཐར་རོ། ] P; དེ་ནས་མྱི་ཐར་རོ་། N; དེ་ནི་མ་ཐར་ཏོ། Q; དེ་ནི་མི་མཐར་ཏོ། S.

96 ‖ a–b: The Tibetan translation of the first two pādas seems to based on a corrupt manuscript. They seem to have read िनरु यते for िनरु यते in pāda b. Perhaps the reading from the Skt. ms D could offer a clue as to how they translated སྐྱེས་པ་ when they should have had མ་སྐྱེས་པ་ in pāda a. Also note the correction of this in Phukdrak.

97 ‖ c: [ བསམ་པ་བསམ་མེད་པ། N 153a

101 ‖ c: The

Tibetan translators either had a Sanskrit ms. with a different reading or they misinterpreted this pāda. 101 ‖ d: [ ཅན་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། Q 115a

70

thomas

ये ि थता इि संज्ञायां राग तेषां पर्वतर्ते। िवभािवतायां संज्ञायां न रागेणोपिल यते॥१०५॥ इयं िचन्ता महािचन्ता धमर्िचन्ता िनरुत्तरा। अनया धमर्िचन्ताय भूतिचन्ता पर्वतर्ते॥१०६॥ बहू अिचिन्तया िचन्ता दीघर्रातर्ं िविचिन्तताः। न च िचन्ताक्षयो जातः िचन्तियत्वा अयोिनशः॥१०७॥ योऽसौ िचन्तयते नाम क्षये ज्ञानं न िवद्यते। न क्षयो भूिमज्ञान य क्षय या एष धमर्ता॥१०८॥ घोषो वा पथ िवज्ञिप्तः क्षयश देन देिशता। िनिवर्शेषाश्च ते धमार् यथा ज्ञानं तथा क्षयः॥१०९॥ अनु पन्नािनरुद्धाश्च आिनिमत्ता अलक्षणाः। क पकोिटं िप भािषत्वा अिनिमत्तेन देिशताः॥११०॥ सवर्भावान् िवभािवत्वा अभावे ये पर्ितिष्ठताः। न चा यो दिशर्तो भावो नाभावोऽ यो िनदिशर्तः॥१११॥ िवज्ञप्ता भावश देन अभाव य पर्काशना। न चासौ सवर्बुद्धेिह अभावः शक्यु पि यतुम्॥११२॥

105 ‖ Vv. 105cd – 108ab om. B and D. om. S. क्षय यौ B.

107 ‖ c–d: जातः िचन्त॰ ] A, S; ज्ञातिश्चन्त॰ G. ‖ d: िचन्तियत्वा ] A, G;

108 ‖ b: न िवद्यते ] G, S; न संिवद्यते A. ‖ c: क्षयो ] A, D, G, S; क्षया B. ‖ d: क्षय या ] G, S; क्षय यो A, D; 109 ‖ b: देिशता ] A, B, G, S; देिशतः D. ‖ d: ज्ञानं ] B, D, G, S; ज्ञान A.

110 ‖ a: अनु पन्नािनरुद्धाश्च ]

A, B, D, S; अनु पादिनरुद्धाश्च G. ‖ b: आिनिमत्ता ] S; अिनिमत्ता A, B, D, G. ‖ b: अलक्षणाः। ] A, B, D, S; अक्षलक्षण G. ‖ c: ॰कोिटं िप भािष॰ ] B, D, G; ॰कोिट िवभािष॰ A; ॰कोिटि वभािष॰ S. ‖ d: अिनिमत्तेन ] A, B, D, S; आिनिमत्तेन G.

111 ‖ a: िवभािवत्वा ] A, B, D, S; िवभावेत्वा G. ‖ c: दिशर्तो ] B, D, G, S; देिशतो A. ‖ Pāda d – D, S; नाभावो येन

दिशर्तः॥ A; नाभावो यौ िनदिशर्तः॥ B: यो िनदिशर्तः G.

112 ‖ c: चासौ ] B, D, G, S; चा यै A. ‖ d: शक्यु ] A, D, G,

S; शक्य B. ‖ d: पि यतुम्॥ ] D, G, S; पपि यतुं॥ A; पि यतु B. 106 ‖ c: धमर्िचन्ताय is an instrumental.

112 ‖ a: [ िवज्ञप्ता A 150a 112 ‖ c: [ न चासौ B 182b

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

71

།སུ་དག་བུད་མེད་འདུ་ཤེས་གནས། །དེ་དག་འདོད་ཆགས་རབ་ཏུ་འཕེལ། །འདུ་ཤེས་དག་ནི་རྣམ་བཤིག་ན། །འདོད་ཆགས་ཀྱིས་ནི་གོས་མི་འགྱུར། ༡༠༣ །བསམ་པ་འདི་ནི་བསམ་པ་ཆེ། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་བསམ་པ་བླ་ན་མེད། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་བསམ་པ་འདི་ཡིས་ནི། །ཡང་དག་བསམ་པ་རབ་ཏུ་འབྱུང༌། ༡༠༤ །ཚུལ་བཞིན་མ་ཡིན་རྣམ་བསམས་པས། །བསམ་པ་བསམ་ཡས་མང་པོ་དག །ཡུན་རིང་དུས་སུ་རྣམ་བསམས་ཀྱང༌། །བསམ་པ་དག་ནི་ཟད་མ་གྱུར། ༡༠༥ །གང་དག་མིང་ལ་སེམས་པ་ཡང༌། །ཟད་པ་ལ་ནི་ཡེ་ཤེས་མེད། །ས་ཤེས་པ་ལ་ཟད་པ་མེད། །ཟད་པའི་ཆོས་ཉིད་དེ་ཡིན་ནོ། ༡༠༦ །སྒྲ་དང་རྣམ་རིག་ཚིག་གི་ལམ། །ཟད་པའི་སྒྲར་ནི་བསྟན་པ་སྟེ། །ཆོས་དེ་རྣམས་ནི་བྱེ་བྲག་མེད། །ཤེས་བཞིན་ཟད་པ་དེ་བཞིན་ཏེ། ༡༠༧ །མ་སྐྱེས་ཤིང་ནི་མ་འགགས་པ། །མཚན་མ་མེད་ཅིང་མཚན་ཉིད་མེད། །བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བར་བཤད་ཀྱང་ནི། །མཚན་མ་མེད་པར་བསྟན་པ་ཡིན། ༡༠༨ །དངོས་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་རྣམ་བཤིག་ནས། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་ལ་རབ་གནས་པ། །དངོས་པོ་གཞན་དུ་མ་བསྟན་ཏེ། །དངོས་མེད་པ་ཡང་གཞན་མི་བསྟན། ༡༠༩ །དངོས་མེད་སྒྲས་ནི་རིག་བྱས་ཏེ། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན། །སངས་རྒྱས་དག་ནི་ཀུན་གྱིས་ཀྱང༌། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་བལྟར་མི་ནུས། ༡༡༠ 104 ‖ a: འདི་ ] N, P, S; དེ་ Q.

105 ‖ a: །ཚུལ་བཞིན་མ་ཡིན་ ] N; །ཚུལ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ ] P, Q, S. ‖ a: རྣམ་བསམས་པས། ] P; རྣམས་

བསམས་པས་། N; རྣམས་བསམས་པ། Q; རྣམས་བསམ་པས། S. ‖ c: རྣམ་བསམས་ཀྱང་། ] N, Q; རྣམས་བསམ་ཀྱང་། P, S. ‖ d: ཟད་མ་གྱུར། ] P,

Q, S; ཟད་མི་འགྱུར་། N.

106 ‖ a: མིང་ ] P, Q, S; མྱི་ N. ‖ c: །ས་ཤེས་པ་ ] em.; །སྒྲ་ཤེས་པ་ N, P, Q; །ས་ཞེས་པ་ S. ‖ Pāda d –

P, S; །ཟད་མྱེད་ཆོས་ནི་དེ་ཡིན་ནོ་། N; །ཟད་པའི་ཆོས་ནི་དེ་ཡིན་ན། Q.

107 ‖ a: རྣམ་རིག་ ] P, Q, S; རང་རིག་ N. ‖ b: སྒྲར་ ] N, P; སྒོར་ Q;

སྒྲ་ S. ‖ d: ཤེས་བཞིན་ ] P, Q, S; ཤེས་ཤིང་ N. ‖ d: ཏེ། ] N, Q, S; དེ། P. །སྐལད་པ་ N; །སྐལ་པ་ P. ‖ d: མཚན་མ་ ] P, Q, S; མཚན་ཉིད་ N.

108 ‖ a: ཤིང་ ] N, P, S; ཤེས་ Q. ‖ c: །བསྐལ་པ་ ] Q, S;

109 ‖ d: གཞན་མི་བསྟན། ] N, Q, S; གཞན་མིན་གནས། P.

110

‖ a: སྒྲས་ ] N, P, Q; སྒྲར་ S. ‖ a: རིག་བྱས་ཏེ། ] N, Q, S; རིག་བྱ་སྟེ། P. ‖ b: མེད་པ་ ] N, Q, S; མེད་པར་ P. ‖ d: མེད་པ་བལྟར་ ] Q; མྱེད་ པ་ལྟར་ N; མེད་པར་ལྟར་ P; མེད་པར་བལྟར་ S.

105 ‖ a: [ བསམ་པས། S 309a ‖ b: [ མང་པོ་དག P 162b

110 ‖ c: [ དག་ནི་ཀུན་གྱིས་ N 153b

72

thomas

यो भावः सवर्भावानामभावो एष दिशर्तः। एवं भावान् िवजािनत्वा अभावो भोित दिशर्तः॥११३॥ नासौ पशर्ियतुं शक्यमभावो जातु केनिचत्। पशर्नात् तु अभाव य संवृती एष दिशर्ता॥११४॥ अहं बुद्धो भवेल्लोके य यैषा िह मितभर्वेत्। न जातु भवतृ णातोर् बोिधं बु येत पिण्डतः॥११५॥ न कंिच धमुर् पर्ाथेर्ित बोिधसत्वः समािहतः॥ िनि कंचना िनराल बा एषा बोधीित वुच्चित॥११६॥ बहू एवं पर्व यिन्त वयं बोधाय पर्ि थताः। इमां गितमजानन्तो दरू े ते बुद्धबोधये॥११७॥ श देन देिशतो धमर्ः सवेर्सं कारशू यकाः। यश्च स्वभावः श द य ग भीरः सू म दुदृर्शः॥११८॥

113 ‖ Pāda a – A, D, G, S; यो भावाश्चवभावानाम् B. ‖ b: अभावो ] A, G, S; अभावा B; अभाव D. ‖ c–d: िवजािनत्वा अभावो भोित ] B, D, G, S; जािनत्वा अनाभोगोित A. ‖ d: दिशर्तः॥ ] A, D, G, S; दिशतेः। B.

114 ‖ a: नासौ ] G; न

चासौ A, D, S; न यासौ B. ‖ a: पशर्ियतुं ] A, D, G, S; प+ियतुं B. ‖ a: शक्यम् ] G, S; शक्यः A, D; शक्य B. ‖ b: जातु

] B, D, G, S; जान A. ‖ c: पशर्नात् तु ] S; पशर्ना तु A, B, D, G. ‖ d: संवृती ] A, B, D, S; िनवृर्ती G. ‖ d: दिशर्ता॥ ] A, D, S; दिशता॥ B; देिशता॥ G.

115 ‖ a: भवेल्लोके A, B, D, S; भवे लोके G. ‖ b: य यैषा ] B, D, G, S; य येषा

A. ‖ b: मितभर्वेत्। ] B, D, S; मित भवेत्। A; मित+वत् G. ‖ d: बोिधं ] A, D, G, S; बोिध B.

116 ‖ Pāda a – G; न

िकिञ्चद्ध मर् पर्ाथेर्ित A; न किञ्चद्धमर्ं पर्ाप्नुित B; न कंिचद्धमर्ं पर्ाथेर्ित D, S. ‖ Pāda c – D, S; िनिकिञ्चनाराल वा A; िनःिकंचना िनराल धा B; िन कंचना िनराभोगा G. ‖ Pāda d – D, S; एषो बोधीित वुचित॥ A; एषा बोधीित वुद्वित। B; एषा बोधीत वुच्चित॥ G.

117 ‖ a: बहू ] B, D, G, S; बहु A. ‖ a: पर्व यिन्त ] G, S; व यिन्त A, B; च व यिन्त D. ‖ c: गितमजानन्तो ]

A, D, S; गितमजानप्ता B; गितंमजानन्तो G.

118 ‖ a: देिशतो धमर्ः ] A, B, G, S; देिशता धमार्ः D. ‖ d: दुदृर्शः ] D, G,

S; इदृशः॥ A; दुदृशः। B. 114 ‖ a–b: [ शक्यमभावो G 113b

115 ‖ d: [ ॰ येत पिण्डतः॥ D 117b

118 ‖ a: अः is an acceptable ending

for the nominative plural in BHS, as here with देिशतो and धमर्ः. Vide BHSG § 8.83. 118 ‖ b: The phrase सवेर् सं कारशू याकाः is a case of the BHS tendency to freely include inflected nouns as members of

a compound. Here, सवेर् is in a karmadhāraya relationship with सं कार, i.e. सवेर् च ते सं काराश्च.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

73

།དངོས་པོ་ཀུན་གྱི་དངོས་པོ་ནི། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པར་དེ་བསྟན་ཏེ། །དེ་ལྟར་དངོས་པོ་རྣམ་རིག་ན། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་ཞེས་བསྟན། ༡༡༡ །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་དེ་ཡང་ནི། །སུས་ཀྱང་ནམ་དུ་རེག་མི་ནུས། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་རེག་པ་ཡིས། །ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་ནི་དེ་བསྟན་ཏོ། ༡༡༢ །འཇིག་རྟེན་སངས་རྒྱས་བདག་འགྱུར་སྙམ། །དེ་ལྟར་གང་གི་བློ་འགྱུར་བ། །སྲིད་པའི་སྲེད་པས་ཡོང་མི་གཟིར། །མཁས་པ་བྱང་ཆུབ་རྟོགས་པར་འགྱུར། ༡༡༣ །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་མཉམ་བཞག་པ། །ཆོས་ནི་གང་ལའང་སྨོན་མི་བྱེད། །ཅི་ཡང་མེད་ཅིང་དམིགས་པ་མེད། །དེ་ནི་བྱང་ཆུབ་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན། ༡༡༤ །བྱང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་ནི་ངེད་ཞུགས་ཤེས། །མང་དུ་དེ་སྐད་སྨྲ་མོད་ཀྱི། །འཇུག་པ་འདི་ནི་མི་ཤེས་པས། །དེ་དག་སངས་རྒྱས་བྱང་ཆུབ་རིང་། ༡༡༥ །འདུ་བྱེད་ཐམས་ཅད་སྟོང་པར་ནི། །སྒྲ་ཡིས་ཆོས་རྣམས་རབ་ཏུ་བཤད། །སྒྲ་ཡི་རང་བཞིན་གང་ཡིན་པ། །ཟབ་ཅིང་ཕྲ་སྟེ་མཐོང་བར་དཀའ། ༡༡༦

111 ‖ b: མེད་པར་ ] N, P, Q; མེད་པ་ S.

112 ‖ b: །སུས་ཀྱང་ ] P, Q, S; །ལུས་ནི་ N. ‖ Pāda c – Q; །དངོས་མྱེད་པར་རིག་པ་འིས་། N;

།དངོས་པོ་མེད་པར་རེག་པ་ཡིས། P, S. ‖ d: བསྟན་ཏོ། ] Q, S; བསྟནད་ཏེ་། N; བསྟན་ཏེ། P. སྲེད་པས་ ] N, Q, S; སྲིད་པས་ P. ‖ c: ཡོང་ ] N, P, S; ཡོད་ Q.

114 ‖ a: བཞག་པ། ] N, Q, S; གཞག་པ། P. ‖ b: གང་ལའང་སྨོན་མི་བྱེད།

] P, Q, S; གང་ལ་ཡང་སྨིན་མྱི་བྱེད་། N. ‖ d: བརྗོད་པ་ ] P, Q, S; སྤྱོད་པ་ N. N, P.

113 ‖ b: འགྱུར་བ། ] P, Q, S; བྱུང་བ་། N. ‖ c:

115 ‖ a: ངེད་ ] P, S; ཉེད་ N; ངང་ Q. ‖ b: སྨྲ་ ] Q, S; སྨྲས་

116 ‖ d: ཕྲ་ ] P, Q, S; འཕྲ་ N. ‖ d: མཐོང་བར་དཀའ། ] N; མཐོང་བ་དཀའ། P, S; མཐོང་བར་དགའ། Q.

115 ‖ b: [ ཤེས། Q 115b 115 ‖ d: [ ཆུབ་བརྗོད་པ་ S 309b

116 ‖ b: [ སྒྲ་ཡིས་ཆོས་ P 163a

74

thomas

Translation Then the Bhagavān again addressed the princely Candraprabha: “Therefore, prince, the great bodhisattva who wishes to carry out the purification of the great higher knowledge of all dharmas should listen to this samādhi that elucidates the equality of the nature of all phenomena; he should learn it, master it, maintain it, proclaim it, disseminate it, transmit it, study it, meditate on it with an unafflicted meditation, practice it, and explain it to others in detail.31 What, prince, is the purification of the great higher knowledge of all dharmas? It is the lack of grasping at any phenomena; the lack of clinging to the discipline-corpus; the lack of conceit regarding the meditation-corpus; the unstirring of the wisdom-corpus; the vision of voidness of the liberationcorpus; the vision as it is of the vision-of-the-wisdom-of-liberation-corpus;32 it is the higher knowledge possessed of which the great bodhisattva, displaying all his samādhi miracles, teaches the dharma to beings. This, prince, is what is called ‘the great higher knowledge of all dharmas.’” Then, on that occasion, the Bhagavān expansively expounded in melodious verse a dharma discourse that explains the purification of the higher knowledge of all dharmas for the princely Candraprabha. 1.

2. 3.

31 32

33

The purification of the great higher knowledge is taught without dispute; He who deals in dispute, grasping, will not be liberated. Its higher knowledge33 is insight, the inconceivable buddha-wisdom. He who who is based on grasping does not have wisdom. Many inconceivable dharmas are taught in words; He who fixates on such words does not understand the language of hidden intent. See the introduction for information on the use of the term samādhi in this context. These five “corpora” (Skt. skandha) are classifications of the practice or activity of the bodhisattva, and they also appear in the Pāli canon. They are described in the sūtras and in some exegetical treatises based on the sūtras, including in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra. According to the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra (20:22–23), the first three corpora, the discipline(śīla-), meditation- (samādhi-), and wisdom- (prajñā-) corpora, correspond to the three “trainings” (Skt. śikṣā, i.e. adhiśīlaśikṣā, etc.), and are executed on bhūmis 2, 3, and 4– 6 respectively. The liberation-corpus (vimuktiskandha) then refers to the activity of the bodhisattva that accomplishes certain rarefied achievements on bhūmis 7–10, and the vision-of-the-wisdom-of-liberation-corpus (vimuktijñānadarśanaskandha) refers to the uninhibited, omniscient wisdom of the 11th bhūmi, buddhahood. I.e. the higher knowledge referred to in the preceding section by the phrase “the purification of the great higher knowledge.”

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

75

Not knowing the language of hidden intent, what could he intend when he speaks? Untrained in the nature of phenomena, he teaches non-dharma as dharma. The sūtras that I have taught in thousands of worlds Are of varied letter, but one meaning; they cannot be expressed. By considering one subject, all the many dharmas Taught by all the buddhas are cultivated. If those that are versed in the selflessness of all phenomena Train in this subject, the qualities of a buddha will not be hard to obtain. All phenomena are buddha-dharmas for those who are trained in the nature of phenomena— For those who, understanding the nature of phenomena, do not go against it. All speech is indeed the speech of the buddhas; all words are essenceless. Even searching the ten directions, the speech of the buddhas will not be found. Even searching the ten directions, this speech, the unsurpassable speech of the buddhas, Has not been, is not, and will not be found. The speech of the buddhas is unsurpassed; it is unexcelled. Not even an atom of it can be found; thus it is said to be unsurpassed. Not one atom of a phenomenon arises; atoms are taught in words. Not even an atom that is taught in words in the world can be found. The presence of phenomena is non-presence; there is no presence in presence. Those who understand phenomena in this way will awaken to supreme enlightenment. Having awakened to unsurpassed enlightenment, they will set in motion the wheel of the dharma. Setting in motion the wheel of the dharma, they will expound the teachings of the Buddha. The bodhisattvas also awaken to unsurpassed buddha-wisdom That is why they are called “buddha”; they understand buddhawisdom. Lack of existence, lack of aim, lack of characteristics, and emptiness; The buddhas teach the way by means of these approaches to liberation.

76

thomas

17. The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind— It has been taught by the buddhas that these are empty of nature. 18. He who knows the nature of such phenomena Does not dispute, having understood the character of phenomena. 19. This is the domain of the bodhisattvas—heroic and saintly.34 Knowing the emptiness of phenomena, they never long for anything. 20. He knows the nature of phenomena, therefore, he is called “buddha.” He trains inconceivably immeasurable beings for enlightenment. 21. He who is referred to by the word “buddha” is also referred to by the word “discipline”; The word “buddha” and the word “discipline” have the same nature. 22. All the words that are known, whether low, middling, or highest, Are collected in one word; they are all expressed by the word “buddha.” 23. The dharmas of the buddha are said to not be located in any place, or in any location. They neither arise nor cease, and they are neither one nor many. 24. They are neither new nor old, and they are free of conceit. They are neither blue, yellow, white, or red. 25. They are taught in words to be inexpressible and ungraspable. And yet this is not the domain of words; this is the miracle of the sage. 26. These dharmas are undefiled; thus they are said to be in the state of liberation. They are not situated in the ten directions—this is the teaching of the buddhas. 27. The buddha-form of a buddha who has entered nirvana manifests; Contemplating this point, one sees the miracle. 28. A being who has reached deliverance cannot be found; Even so, the dharma is taught, and many beings have been liberated. 29. As the sun and the moon are seen in a brass vessel, Yet their own forms do not enter it—such is the nature of phenomena. 30. They who know phenomena to be like illusions in their nature, Do not see the form of the Buddha in terms of the rūpakāya. 31. This dharma is formless; there is not any form in it. That dharma which lacks form is the form of the Buddha. 32. Those who see in terms of the dharmakāya see the Leader. For the buddhas are dharmakāyas;35 this is the vision of the buddhas.

34 35

“Saintly” is a translation of the Skt. tāyin, on which see BHSD s.v. There is a pun here that is difficult to convey in English. The text reads dharmakāyā

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

77

33. Phenomena are explained in dependence; they are explained to be without reference point.36 Those who strive at asceticism should understand this notion. 34. Non-attainment is taught as attainment, having understood the mental disposition of beings. He who understands the language of hidden intent will not be defeated by anything. 35. He who thinks “I have attained this” is thus said not to have attained anything. It is because one has not attained asceticism that he is called “an ascetic.” 36. How can those who are not trained propound these profound dharmas? These dharmas cannot even be called “profound.” 37. The five skandhas are substanceless; they arise non-existent. There is no one to whom the skandhas belong that would bring them about. 38. The nature of all phenomena is the same as that of the five skandhas; They are taught to have this nature, even though they do not have a nature. 39. For one looking at the past, present, and future, The nature of phenomena is like the sky, like space. 40. Space is said to be ungraspable; there is nothing graspable found there. This is the nature of phenomena; it is ungraspable, similar to space. 41. Thus the dharma is taught, and there is no one to see it. He who doesn’t see any dharmas has inconceivable dharmas.37

36

37

hi saṃbuddhā, which means both “The buddhas are dharmakāyas” and “The buddhas have the dharma for their bodies.” This pun is also found in the famous verse from the Vajracchedikasūtra: dharmato buddho draṣṭavyo dharmakāyā hi nāyakāḥ * dharmatā ca na vijñeyā na sā śakyā vijānitum (2:26) The buddha should be seen in terms of the dharma, for the Leaders are the dharmakāya. * Dharmatā is not a conventional knowable; it cannot be known conventionally. An additional aspect to the pun can be appreciated when we consider that the original meaning of the word dharmakāya was “the body of teachings,” referring to the collection of teachings taught by the Buddha. Here prati-√diś seems to be used in the sense of “to teach, explain” although this meaning for this word is not attested anywhere else. This second pāda is quite cryptic; I have chosen one among many meanings that are possible to attribute to it. There is a play on words here involving the word dharma. In the most obvious interpretation, in the first usage of the word it refers to the Buddhist teachings; in the second to phenomena in general, and in the last to the special qualities of a buddha (i.e. buddhadharma).

78

thomas

42. These phenomena have no nature; their nature is not found. This is the domain of yogis who strive for the enlightenment of the buddha. 43. He who understands phenomena in this way does not cling to them. Not clinging to phenomena, he understands their characteristics. 44. The saintly bodhisattva contemplates all phenomena; Having contemplated the nature of phenomena, he has no illusions as regards the buddha-dharmas.38 45. The apex of reality is spoken of as such considering this apex, which is free of conceit. He who knows this apex has no illusions for tens of millions of eons. 46. Imagining an anterior limit, the foolish wander in samsara. Their location is not found, even searching the ten directions. 47. Having understood samsara to be empty, the sons of the Conqueror do not cling. They strive for the sake of enlightenment, though their conduct cannot be found. 48. As the tracks of birds in the sky cannot be found, Such is the nature of the enlightenment that is realized by the bodhisattva. 49. As an expert magician displays an illusion, Just so, there are forms of many kinds, but no form can be found. 50. One should not imagine non-presence to be presence; there is no presence in presence. This wisdom is also like an illusion, although it is not based in illusion. 51. Phenomena thus being empty, nevertheless those with foolish minds falsely conceptualize; And, dealing in false conceptualization, they are caught up in the six states of existence. 52. Beings are accompanied by birth and old age; their birth does not cease. The suffering of those who possess the skandhas of birth and death is endless. 53. Birth and samsara are imagined to be suffering by those with foolish minds; Their imaginings do not cease; they wander in samsara for tens of millions of eons.

38

The word buddhadharma here could refer to either the qualities of a buddha or to the teachings of the Buddha.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

79

54. Those who are involved in karma, undevoted and attached, Will not be freed from their karma, delighting as they do in the karma of clinging. 55. They, who are swept away by the flood of karma, will never see their karma come to an end. They, who are on the side of Māra, will die again and again. 56. They are overpowered by Māra and have little wisdom; due to their afflictive karma, They will experience birth and death in their existences. 57. They, foolish, blind, ordinary people, go to their death; They are killed and slaughtered; their existence is not good. 58. Those with foolish minds strike each other with weapons; Engaged in this way, their suffering increases. 59. Those with foolish minds imagine: “These are my children, this is my wealth”; Thus imagining false phenomena, samsara ever increases. 60. These ordinary people wander in samsara, increasing it. They each go individually, thus they are called “ordinary.”39 61. They expound all kinds of teachings, having rejected the Buddha’s doctrine; They will not attain liberation, being under the power of Māra. 62. Because of desire, the foolish devote themselves to foul women. They end up in foul situations; because of this they fall into evil destinies. 63. The buddhas do not praise the objects of desire, nor devotion to women; The terrible noose of woman is indeed a greatly fearful noose. 64. The wise avoid it like a fierce poisonous snake; They do not rely on women, for this is not the path to enlightenment. 65. They cultivate the path to enlightenment that has been followed by all the buddhas. And having cultivated that path, they become unsurpassed buddhas. 66. They become unsurpassed, and objects of reverence to the world; Through their unsurpassed wisdom, they become unsurpassed buddhas.

39

“Ordinary” is translating the Sanskrit pṛthagjana, which literally means “individual, separate people”; it is impossible to capture the word play of the Sanskrit here in English.

80

thomas

67. They devote themselves to the poṣadha fast, establish others in the discipline-corpus,40 And establish inconceivable tens of millions of beings in enlightenment. 68. They bring about immeasurable and inconceivable benefit for beings; These heroes of great wisdom beat the drum of deathlessness. 69. They shake the abodes of Māra, agitate the Māras, And establish countless tens of millions of Māras in enlightenment. 70. They rebuke their opponents, and defeat the non-Buddhists; They shake the entire earth, together with the oceans and the mountains. 71. Magically displaying their bodies, majestic with various miraculous powers, They, of great wisdom, display inconceivable miracles. 72. They shake tens of millions of worlds—as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges. Having defeated the Māras, they become buddhas of great fame. 73. They create trees that are beautifully variegated with jewels, Flush with fruits and flowers, fragrant, and lovely. 74. These heroes create palaces, floating castles, and mansions with penthouses; They also create lovely lotus pools 75. That are replete with water of the eight qualities, clear, cool, and unpolluted. Whoever drinks the water from them will abandon the three cravings. 76. They will become irreversible,41 having drunk this unsurpassable water; Through unsurpassed wisdom, they will become unsurpassed buddhas. 77. Know that they will go to peaceful, unsurpassed states of existence. Not knowing this process, those with intellectual conceptions are ruined. 78. They, along with those that consort with them and rely on them, Undevoted, will fall into the terrible avīci hell. 79. The terrible pain there cannot be expressed; I and the saintly bodhisattvas know it, 80. Along with those who long for this profound, inscrutable dharma. It is not the domain of the foolish who are on the level of concepts.

40 41

On the meaning of the term “discipline-corpus,” see note 32. In other words, they will never turn back on the path to enlightenment.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

81

81. They create magical arrays exhibiting various forms, By means of which they all travel to unsurpassed buddha-fields. 82. All the magnificent creations of form there are in all the buddha fields Are all displayed there by the bodhisattvas of great magical power. 83. Courageous, greatly powerful, and armored with the great dharma, They strike blows with the great vajra of emptiness. 84. From their bodies radiate thousands of tens of millions of light rays— As many as there are grains of sands in the Ganges—by means of which they illuminate the world. 85. They do not delight in women, and nor are they averse to them, For they have understood the characteristics of the nature of women. 86. The buddha-fields in which they live fulfill their purpose; How could evil Māra create problems for them? 87. Having wrong views, they have displeased many buddhas. They base themselves on harmful intent, stuck in desire and greed. 88. All those established in wrong views should be known as Māras; The evil Māra doesn’t work to cause them problems. 89. He who understands all characteristics, and thus turns away from them, Knows in this way wisdom, the inconceivable wisdom of the buddhas. 90. He sees the past, present and future; In this way the dharma is taught, but there is nothing actually taught. 91. He does not know by means of his wisdom, nor does he despair due to lack of it. The “wisdom of the buddhas” is only spoken of having falsely conceived of wisdom and a lack of it. 92. The bodhisattva understands messages, language, and symbols; He carries out immeasurable and inconceivable benefit for beings. 93. In order that they may be known, concepts are taught by means of intellectual grasping; Concepts cannot be intellectually grasped; they are taught to be void. 94. That which is void is the concept; that which is void is the doctrine. The nature of concepts being known,42 they will not arise. 95. He who has the concept, “I will eliminate concepts!” Deals in the elaboration of concepts; he will not be freed from concepts.

42

For “the nature of concepts being known” (Skt. saṃjñāsvabhāvo jñātaḥ), The Tib. editions read “That knowledge of the nature of concepts” (Tib. ’du shes rang bzhin ye shes de), and “The nature of concepts is wisdom” (’du shes rang bzhin ye shes te), reflecting a Skt. reading of saṃjñāsvabhāvo jñānaṃ ca.

82

thomas

96. Whose concept arises, and who gives rise to it? Who contacts the concept, and who ceases it? 97. A phenomenon with a conceptual characteristic is not perceived by the Buddha; Consider the meaning of this, and concepts will cease. 98. If concepts are un-arisen, whose concepts will cease? Thus, how could the liberation of the mind be reasonable? 99. When one reaches liberation, all thoughts become inconceivable. When thoughts are inconceivable, one becomes inconceivable.43 100. One had previously analyzed things in this way, abiding at the level of thoughts; Having jettisoned all thoughts, one becomes inconceivable. 101. Such a one, whose wholesome factors have ripened, sees in terms of the unconditioned; He knows in a single instant the thoughts of all beings. 102. As are beings, so are thoughts; as are thoughts, so are the Conquerors; This idea was declared by the inconceivable Buddha. 103. When will the thoughts of he who contemplates alone in seclusion cease? None of the thoughts of one who contemplates thoughts will disappear. 104. The consciousness of he whose thoughts continue when he is dead and fallen, his time being gone, Will follow his thoughts; he will not be freed from thoughts. 105. The desire of those who conceptualize women will increase; When the concept of women is understood, one will not be stained by desire. 106. This thought is the great thought, the unsurpassable dharma-thought. By means of this dharma-thought, true thinking will arise. 107. One may contemplate many inconceivable thoughts for a protracted time And not reach the destruction of thought, as one has thought improperly. 108. He who thinks does not have knowledge of exhaustion.44 The knowledge of the bodhisattva levels has no exhaustion; this is the nature of exhaustion.

43 44

The commentary interprets becoming “inconceivable” as becoming a buddha. “Knowledge of exhaustion” (Skt. kṣayajñāna) is a technical term that refers to a particular type of knowledge one gains when one attains the state of an arhat or buddhahood.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

83

109. Speech, words, and messages are indicated by the word “exhaustion”; There is no difference in these phenomena; as is knowledge, so is exhaustion. 110. They are un-arisen and un-ceased; they have neither conceptual features nor characteristics. One could discuss them for tens of millions of eons; they would still be shown to be without conceptual features. 111. For those who, having contemplated all existents, are established in lack of existence, There is no existence or non-existence apart from this to be demonstrated. 112. The exposition of lack of existence is communicated by means of the word “existence”; Lack of existence cannot be seen even by any of the buddhas. 113. The nature of all entities is shown to be lack of existence; By understanding entities in this way, lack of existence is revealed. 114. Lack of existence cannot ever be contacted by anyone; However, the relative is taught by means of contact with lack of existence.45 115. One who thinks, “May I become a buddha in the world!” Will never be tormented by the craving of existence; he, wise, will awaken to enlightenment.46 116. The bodhisattva, composed in meditation, does not long for any phenomena; Enlightenment is said to be free of any phenomena or reference point. 117. Many speak thusly: “We are set out for enlightenment.” Not understanding this notion, they are far from the enlightenment of the Buddha. 118. Phenomena, which are free of all conditioned states, are taught in words; The nature of words, furthermore, is profound, subtle, and difficult to perceive.

45

46

The Tib. editions interpret the second half of this verse as perhaps saying “Lack of existence is taught by contact to be relative.” The reading of the Gilgit ms. perhaps has more sense; viz. “Nirvana is taught to be caused by contact with lack of existence.” The Tib. commentary reads this sentence as saying that such a person will not awaken to enlightenment.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

85

Appendix In Sahajavajra’s Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, vv. 91, 92cd – 96ab, 97, 100–101, and 104–105 from chapter 32 of the Samādhirājasūtra are quoted in the context of explaining the views expressed by Maitrīpā in his Tattvadaśaka. The Sanskrit of this text has been lost, but it is preserved in the Tengyur as well as in the Chakchen Gyashung (phyag chen rgya gzhung), a collection of Indian mahāmudrā texts in Tibetan translation compiled by the seventh Karmapa, Chödrak Gyatso (chos grags rgya mtsho). The passage of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā that contains this quotation is furthermore quoted by the 15th century Tibetan scholar Gö Lotsawa Shönu Päl (’gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal) in his commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, called the Dekonanyi Rabdu Sälway Melong (De kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long, DRSM). The passage as it is found in the Tengyur and the Chakchen Gyashung clearly differs from the canonical translation of the Samādhirājasūtra, so it seems that the Tibetan translators did not copy and paste the pre-existing translation; it was translated anew along with the rest of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. Furthermore, the version found in Gö Lotsawa’s commentary differs again from this version, so either he copied out a different translation that has now been lost, or he translated it himself from a Sanskrit manuscript to which he had access. Neither of these translations is as good as the full translation found in the Kangyur, and the one found in the Tengyur translation of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and the Chakchen Gyashung is the worse of the two. Klaus-Dieter Mathes has edited both the version of the quotation found in the Tengyur and the Chakchen Gyashung, and that found in Gö Lotsawa’s commentary; his editions are presented below. He edited the passage from the Tengyur version of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā based on the Peking (Q) and Derge (D) Tengyurs and the Pälpung (dpal spungs) edition of the Chakchen Gyashung (C), and he has edited the entire DRSM on the basis of a hand-written manuscript (A) and a block print (B). Verse 105 is inserted before verse 104 in the quotation; here I have put it back in the place that it is found in the original text, i.e., after verse 104. Due to the variations in the various versions of the text, the verse numbering can vary; here I have used the numbering that is found in my edition of vv. 1–118. The version from the translation of the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā found in the Tengyur and the Chakchen Gyashung is on the left hand page, and the version taken from the DRSM is on the right hand facing page.

86

thomas

First Quotation (vv. 91, 92cd – 97ab) C – 22a.3; D – 174a.1; Q – 190b.5; DRSM – 463.4

།ཡང་དག་ཤེས་ཕྱིར་མཚན་མར་འཛིན། །ཉེར་བར་འཛིན་པར་ངེས་པར་བསྟན། །མཚན་མར་འཛིན་པ་མེད་པ་ཡང་། །རྣམ་པར་ངེས་ན་བསྟན་པ་ཡིན། ༩༡ །མཚན་མའི་རང་བཞིན་ཤེས་ན་ཡང་། །དེ་ལྟར་མཚན་མ་འབྱུང་མི་འགྱུར། ༩༢ སི་རྡི། །མཚན་མ་འདི་ནི་སྤང་བར་བྱ། །མཚན་མ་མེད་མཐོང་ལ་འཇུག་འགྱུར། །མཚན་མ་སྤྲོས་པ་ལ་སྤྱོད་པས། །མཚན་མ་ལས་ནི་གྲོལ་བ་མེད། ༩༣ །གང་འདི་མཚན་མ་སྐྱེས་པ་ན། །གང་གིས་མཚན་མ་སྐྱེས་པ་ཡིན། །མཚན་མ་གང་ལ་གང་གིས་རེག །གང་གིས་མཚན་མ་འགོག་པར་བྱེད། ༩༤ །གང་གིས་མཚན་མ་སྐྱེ་འགྱུར་བ། །བློ་ཡིས་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐོབ་པ་མེད། །སེམས་འདི་ཡིས་ནི་དེ་བཞིན་སེམས། །དེ་ཕྱིར་མཚན་མ་འབྱུང་མི་འགྱུར། ༩༥ །གང་ལ་མཚན་མ་མ་སྐྱེས་པ། །ཇི་ལྟར་མཚན་མ་འགག་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༦ ཨེ་བི། ཤེས་པའོ།

91 ‖ c: པ་ཡང་། ] C, D; པའི་ངང་། Q. མེད་མཐོང་ ] Q; །མཚན་མེད་མཐོང་བ་ C, D.

93 ‖ a: སྤང་ ] C, D; སྡང་ Q. || b: །མཚན་མ་

96 ‖ a: །གང་ལ་ ] C, Q; །གང་འདི་ D. || b: །ཇི་ལྟར་ ] D, Q; །གང་གིས་ C.

92 ‖ d: མི་འགྱུར། ] C; མེད་འགྱུར། D, Q.

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།ཀུན་ཏུ་ཤེས་པའི་དོན་གྱིས་དེ། །འཛིན་པས་འདུ་ཤེས་ངེས་པར་བསྟན། །འདུ་ཤེས་དེ་ཡང་རྗེས་སུ་འཛིན། །རྣམ་པར་དབྱེན་པར་བསྟན་པ་ཡིན། ༩༡ །འདུ་ཤེས་ངོ་བོས་མ་སྐྱེས་པ། །དེ་ལྟར་འདུ་ཤེས་འབྱུང་མི་འགྱུར། ༩༢ སི་རྡི། །འདུ་ཤེས་འདི་ལ་གང་དགའ་བ། །འདུ་ཤེས་རབ་ཏུ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར། །འདུ་ཤེས་སྤྲོས་པ་ལ་དགའ་བ། །དེ་ནི་འདུ་ཤེས་སུ་བརྗོད་དེ། ༩༣ །གང་ལ་འདུ་ཤེས་སྐྱེས་པ་གང་། །ཅི་ཞིག་གིས་ནི་འདུ་ཤེས་བསྐྱེད། །འདུ་ཤེས་གང་ལ་གང་གིས་རེག །གང་གིས་འདུ་ཤེས་འགོག་པར་བྱེད། ༩༤ །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་རྣམས་མ་ཐོབ་པས། །གང་ལ་འདུ་ཤེས་སྐྱེས་འགྱུར་བ། །འདི་ན་དོན་མེད་པ་ཡི་དོན། །དེ་ཕྱིར་འདུ་ཤེས་འབྱུང་མི་འགྱུར། ༩༥ །གང་ཚེ་འདུ་ཤེས་མ་སྐྱེས་པ། །སུ་ཡི་འདུ་ཤེས་འགོགས་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༦ ཨེ་བི། ཞེས་སོ།

91 ‖ a: དེ། ] A; ཏེ། B.

96 ‖ a: འདུ་ཤེས་ ] A; འདུ་ཤས་ B.

87

88

thomas

Second quotation (vv. 97, 100–101, 104–105) C – 22b.5; D – 174b.1; Q – 191b.6; DRSM – 463.18

།གང་གིས་དེ་ཉིད་འདོད་པ་ཡིས། །སེམས་པ་ཀུན་ལ་མི་སེམས་པ། །གང་སེམས་གང་གིས་བསམ་དུ་མེད། །དེ་ནི་བསམ་དུ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། ༩༧ །ཇི་ལྟར་སེམས་ཅན་དེ་བཞིན་སེམས། །ཇི་ལྟར་སེམས་པ་དེ་བཞིན་རྒྱལ། །གང་གི་བློ་ཡིས་བསམ་དུ་མེད། །སེམས་འདི་ཉིད་ནི་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན། ༡༠༠ །གང་གི་རྒྱུད་འདིར་སེམས་པ་ནི། །ནམ་ཡང་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར་བ་མེད། །གང་ལ་སེམས་པ་བསམ་མེད་པ། །སེམས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་རྣམ་པར་བྲལ། ༡༠༡ །སེམས་པ་འདི་ནི་སེམས་པ་ཆེ། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་སེམས་པ་བླ་ན་མེད། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་སེམས་པ་འདི་ཡིས་ནི། ཡང་དག་སེམས་ལ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར། ༡༠༤ །སེམས་པ་ཉིད་ནི་བཀུག་ནས་སེམས། །རིང་པོའི་དུས་སུ་ནམ་སེམས་ན། །སེམས་པ་ཉིད་ནི་ཡིད་བྱེད་པས། །སེམས་པ་ཟད་པར་འགྱུར་བ་མེད། ༡༠༥

97 ‖ c: གིས་ ] C, D; གི་ Q. c: པས། ] C, Q; པ། D.

100 ‖ d: བསྟན། ] C; བརྟན། D, Q.

101 ‖ a: །གང་གི་རྒྱུད་ ] D, Q; །གང་གིས་རྒྱུན་ C.

105 ‖

the samādhirājasūtra and “sūtra mahāmudrā”

།གང་ཚེ་དེ་ཉིད་ལ་རེག་པ། །བསམ་པ་ཀུན་གྱིས་བསམ་དུ་མེད། །གང་ཚེ་བསམ་མེད་པར་སེམས་པ། །དེ་ཉིད་བསམ་པའོ་བསམ་པ་མིན། ༩༧ །སེམས་ཅན་ཅི་འདྲར་སེམས་དེ་འདྲ། །སེམས་ནི་ཅི་འདྲར་རྒྱལ་དེ་འདྲ། །བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས། །འདི་ནི་སེམས་སུ་བཤད་པ་ཡིན། ༡༠༠ །སུ་ཞིག་འདིར་ནི་ངོ་མཚར་སེམས། །སེམས་ནི་ནམ་ཡང་འབྱུང་བ་མེད། །གང་ཞིག་སེམས་སུ་མི་སེམས་པ། །བསམ་པ་ཀུན་དང་བྲལ་བར་འགྱུར། ༡༠༡ །བསམ་པ་འདི་ནི་བསམ་པ་ཆེ། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་བསམ་པ་བླ་ན་མེད། །ཆོས་ཀྱི་བསམ་པ་འདི་ཡིས་ནི། །ཡང་དག་བསམ་པ་ལ་འཇུག་འགྱུར། ༡༠༤ །བསམ་མེད་པར་ནི་མང་དུ་སེམས། །ཡུན་རིང་བར་ཡང་བསམས་པ་ཡིས། །བསམ་པ་ཟད་མེད་སྐྱེ་བར་འགྱུར། །བསམ་པར་བྱས་ན་ཚུལ་མིན་ཡིན། ༡༠༥

100 ‖ b: རྒྱལ་དེ་འདྲ། ] A; རྒྱལ་ཏེ་འདྲ། B.

101 ‖ c: སེམས་པ། ] B; སེམ་པ། A.

89

Chapter 2

The Seven Siddhi Texts (Grub pa sde bdun): Remarks on the Corpus and Its Employment in Sa skya-Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā Polemical Literature Adam C. Krug 1 Introduction The Grub pa sde bdun or Seven Siddhi Texts is an early corpus of Indian Mahāmudrā works commonly grouped together with The Six Works on the Essence (Snying po skor drug) and Advayavajra/Maitrīpa’s Twenty-five Works on Mental Non-Engagement (Yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor nyi shu rtsa lnga). Together, these three corpora constitute the earliest known practical canon1 of Indian Mahāmudrā texts.2 The Grub pa sde bdun is claimed by some to be the very first collection of works on the “System of Mantra,” or mantranaya, that were composed by the Indian mahāsiddhas, though these claims are contested, and holds the far less controversial status as the textual witness to the Mahāmudrā lineage transmission from Oḍḍiyāna.3 This essay discusses the 1  For detailed discussions of the formal/practical canon distinction, see the following sources: Blackburn 1999: 281–310; Blackburn 2001; McDaniel 2008; Stanley 2009. 2  Jackson 2008: 151–184. Roger Jackson identifies these three corpora as an early Indian Mahāmudrā canon. I prefer to describe these works as a Mahāmudrā practical canon, meaning an institution-specific collection of works that occupy a privileged position as part of a particular curriculum and that derive their own authority from a demonstrable connection to the scriptural traditions of the formal canon of Buddhist tantras. Their authority as canon is a derivative of the formal canonicity attributed to the various textual traditions of Buddhist Vajrayāna literature, but they carry a far more immediate and practical sense of authority as part of the curriculum of a specific textual community. 3  A mgon rin po che, ed., Grub pa sde bdun dang snying po skor gsum yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor, 7.2. The passage is translated in full below. This claim is at least partially confirmed in the Sanskrit colophon material for Jñānasiddhi, Advayasiddhi, Vyaktabhāvānugatatattvasiddhi, and the title for Dārikapāda’s Dpal o rgyan nas ’byung ba’i gsang ba chen po de kho na nyid kyi man ngag, all of which locate the origin of these texts in Oḍḍiyāna. Tāranātha (1575– 1634) challenges the broader claim that the Grub pa sde bdun are the seminal corpus of the Mantrayāna in his Rgya gar chos ’byung, pointing to a number of faults with this argument and stating that it relies on questionable associations with these authors and the hagiographic data from Lakṣmīṅkarā’s Sahajasiddhipaddhati. Lakṣmīṅkarā’s Sahajasiddhipaddhati is a likely source for the hagiographic material on the Grub pa sde bdun that we find in the first

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_004

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

91

various Tibetan formulations of the Grub pa sde bdun as a corpus and the role this corpus played in the Mahāmudrā polemical literature of Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud authors from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. It begins with a brief survey of Tibetan works that list the contents of the Grub pa sde bdun, followed by a discussion of the significance this corpus holds for interpreting and translating the contracted compound Grub snying gi skor and its various permutations. The essay then turns to the employment of the Grub pa sde bdun in a series of responses to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s statements in section three of his Distinguishing the Three Vows (Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba) that the Indian tantras and treatises prohibit conferral of Mahāmudrā instruction upon a beginner who has not received the three higher consecrations associated with the doxographical category of bla na med pa’i rnal ’byor gyi rgyud or “highest yogatantra.” 2 The Grub pa sde bdun and the Grub snying gi skor The chart in table 2.1 presents organizational schemata for the Grub pa sde bdun in the formal canons of the Bstan ’gyur, the two primary Mahāmudrā practical canons in which the Grub pa sde bdun serves as a foundational corpus, and a number of works by various Tibetan authors. The chart demonstrates some degree of fluidity in the enumeration of the Grub pa sde bdun in Tibetan sources, though it is clear that a core set of texts are consistently identified as part of the corpus. The lists of the Grub pa sde bdun in the recensions of the Bstan ’gyur are uniform, and appear alongside texts belonging to its companion corpora, the Snying po skor drug4 and the Yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor. The Grub pa sde bdun features prominently in two Mahāmudrā practical canons, the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho’s (1454–1506) Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung

volume of the ’Bri gung chos mdzod. Tāranātha punctuates his critique by showing his own bias toward the hagiographic traditions associated with the Kālacakratantra, stating, “It is well-known among scholars that Śrī Dhāṇyakaṭaka was the place where Mantrayāna was originally preached.” See Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970: 343–345. 4  Only five of the six works in the Snying po skor drug accompany the Grub pa sde bdun in the various Bstan ’gyur recensions. The text that is omitted in all cases is Āryadeva’s Cittāvaraṇaviśodhana–nāma–prakaraṇa or Sems kyi sgrib pa rnam par sbyong ba zhes bya ba’i rab tu byed pa, which is grouped in with the works of the Ārya Guhyasamāja school elsewhere in both the Snar thang/Gser bris ma and Sde dge/Co ne stemma of the Bstan ’gyur. Aside from this omission, all three corpora of the early Indian Mahāmudrā canon are listed in order as a group in all witnesses of the Bstan ’gyur.

92

Krug

(henceforth Phyag chen rgya gzhung)5 and ’Bri gung Kun dga’ rin chen’s (1475– 1527) ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo (henceforth ’Bri gung chos mdzod),6 where its seven texts constitute the better part of the first volume in each collection. The Phyag chen rgya gzhung and ’Bri gung chos mdzod augment the Bstan ’gyur’s list of the Grub pa sde bdun with additional “siddhi” texts and, in the case of the ’Bri gung chos mdzod, exegetical and historical data on each individual work. The lists of the Grub pa sde bdun from the works of various Tibetan authors are relatively uniform, with the exception of a list found in the fifteenth century Sa skya polemicist Dge slong Don yod grub pa’s (15th century) Mahāmudrā polemical work Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭīka bstan pa’i sgron me7 (henceforth Bstan pa’i sgron me) and an augmented list found in Paṇ chen Chos kyi rgyal mtshan’s (1570–1662) Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyas par bshad pa yang gsal sgron me (henceforth Yang gsal gron me).

5  Zhwa dmar Mi pham chos kyi blo gros, ed., Nges don phyag rgya chen po khrid mdzod. The fourteenth Zhwa dmar rin po che compiled and published this thirteen-volume collection of Indian Mahāmudrā works. The first three volumes are photo reproductions of a 19th-century Dpal spungs xylograph set of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung compiled by the Seventh Karma pa and later edited and restored by ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813–1899) and Karma Bkra shis chos dpal (c. 19th century). Details on the compilation and restoration of these volumes at Dpal spungs can be found in the dkar chag to this collection at the beginning of volume three (hūṃ) in Zhwa dmar rin po che’s 1997 publication; an English summary of this material can be found in Mathes 2011: 90–93. 6  The current Che tshang rin po che (b. 1946) has recently stated that the ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod was likely compiled by the ’Bri gung patriarch Kun dga’ rin chen (1475–1527), which would mean that the ’Bri gung practical canon took shape at roughly the same time that the Seventh Karma pa compiled his Phyag chen rgya gzhung, or shortly thereafter. Che tshang rin po che’s statement appears in Mathes 2014: 367. 7  Don yod grub pa’s substitution of Virwapa’s ’Chi med grub pa for either Dārikapāda’s De kho na nyid man ngag or Yoginī Cintā’s Vyaktabhāvānugatatattvasiddhi is indicative of the manipulation of the corpus to reflect a particular sectarian identity, in this case including the siddha author who is the ultimate source of the Sa skya lam ’bras in the list of the Grub pa sde bdun.

93

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun ) table 2.1

Canonical and extra canonical lists of the Grub pa sde bdun

Guhyasiddhi (Padmavajra/Saroruhavajra/ Mahāsukhanātha) Jñānasiddhi (Indrabhūti) Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi (Anaṅgavajra) Advayasiddhi (Lakṣmīṅkarā) Gsang ba chen po de kho na nyid kyi man ngag (Dārikapāda) Sahajasiddhi (Ḍombiheruka) Vyaktabhāvānugatatattvasiddhi (Yoginī Cintā/Cinto/Vilāsavajra) Lhan cig skyes pa’i grub pa (Indrabhūti) Lhan cig skyes pa’i grub pa gzhung ’grel (Lakṣmīṅkarā) Dpal de kho na nyid grub pa (Keralipa) Thabs dang shes rab rnam par gtan la dbab pa’i grub pa bsdus pa (Ācārya Camari) Dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i snying po de kho na nyid grub pa (Ācārya Jalandra) ’Chi med grub pa (Virwapa) Bdag byin gyis brlabs pa grub pa (Saraha)

Canonical Lists in lists practical canons

Lists from individual authors

A X

B X

C X

D X

E X

F X

G X

H X

I X

J X

K X

L X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X Xa

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

Chart Key (X means “is contained in”): A. Snar thang/Gser ’bris ma Bstan ’gyur (Rgyud ’grel; mi) B. Sde dge/Co ne Bstan ’gyur (Rgyud;) C. Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho, ed., Phyag chen rgya gzhung

X X

94

Krug

D. ’Bri gung Kun dga’ rin chen, ed., ’Bri gung chos mdzod E. ’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481), Deb ther sngon po F. Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge (1429–1489), Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgongs pa bsal b G. Dge slong Don yod grub pa (15th century), Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭI ka bstan pa’i sgron me las so thar sdom pa’i rnam bshad H. ’Bri gung Kun dga’ rin chen, Gsan yig byin rlabs rgya mtsho’i dpal ’bar I. Padma dkar po (1527–1592), Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod J. Paṇ chen Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1570–1662), Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyas par bshad pa yang gsal sgron me K. Dkon mchog bstan pa’i gron me (1762–1823), Phyag chen khrid kyi zin bris zhal lung bdud rtsi’i tshigs phreng L. Karma Bkra shis chos dpal (19th century), Phyag chen rgya gzhung glegs bam gsum pa’i dkar chag a Karma Bkra shis chos dpal’s dkar chag to the Dpal spungs edition of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung mentions the text by Vilāsavajra and Yoginī Cito as separate works when this is not in fact the case. The text attributed to Vilāsavajra in the Dpal spungs edition is identical, with a few minor grammatical variants, to the canonical text attributed to Yoginī Cintā/Cito. This has led me to believe that Vilāsavajra might be taken as a feminine Vilāsavajrā, which the Tibetan transliteration of the Sanskrit name does not capture.

Tibetan authors often refer to the Grub pa sde bdun and its companion works with the compounds Grub snying, Grub snying skor, and Grub snying gi skor. These compounds are almost universally mistranslated in academic and nonacademic writing as something along the lines of “the essence of attainment,” and are frequently interpreted as shorthand for Saraha’s dohā trilogy. There are a number of reasons for this misunderstanding. First, Roerich’s translation of ’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal’s (1392–1481) Deb ther sngon po consistently takes the various formulations of the compound Grub snying gi skor as an alternate name for Saraha’s dohā. This identification is not entirely inaccurate, but it fails to recognize that the various formulations of the compound Grub snying gi skor signify a much broader set of texts. The confusion may have resulted from the fact that Saraha’s King, Queen, and People dohā are often also considered a short Indian Mahāmudrā corpus in their own right referred to as the Snying po skor gsum, or Threefold Corpus on the Essence. To complicate things further, the first work in the Snying po skor drug is frequently listed as Saraha’s Dohākoṣagīti, making it even easier to take the term snying in the compounds Grub snying, Grub snying skor, or Grub snying kyi skor as a stand-in for Saraha’s dohā trilogy. Modern translators who may have followed Roerich and Gendun Chöpel’s identification of the Grub snying skor with Saraha’s dohā are not alone in this misunderstanding. The ’Bri gung chos mdzod also falsely associates the compound Sgrub snying [sic] with the

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

95

Grub pa sde bdun and Snying po skor gsum. The discrepancy appears in this case between the initial title page to volume one, which records the subject matter of the volume as the Sgrub snying [sic], and the second, hand-written title page, which expands this compound into the full title Grub pa sde bdun dang snying po skor gsum yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor. The actual content of the first volume, however, is not Saraha’s dohā trilogy (i.e., the Snying po skor gsum) but the Grub pa sde bdun, Snying po skor drug, and the Yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor, along with a number of additional texts. There also appears to be some precedent for interpreting the second member of the compound Grub snying skor as an abbreviation for the Snying po skor gsum in the enumeration of these corpora that is found in Paṇ chen Chos kyi rgyal mtshan’s Yang gsal sgron me.8 Tibetan sources exhibit a fair degree of variation regarding the actual texts that the Snying po skor drug contains, and the parameters of this corpus seem to have been less defined than those of the Grub pa sde bdun.9 However, despite 8  My thanks to Roger Jackson for pointing this out. Following his reference to the grub snying skor as containing “the essence of the class of unsurpassed tantra,” Chos kyi rgyal mtshan appears to interpret the compound as a signifier for the Grub pa sde bdun and Snying po skor gsum. Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyas par bshad pa yang gsal sgron me, 255.6–256.2: dpal mgon po bde ba chen po’am | mtsho skyes rdo rje dang grub chen sa ra ha dang | klu sgrub zhabs dang | ri khrod dbang phyug dang | te lo nā ro mai tri pa sogs ’phags yul gyi grub chen rnams dang | der ma zad mar mi sgam po pa phag gru sogs bka’ brgyud gong ma rnams kyi bzhed pa mthar thug pa’i phyag chen kyang rlung dbu mar zhugs gnas thim gsum byas pa las byung ba’i bde chen gyi ’od gsal yin la | de ni grub pa sde bdun dang | snying po skor gsum gyi brjod bya’i gtso bo rnal ’byor bla med kyi rgyud kyi rgyud sde rgya mtsho lta bu’i yang snying po’i snying po yin no |. (“The Mahāmudrā that is the final accepted position of the Mahāsiddhas of Āryavarta such as Śrī Mahāsukhanātha or Saroruhavajra, Saraha, Nāgārjunapāda, Śabarīśvara, Telo, Nāro, Maitrīpa, etc., and additionally the Bka’ brgyud patriarchs Mar pa, Mi la, Sgam po pa, Phag mo gru pa, etc., is the clear light of great bliss that arises from causing the vital wind to enter, come to rest, and dissolve in the central channel, and that is the essence of the essence that accords with the ocean of the collection of the unsurpassed yoga tantra, the principal topic of The Seven Siddhi Texts and The Threefold Corpus on the Essence.”) 9  Listings of texts that are contained in the Snying po skor drug tend to exhibit a greater degree of variation, which is probably symptomatic of the broader confusion as to the actual contents of this corpus. The arrangement preserved in the various Bstan ’gyur recensions includes only five of the six works – (1) Saraha’s Dohākoṣagīti, (2) Nāgārjunagarbha’s Caturmudrānvaya, (3) Divākaracandra’s Prajñājñānaprakāśa, (4) Sahajavajra’s Sthitisamāsa, and (5) Kuddālapāda’s Acintyakramopadeśa – omitting Āryadeva’s Cittaviśodhananāmaprakaraṇa. The Phyag chen rgya gzhung preserves the following list (following the transliterated Sanskrit titles for these works as they appear in the 1997 Dpal spungs xylograph reprint): (1) Saraha’s Dohakoṣagīti, (2) Nāgārjuna’s Caturmudrānvaya, (3) Āryadeva’s Cittāvaraṇaviśodhananām

96

Krug

the fact that there are varying interpretations as to the identity of the second member of the compound Grub snying gi skor, it can be still noted with relative certainty that the term grub as it appears in this compound signifies the Grub pa sde bdun. It can also be said with some certainty that the compound Grub snying gi skor and its various formulations are not meant to exclusively signify Saraha’s dohā. This corrective allows for a richer understanding of the transmission of the Grub pa sde bdun and the early Indian Mahāmudrā works in Tibetan historical sources, particularly in the accounts of its transmission in the Deb ther sngon po. 3 The Grub pa sde bdun in Mahāmudrā Polemical Literature The Grub pa sde bdun plays an integral role in a volley of polemical works composed by a handful of Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud authors from the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries. The first two polemical works from the Sa skya side of this debate are roughly contemporary to the publications of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung and the ’Bri gung chos mdzod, while the rebuttals from the Bka’ brgyud side post-date the publication of both of these Mahāmudrā practical canons. The conversation among these authors thus provides some evidence for the measurable effect that these two publication projects had on Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā polemical literature as reference works that provided an easily accessible practical canon of authoritative Indian sources to both justify and defend the Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā traditions from their detractors from among the Sa skya and elsewhere. On the whole, the degree of detail with which our Bka’ brgyud authors discuss the Grub pa sde bdun indicates that they were more engaged with these works than the Sa skya authors to whom they are responding. Judging from these sources it is possible to say, with some degree of caution, that during this period the Grub pa sde bdun held greater aprakaraṇa, (4) Divākaracandra’s Prajñājñānaprakāśa, (5) Sahajavajra’s Sthitisamāsa, and (6) Kuddālapāda’s Acintyakramopadeśa. Finally, the listing of the Snying po skor drug in the introductory material to volume one of the ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod is at odds with the texts that the volume actually contains. The introductory material lists the Snying po skor drug as (1) Saraha’s Dohā[koṣagīti], (2) Nāgāruna’s Caturmudrā[nvaya], (3) Āryadeva’s Cittaviśodha[nanāmaprakaraṇa], (4) Kuddālapāda’s Acintya[kramopadeśa], (5) Maitrīpa’s Sekanirdeśa, and (6) [Sahajavajra’s] Sthitisamāsa. The actual works in the section of the ’Bri gung chos mdzod that contains the Snying po skor drug, however, indicate that the Snying po skor drug consists of (1) Saraha’s Dohā[koṣagīti], (2) Saraha’s Svādhiṣṭhānakrama [sic], (3) Nāgārjuna’s Caturmudrā[nvaya], (4) Āryadeva’s [Cittā]vara[ṇa]viśo[dhananā]mapra[kā] ra[ṇa], (5) Kuddālapāda’s Acintyakramopadeśa, and (6) Sahajavajra’s [Sthitisamāsa]. It also appends Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita’s Tattvopadeśaśikharadohāgīti to the corpus.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

97

influence over the Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā curriculum than it did among the Sa skya, and that the publication of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung and the ’Bri gung chos mdzod Mahāmudrā practical canons likely played a part in making this so. The majority of passages that draw upon the Grub pa sde bdun in the set of Mahāmudrā polemical works analyzed here revolve around the following statements from Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Sdom pa gsum gyu rab tu dbye ba (henceforth Sdom gsum rab dbye) section 3.176–179: The Great Seal that Nāro and Maitrīpa espoused Is held to consist precisely Of the seals of Action, Dharma, and Pledge, And of the Great Seal expounded In tantras of the Mantra system. In his Caturmudrā[nvaya], Exalted Nāgārjuna himself also asserts this: “If, through not having known the Action seal, One is also ignorant of the seal of Dharma, It is impossible that one might understand Even the name of the Great Seal.” The King of tantra texts and major commentarial treatises also prohibit The Great Seal to one who is unconnected with initiation.10 The primary function the Grub pa sde bdun plays in the polemical thread stemming from Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Sdom gsum rab dbye revolves around the issue of whether or not a necessary and exclusive relationship obtains between the realization of Mahāmudrā and a disciple’s progression through the two-stage yoga and system of four tantric consecrations associated with the textual genre of “unsurpassed yogatantra.”11 Following a discussion of the context in which 10  I have retained Rhoton’s translation choices here to acknowledge his important work in bringing an English translation of this text to publication. See Sakya pandita 2002: 119. The passage is located in Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba, 53.5–54.1. Elsewhere in this essay, when this verse is quoted in another work, I have relied upon my own translation, which the reader may note differs from Rhoton’s. 11  The Grub pa sde bdun are also evoked at times to address some of Sa skya Paṇḍita’s other accusations agains the Bka’ brgyud system of Mahāmudrā. For example, Dwags po Bkra shis rnam rgyal’s (1512/13–1587) Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer invokes the corpus to push back

98

Krug

the corpus is most often invoked, this section analyzes passages from a handful of authors on both sides of this Mahāmudrā debate who draw upon the Grub pa sde bdun to support their respective positions on the relationship among the standardized system of four tantric consecrations, realizing Mahāmudrā, and the conferral of the guru’s blessing. The progression of works addressed here begins in the fifteenth century with the Sa skya pa authors Dge slong Don yod grub pa and Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge. It then moves to ’Brug chen Padma dkar po (1527–1592), who is in turn challenged by the Sa skya author Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523–1596). The progression through these works culminates in a response to Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho from Padma dkar po’s disciple Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569–1645). Two of these works, Go rams pa’s Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgongs gsal ba (henceforth Dgongs gsal ba) and Padma dkar po’s Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod (henceforth Gan mdzod) remain integral to Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud curricula, respectively, to this day. Dge slong Don yod grub pa’s three-volume set of commentaries to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Sdom gsum rab dbye mentions the Grub pa sde bdun on two separate occasions. The first appears in his commentary to Sdom gsum rab dbye 1.244–245, in which Sa skya Paṇḍita criticizes those who say it is not necessary to study scriptures and treatises.12 Both Dge slong Don yod grub pa and Go rams pa identify Zhang tshal pa (1121/23–1193) as the intended target of this verse, and both authors’ comments on the verse echo Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Thub pa’i dgongs gsal, which includes the Grub pa sde bdun among a short list of treatises that are integral to studying the system of Mantra.13 Don yod grub pa against accusations from Sa skya Paṇḍita and others that Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā is a Chinese doctrine in Indian garb by mentioning the Dohā skor gsum, along with the Grub snying and Maitrīpa’s “Amanasi ” texts, as corpora of authentic Indian origin that validate and promote subitist aproaches to non-conceptual meditation. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal 2006: 104. Like the authors examined here, Dwags po Bkra shis rnam rgyal also refers to the Grub pa sde bdun when he argues against Sa skya Paṇḍita’s rejection of a Mahāmudrā that is taught outside of the tantras. Although the topic of subitism is not entirely absent from the Grub pa sde bdun, references to the corpus from the Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud authors examined here tend to be employed in the context of determining the relationship between Mahāmudrā instruction and the process of consecration. 12  Sa skya Paṇḍita, Sdom gsum rab dbye, 27.5–27.6. Tibetan: kla la rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas kyi || gsung rab tshig don zab po dang || grub thob rnams dang mkhas rnams kyi || shin tu legs par bshad pa’i chos || ’tshig gi na ya yin pas na || dgos pa med pas dor zhes zer |. 13  Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, Thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba, 9.5: gsang sngags yin na yang byang chub sems dpa’i ’grel pa gsum mam | grub thob rnams kyis mdzad pa’i grub pa sde bdun nam | slob dpon rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug bir+wa pa dang | rgyal po in+d+ra b+hū ti dang | rdo rje dril bu pa la dogs pas mdzad pa’i bstan bcos khungs nas

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

99

and Go rams pa also both employ their own brand of ad hominem polemic in these passages, with Don yod grub pa accusing Zhang Tshal pa’s statements of being “nothing but nonsense” (cang la ha la la)14 and Go rams pa informing his

byung ba mnyan dgos te | mdor na sangs rgyas kyi gsungs | sdud pa pos bsdus | grub thob kyis bsgoms | paṇ+ḍi tas bshad | lo tsā bas bsgyur | mkhas pa rnams la grags pa cig sangs rgyas kyis bstan pa yin pas de la nyan bshad sgom sgrub byed dgos so | | de rnams las bzlog pa’i chos gcig byung na zab zab ’dra yang sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa ma yin pas nyan bshad bsgom bsgrub byar mi nyan no | | legs legs ’dra ba mu stegs dang chos log gzhan la’ang bdug ste sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa ma yin pas dor la bzhag go |. (“The Secret Mantra, however, requires that one study The Three Commentaries of the Bodhisattva, The Seven Siddhi Texts composed by the mahāsiddhas, and the treatises that were composed by the Ācārya and Lord of Yoga Virwapa, King Indrabhūti, and Vajraghaṇṭāpa, etc., all of which are of authentic origin. In brief, the Buddha taught, the compilers compiled, the siddhas meditated, the paṇḍitas explain, the lo tsā bas translate, [and all of them] must be called the wise ones. One must study, explain, meditate, and attain siddhi by means of what was taught by the Buddha. If there is a single dharma that is different from these, yet is like an imitation in tidy clothes, because it is not the Buddha’s teaching, it is not fit to be studied, explained, meditated upon, and accomplished. There are also skilful imitations among the tīrthikas and others [who practice a] false dharma. Because these are not the Buddha’s teaching, one should throw them away.”) 14  Dge slong Don yod grub pa, Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭīka bstan pa’i sgron me las so thar sdom pa’i rnam bshad, 421.5–422.2: gnyis pa | sde snod la thos bsam mi dgos par ’dod pa dgag pa ni | zhang tshal pa’am hwa shang gi ston pa cang la ha la la | rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas gi gsung rab tshig don zab mo mdo rgyud rnams dang grub thob rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug rnams kyis mdzad pa’i grub pa sde bdun zhes grags te | slob dpon pa d+ma ba dz+ra gyi gsang ba grub pa | in+d+ra b+h+ū ti’i ye shes grub pa |bir+wa pa’i ’chi med grub pa | ḍoṃ bi he ru ka’i lhan skyes grub pa | sa ra ha’i bdag byin gyis brlabs pa grub pa | yan lag med pa’i rdo rje’i thabs dang shes rab gtan la dbab pa grub pa | lak+ṣ mis mdzad pa’i gnyis med grub pa | rgyan drug la sogs pa’i mkhas pa rnams kyis sde snod kyi don rigs pas shin tu legs par dpyad cing gtan la phab pa’i chos dbu ma rigs tshogs dang | tshad ma sde bdun sogs tshig gi na ya yin pas na yang dag pa’i don bsgom pa la de dag dgos pa med pas dar bya yin no zhes zer ro |. (“Second, ‘Refuting that one does not need to study and contemplate the collections of scriptures and treatises’: The teaching of Zhang tshal pa or Hwa shang is nothing but a bunch of blabbering. The system of verses is the systems of the sūtras and tantras of the profound meaning of the scriptural word of the perfect buddhas, the so-called Seven Siddhi Texts that were composed by the lords of yoga, the siddhas – Ācārya Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi, Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi, Virwapa’s *Amṛtasiddhi, Ḍoṃbiheruka’s Sahajasiddhi, Saraha’s Svādhiṣṭhānasiddhi, Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, the Advayasiddhi composed by Lakṣmī – [and] [Nāgārjuna’s] Collection of Works on the Logic of the Middle Way and [Dharmakīrti’s] Seven Epistemological Works, etc., which is the teaching of the wise ones such as the six ornaments, etc., who thoroughly analyzed and correctly determined the meaning of the collection scriptures using logic. But [Zhang tshal pa and Hwa shang] say that one should throw these out because they are not necessary!”)

100

Krug

reader that the passage refers to “Zhang Tshal pa and some rag-wearing Bka’ [brgyud pas]” (zhang tshal pa dang | bka’ phyag pa la la |).15 The Grub pa sde bdun is invoked again in volume three of Don yod grub pa’s commentary to the mantra vow section of the Sdom gsum rab dbye. His additions to the root text of Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.179 are highlighted in bold in the following excerpt: Other king of tantra texts such as Hevajra and Other great treatises such as the Grub pa sde bdun and more Refute realization of Mahāmudrā For one who does not have the consecrations.16 Don yod grub pa follows this passage with the following quotes from the Hevajratantra and Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi (1.32): Then the yoginīs asked, “What is Mahāmudrā like?” (HT 2.8.1ab)

15  Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge, Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye pa’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgongs pa gsal ba, 133.5: la la rdzogs pa’i zhes sogs tshigs bcad gsum ste | zhang mtshal pa dang | bka’ phyag pa la la | rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas kyi gsung rab sde snod gsum dang | rgyud sde bzhis bsdus pa’i tshig don zab mo rnams dang | de dag gi dgongs ’grel grub thob rnams kyis legs par bshad pa’i grub pa sde bdun dang | snying po skor drug la sogs pa rnams dang | mkhas pa rgyan drug la sogs pa rnams kyis shin tu legs par bshad pa’i chos sa sde dang | rigs tshogs la sogs pa rnams ni tshig gi na ya sogs so |. (“The three verses [beginning with] ‘Some [say] the Perfectly,’ etc., [refer to] Zhang Tshal pa and some ragwearing Bka’ [brgyud pas]. The three baskets of the perfect Buddha’s teachings and the profound meanings of the verses contained in the four classes of tantra, The Seven Siddhi Texts and The Sixfold Corpus on the Essence, etc., which are the accurate explanations by the siddhas who commented on the meaning of those works, and the dharma that was exceedingly well explained by the wise ones who are the six ornaments etc., works such as The Collection on the Stages and The Collection of Logical Arguments, etc., is the textual system.”) 16  Dge slong Don yod grub pa, Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭI ka bstan pa’i sgron me las sngags sdom pa’i rnam bshad, 571.1–572.2: rgyud kyi rgyal po gzhan kye rdo rje sogs dang | bstan bcos chen po gzhan grub pa sde bdun sogs las kyang | dbang bskur dag dang ma ’brel ba de la phyag rgya chen po rtogs pa bkag ste |. My translation differs from that of Rhoton. The divergence is based on Don yod grub pa’s gloss of the verse de la phyag rgya chen po bkag as de la phyag rgya chen po rtogs bkag ste, which I believe pushes the la don particle toward the possessive sense, and in turn the verb bkag to its more common connotation of “to refute.” Rhoton’s translation might be amended here to “Other King of tantra texts and great treatises also refute that one who is not endowed with the consecration possesses Mahāmudrā.” I believe this actually captures the point of the verse more accurately.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

101

And in response, The innate is not expressed some other way. It is not attained somewhere [else]. It shall be understood based on one’s merit And the teaching of method during the guru [offering]. (HT 1.8.36)17 As it says in Jñānasiddhi, By attaining true supreme gnosis That is devoid of all conceptual thought, One who receives the vajra gnosis consecration Shall attain the supreme siddhi. (JS 1.32)18 Both passages are cited here to support the Sa skya view that in order to attain the mahāmudrāsiddhi, the disciple’s own cultivation of non-dual gnosis through practicing the two-stage yoga must then be joined with the guru’s consecration and blessing. The point is made in contrast to one Bka’ brgyud approach to Mahāmudrā that identifies the guru’s blessing as the primary determinant of any disciple’s realization of Mahāmudrā. This implies, as the Bka’ brgyud would like to argue, that as long as the disciple receives the proper blessing from the guru, the sequence of four consecrations and their attendant moments and levels of joy as systematized in the Hevajratantra might be abridged or done away with entirely. Thus the Bka’ brgyud argument leaves room for the potential conferral of Mahāmudrā upon someone “who does not have the consecrations,” while the Sa skya pa approach draws a more systematized and necessary relationship between the disciple progressing through the “proper” consecration sequence in tandem with their generation of gnosis through the stages of the tantric yogas and their eventual realization of the mahāmudrāsiddhi through combining this meditative insight with the guru’s blessing. The Sa skya position that Don yod grub pa presents here, following Sa skya Paṇḍita, thus limits its understanding of an effective method for the realization of Mahāmudrā to those systems that are contained within the class 17   H T 1.8.36 is also the verse that ’Bri gung patriarch ’Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217) uses to identify guru devotion as the single means for realization, a point with which Sa skya Paṇḍita takes issue in the section of the Sdom gsum rab dbye that immediately follows the current passage. See Sobisch 2011: 225. 18  Don yod grub pa, Sngags sdom pa’i rnam bshad, 571.2–571.4: brtag gnyis las | de nas rnal ’byor ma zhus pa | phyag rgya chen po ji lta bu | zhes pa’i lan du | gzhan gyis brjod min lhan cig skyes || gang du yang ni mi rnyed de || bla ma’i dus thabs bstan pa dang || bdag gi bsod nams las shes bya || zhes gsungs so || ye shes grub pa las | rtog pa thams cad rnam spangs pa’i || ye shes mchog bzang thob pa yi || rdo rje’i ye shes dbang bskur bas || dngos grub mchog ni sgrub par bya || zhes gsungs so |.

102

Krug

of “unsurpassed yogatantra,” drawing specifically upon the systematic presentation of the sequence of consecrations found in the Hevajratantra.19 Since the work is so significant to the Sa skya position, Don yod grub pa’s Hevajra quote beginning with the yoginīs’ question, “What is Mahāmudrā like?” deserves a second look. As indicated in the passage above, the yoginīs’ question comes from Hevajratantra 2.8.1, but the “reply” is taken from Hevajratantra 1.8.36. The actual response to the yoginīs’ question in 2.8.1, were Don yod grub pa to present these verses as they appear in the text, is vastly different: Then the yoginīs asked, “What is Mahāmudrā like? Please make us happy and explain [this] In terms of [her] conventional body and appearance.” (HT 2.8.1) The Bhagavān replied, “She is not too tall and not too short, Not too dark and not too light. Her complexion is like a lotus petal, She has sweet smelling breath, (HT 2.8.2)

And when she perspires there should be a sweet smell That is just like a fragrant musk. And her lotus should emit the faint smell Of a blue lotus blossom, like a lotus. (HT 2.8.3)



A wise one should notice that she has The fragrant smell of incense and camphor. She should have the smell of an utpala [And] should be light like a bird. (HT 2.8.4)



She is intelligent and not flighty, She has a pleasant way of speaking and is attractive, She has beautiful hair, three folds below the navel, [and] Ordinary people consider her an exceptional woman. And having acquired her, one shall attain siddhi That is the nature of the innate joy.” (HT 2.8.5)20

19  On Sa skya Paṇḍita’s view of Mahāmudrā see Stenzel 2014: 199–228. 20  This is my own translation from the Sanskrit, which the Tibetan translation matches quite well. For the text see David Snellgrove, ed., The Hevajra Tantra, 88–91.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

103

Of course, there is the possibility that Don yod grub pa had a copy of the Hevajratantra on hand that substituted HT 1.8.36 for the description that we find in the current canonical edition. But barring this possibility, it seems strange that an author would leave himself vulnerable to criticism by manipulating such a well-known canonical source to suit his own purposes. After all, all one would have to do to challenge his argument is to point to this obvious misquote from the Hevajratantra, a potentially embarrassing observation for a scholar from a tradition in which the Hevajratantra plays such an important role. It is equally intriguing that none of the Bka’ brgyud authors who respond to this passage as it is preserved here and in Go rams pa’s commentary to the Sdon gsum rab dbye seem to notice that the passage is blatantly misrepresented.21 Without Don yod grub pa’s manipulation of the text, the Hevajratantra’s description of Mahāmudrā in these passages seemingly has nothing at all to do with a soteriological absolute that is realized through the combination of the two-stage yoga and fourfold sequence of tantric initiations. Instead, the actual sequence of verses in the Hevajratantra presents a list of characteristics becoming of an “ideal” or “superior” (i.e., mahā) mudrā or “consort.” For a tradition that has come to see Mahāmudrā as bearing the single, monolithic meaning of the highest realization, the often-messy reality of the way in which the term is used across textual traditions would represent a notable inconvenience. Don yod grub pa effectively sidesteps this inconvenience by manipulating his source text and substituting a verse that supports the Sa skya view of Mahāmudrā. This might have implications regarding the anticipated behavior of the textual community toward whom he directs his three-volume exegesis of the Sdom gsum rab dbye, providing some indication of the frequency with which his readers were expected to actually double-check such citations from canonical works against their original sources. The fact that Don yod grub pa and others are able to repackage and manipulate their source texts so easily also tells us something about the priority that Sa skya textual communities granted to material in their own practical canon over the sources for that material in the broader formal canon of the Bka’ ’gyur. The perpetuation of this particular reading of the Hevajratantra’s presentation of Mahāmudrā among the Sa skya thus functions as a case in point for the formulation of sect- and institution-specific textual communities in Tibet. It also provides a glimpse of how the polemical applications of practical canon formation in Tibet can 21  ’Brug chen Padma dkar po points out a similar problem in Sa skya Paṇḍita’s misrepresentation of the verse quoted above from the Caturmudrānvaya. For an extensive treatment of this topic see Mathes 2016: 309–340. Padma dkar po does not, however, seem to have noticed this problem in Go rams pa’s commentary to the Sdom gsum rab dbye.

104

Krug

produce curricula in which misrepresentations of a work as important and well known as the Hevajratantra might be handed down from one author to another, or from one generation to the next. This appears to be the case with Go rams pa’s commentary on Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.179. Drawing either from the same exegetical tradition or directly from Don yod grub pa’s work, Go rams pa’s rendering of HT 2.8.1 treats HT 1.8.36 as a response to the yoginī’s question, just as observed in Don yod grub pa’s rendering of the passage. His comments in this section open with a short reference to the Grub pa sde bdun in reference to Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.164–166, where Sa ska Paṇḍita outlines his own tradition’s viewpoint on Mahāmudrā. The commentary reads: As for the second [topic],22 the ten verses that begin with “Our,” etc., the first three verses illustrate the cause [of Mahāmudrā], verse four illustrates the intrinsic essence [of Mahāmudrā], then two verses illustrate the time that it is attained, then two verses refute the concept [of Mahāmudrā as it is understood] among others. After that, two verses illustrate the type of scripture in which one who is intent upon attainment of Mahāmudrā engages. If one wishes to understand the meaning of these verses in detail, one can understand [this] through The Seven Siddhi Texts that were composed by the Ācāryas who attained the siddhi that is the ultimate realization of the entire class of Mahāyoga tantras.23 In line with this reference to the Grub pa sde bdun, Go rams pa’s expansion of Don yod grub pa’s commentary on Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.179 follows thirteen folio sides later, in his section on how the Sa skya Mahāmudrā “is in accord with other tantras and śāstras” (rgyud dang bstan bcos gzhan dang mthun pa). Jñānasiddhi 1.32 makes another appearance in Go rams pa’s work, and he provides a more expansive commentary incorporating quoted material from the Saṃpuṭatantra (Saṃ bu ṭi [sic]), the Guhyakośasūtra (Gsang ba mdzod gyi mdo), and an unnamed work by Āryadeva. He then refers to 22  Being the sub-topic “Our Own Tradition’s Definition of Mahāmudrā” (rang lugs kyi phyag chen ngos bzung ba). 23  Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge, Sdom gsum rnam bshad, 209.5–210.1: gnyis pa ni nged kyi zhes sogs bcu | tshig rkang dang po gsum gyis rgyu bstan | bzhi pas rang gi ngo bo bstan | de nas gnyis kyis ’grub pa’i dus bstan no || de nas gnyis kyis gzhan du rtog pa dgag | de nas gnyis kyis phyag chen bsgrub par ’dod pas gang la ’jug pa’i lung bstan no || ’di dag gi don zhib tu rtogs par ’dod na rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud sde rnams kyi dgongs pa mthar thug ‘grub pa thob pa’i slob dpon rnams kyis mdzad pa’i grub pa sde bdun las shes bar bya’o |. For the root text, see Sa skya Paṇḍita, Sdom gsum rab dbye, 52.3. For a translation of the root text see Sakya Pandita, A Clear Differentiation, 117.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

105

another work from the Grub pa sde bdun, citing chapter three of Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, on the bodhicittābhiṣeka (byang chub sems kyi dbang bskur).24 The verse reads: And as it says in The Siddhi of Ascertaining Method and Insight, According to the path of tantra, When the wise one was consecrated In the maṇḍala of the abode of the Sugatas, He was in the presence of all of the buddhas. The lord of infinite world systems, Attained the self-consecration stage. (PUVS 3.2–3.3b)25 Anaṅgavajra’s verse, perhaps a reference to the new frame narrative of the Buddha’s enlightenment that is introduced in works such as the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁgraha, is employed here by Go rams pa as evidence that the Buddha himself only realized Mahāmudrā during a formal consecration rite after he had attained a certain level of realization. Go rams pa’s final word on the matter introduces a bit of ad hominem, a feature that becomes increasingly pronounced among the texts that follow: With respect to this some [say,] “Since attaining the supreme siddhi of Mahāmudrā accords with the vehicle of the perfections, since abandoning the obscurations abandoned 24  Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ (Thabs dang shes rab rnam par gtan la dbab pa grub pa), in Guhyādi–Aṣṭasiddhi–saṅgraha, Skt. 75–77; Tib. 122–128. 25  Go rams pa, Sdom gsum rnam bshad, 223.2–223.4: zhes pa dang | thabs dang shes rab rnam par gtan la dbab pa grub pa las || bder gshegs gnas kyi dkyil ’khor du || rgyud kyi lam gyi rjes ’brang nas || mkhas pa gang tshe dbang bskur na || sangs rgyas thams cad mngon sum yin || dpag med ’jig rten khams dbang phyug || bdag byin brlabs pa’i rim thob pa || zhes gsungs so ||. Go rams pa’s partial quote of PUVS 3.3 gives the impression that the subject of the verse is the “lord of infinite world systems” (dpag med ’jig rten khams dbang phyug) when, in fact, this is the object of the agent, rendered in the instrumental case, that appears in the omitted pādas PUVS 3.3cd. The complete set of Sanskrit verses reads: mantramārgānusāreṇa abhiṣikto yadā budhaḥ | pratyakṣaṃ sarvabuddhānāṃ maṇḍale sugatālaye (3.2) anantalokadhātvīśo grāhas tathāpi dhīmatā | svādhiṣṭhānakramaṃ prāpya samayakṣatibhīruṇā (3.3). (“According to the custom of the mantra path, when the wise one was consecrated, [he was] in the presence of all of the buddhas in the maṇḍala, the abode of the Sugatas. (3.2) Likewise, after an intelligent one who fears losing samaya attains the self-consecration stage, they too will perceive the lord of Infinite world systems.”) See Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ, Skt. 75–77; Tib. 122–128.

106

Krug

[on the path of] seeing accords with the secret mantra [vehicle], it unties the knot of the central channel.” Such talk is senseless babbling. The critical point of the texts referenced above [is expressed in Sa skya Paṇḍita’s verse that reads] “Here it is refuted that someone not endowed with the consecrations has Mahāmudrā.” This verse explains that there is no Mahāmudrā in the vehicle of the perfections because such a siddhi contradicts the exegetical tradition.26 Go rams pa’s final statement on the Grub pa sde bdun as an authoritative corpus argues that they provide irrefutable evidence that Mahāmudrā cannot be properly taught or fully realized without the disciple’s progression through the tantric yogas and the series of consecrations. The Bka’ brgyud side of this argument, however, employs the very same references from the Grub pa sde bdun to argue precisely the opposite. The references to the Grub pa sde bdun from Sa skya Paṇḍita, Don yod grub pa, and Go rams pa exhibit a trend toward greater exegetical engagement with the texts this corpus contains, yet this engagement remains relatively limited. For these authors, it would seem that the fact that the Grub pa sde bdun support the Sa skya position on Mahāmudrā is largely self-evident. A few verses are cited, but the reader is for the most part instructed to read these works on their own, and as the example of Don yod grub pa and Go rams pa’s treatment of HT 2.8.1 indicates, it is quite possible that their readers did not in fact explore the Grub pa sde bdun any further than the verses provided by this commentarial tradition – nor were they expected to. In contrast, Padma dkar po’s Gan mdzod begins with detailed descriptions of each work contained in the Grub pa sde bdun. Writing nearly a generation after the publication of the Seventh Karma pa and Kun dga’ rin chen’s Mahāmudrā practical canon projects, a period that marks the height of the Grub pa sde bdun’s popularity as a corpus of authentic Indian Mahāmudrā teachings, Padma dkar po’s Gan mdzod devotes thirty folio sides in the beginning of its first section to “A Detailed Analysis of Mahāmudrā Texts” (gzhung phyag rgya chen po’i rab dbye) that focuses on the three core Indian Mahāmudrā corpora. He organizes his analysis according to the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud patriarch Chos kyi Gtsang pa rgya ras pa’s (1161–1211) three categories of supplemental works 26  Go rams pa, Sdom gsum rnam bshad, 223.4–223.5: kha cig ’dir | phyag chen mchog gi dngos grub thob pa ni | phar phyin theg pa bltar na | mthong spang gi sgrib pa spangs ba dang | gsang sngags pa ltar na rtsa dbu ma’i mdud pa grol ba la zer zhes smra ba ni bab chol te | gong du drangs pa’i lung rnams dang | ’dir dbang bskur dag dang ma ’brel ba || de la phyag rgya chen po bkag | zhes phar phyin theg pa la phyag rgya chen po med par bshad pa dang dngos grub ’gal ba’i phyir ro |.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

107

(zur ’debs) for the Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition. Gstang pa rgya ras pa’s first category, “The corpus of textual exegeses” (bshad pa tshig gi skor), includes the Grub pa sde bdun, Snying po skor drug, and the Yid la mi byed pa corpora. After drawing attention to the continuity of textual exegesis on the Grub pa sde bdun in his own lineage, Padma dkar po goes on to discuss all seven works in the corpus, and provides short chapter-by-chapter explanations of Guhyasiddhi, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, and Jñānasiddhi that highlight specific passages from these texts that are intended to refute the Sa skya position. While it clearly shows a greater degree of engagement with the texts, Padma dkar po’s discussion of the Grub pa sde bdun also manipulates its source material in certain cases by reading a number of topics into the corpus that are not present in the original works. His discussion of the Guhyasiddhi argues that the text contains instructions on “the subitist path” (cig car ba’i lam bstan) as well as “the path of passing over” (thod brgal ba’i lam) in chapters one and three, respectively. In his discussion of “the path of passing over,” Padma dkar po provides what appears to be a doctored quote from Guhyasiddhi chapter three: Being expressed to all beginner sentient beings, It is what generates conviction. (GS 3.4cd) It is the great miracle due to the contact of complete Union of the vajra in the space element. The special instruction is what brings it about, And that is what generates supreme joy. (GS 3.5)27 Here Padma dkar po argues that Padmavajra’s statement on the supreme state that sentient beings fail to recognize is present in their own bodies is the equivalent of a thod brgal instruction. In order to make this point, it is possible that Padma dkar po himself inserted the term ‘special instruction’ (gdams pa) into the text. The verse as it is preserved in the canonical editions of the text, the Dpal spungs xylograph of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung, and the ’Bri gung chos mdzod all agree with the extant Sanskrit versions of the text that it is the bliss (sukha, bde ba) produced from this union that brings about supreme joy (paramānanda, mchog tu dga’ ba). None of these witnesses mention any ­“instructions” (gdams pa). Without the variant in Padma dkar po’s quote of GS 3.5, this group of verses actually agrees with the common description of the 27  ’Brug chen Padma dkar po, Phyag rgya chen po’i mang ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, 9.6–10.1: dang po’i las can sems can rnams || mtshon pas yid ches byed pa po || mkha’ dbyings rdo rje kun sbyor ba’i || reg pas ngo mtshar chen po nyid || gdams pa gang gis ’byung gyur te || mchog tu dga ba byed pa pa’o |.

108

Krug

generation of moments of joy during the performance of sexual yoga, which Padmavajra argues introduces beginners to the supreme state for the first time. In other words, without the substitution of gdams pa for bde ba in the verse, it is directly in agreement with the Sa skya argument that Mahāmudrā is properly indicated to an initiated and well-trained disciple in the context of tantric consecration through the experience of the sequence of joys.28 As with Don yod grub pa and Go rams pa’s misquoting of the Hevajratantra, it is entirely possible that Padma dkar po is providing a faithful reproduction of the text of the Guhyasiddhi that he had at his disposal. But, as with the Sa skya pa example, this is not entirely likely to be the case, given how conveniently the variant from Padma dkar po’s hypothetical version of the Guhyasiddhi plays directly in favor of the Bka’ brgyud emphasis on the guru’s instructions as the critical factor in a disciple’s realization of Mahāmudrā. In his discussion of Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, Padma dkar po argues that the third consecration is omitted from the consecration rite outlined in chapter three. This analysis is a direct response to Sa skya authors like Go rams pa who insisted that this same chapter details a complete rite for the three higher tantric consecrations. Padma dkar po interprets the chapter as follows: The third chapter [discusses] the empowerment ritual. The consecration [up through the end of the eulogy to the verse that reads] “After that, the glorious Ācārya,” completes the maṇḍala gathering, and that is the secret consecration. At the end of that [secret consecration] it mentions giving the command: Having received the bodhicitta consecration, To the disciple, completely free from sin,29 The supreme heir of the Buddha, (PUVS 3.26bcd) One should thus give the command: (PUVS 3.27a) And then the word consecration is given to the faithful one: One should give the consecration of the verbal jewel To one with supreme faith in the profound and vast [instruction]. (PUVS 3.38cd) 28  Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi only mentions three types of “joy,” ānanda, paramānanda, and viramānanda, which would make the text a perfect example of the limitations of a rigid interpretation of Mahāmudrā as necessarily dependent upon the realization recognized and cultivated during the experience of the four moments of joy. Padma dkar po, however, does not make this argument at this point in the text. 29  My English translation preserves the Tibetan syntax in order to make it easier to provide the verse correspondences for the Tibetan translation of Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

109

There is no third consecration in this text. So what are these Ācāryas who are convinced that this kind of consecration ritual is unacceptable talking about?30 Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi 3.22 may in fact describe something like a third consecration, but these verses and a number of others that provide greater context for the rite are omitted from Padma dkar po’s explanation of the chapter. In Padma dkar po’s defense, however, the terminology employed in this chapter, as well as in the consecration chapters in the Guhyasiddhi and Jñānasiddhi, does not match the more common terminology used for the sequence of consecrations. To make matters more complicated, Anaṅgavajra’s instructions seem to combine forms of the consecration rite that are typically associated with both the guhya- and prajñājñāna-abhiṣekas. After a sequence in which the disciple approaches the Vajrācārya and presents him with a consort, worships them both, and enters the maṇḍala (PUVS 3.5–3.19), the following verses contain instructions in which the Vajrācārya confers the samaya upon the disciple, who has been united with the consort: Then the Ācārya, the fortunate one, Unites with the consort And deposits the bodhicitta (PUVS 3.20bcd) In the lotus, the abode of the victors. With verses of auspicious blessing and Chowries, parasols, and victory banners, The disciple who is endowed with the consort (PUVS 3.21) Should be consecrated as the lord of the world.31 After the master, the supreme lord,

30  Padma dkar po, Gan mdzod, 13.2–13.5: gsum pas dbang bskur | dbang yang | de nas dpal ldan slob dpon sogs kyis tshogs dkyil bsgrubs te gsang dbang bskur | de‘i mthar rjes gnang sbyin pa gsungs te | byang chub sems kyi dbang bskur bas | slob ma sdig dang bral bar ’gyur | | sangs rgyas sras mchog de la ni | | rjes su gnang ba de nas sbyin | | zhes dang | phyis mos na tshig dbang bskur te | zab cing rgya che ba la lhag par mos na ni | | tshig gis rin chen dbang bskur sbyin par bya zhes gsungs kyis | ’di la gsum pa‘i dbang ma byung | dbang gi cho ga‘i ’gros ’di lta bu mi ’thad na slob dpon tshad mar gyur pa des ji la gsung |. 31  The Tibetan text diverges from the Sanskrit, which leaves the term jagatprabhuḥ in the nominative singular to match the term ācāryaḥ. See Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ, Skt. 75.

110

Krug

Gives the jewel of consecration He then bestows the blissful samaya (PUVS 3.22) That clarifies inherent nature and is truly pure. The great jewel is mixed with camphor, Red sandalwood, And the vajra-water, (PUVS 3.23) That arise from the pure five.32 “This, my son, is your samaya Which is taught in accord with all of the buddhas; You, fortunate one, must always maintain it. Listen, (PUVS 3.24) Now you shall hear the vow.” (PUVS 3.25a)33 It is clear in these passages that the disciple is united with the consort, and that he is consecrated while they are in union. The disciple is also, seemingly for the first time during the rite, given a mixture of substances to ingest that signifies his taking of the samaya. Both elements typically associated with the guhya- and prajñājñāna-abhiṣeka are thus present here, and it is unclear if the rite prescribes the former, the latter, or a combination of both. What is clear is that Padma dkar po’s statement that the consecration chapter in Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi does not contain a third consecration glosses over the complexity of the passage, and it does so to his rhetorical advantage. The second issue revolves around Padma dkar po’s statement that the chapter contains a “word consecration” (tshig dbang bskur), which would function here as a fourth consecration representing the full, simultaneous conferral of 32  The Tibetan rendering of this verse might be interpreted as the various substances mentioned here arising from the “pure five” aggregates. I have opted to leave out any such interpretation because this verse actually diverges from the Sanskrit, which reads pañcamam vāksamudbhavam or “the fifth, which is arisen from speech.” See Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ, Skt. 76. 33  Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ, Tib. 125: de nas slob dpon skal bzang gis || phyag rgya dang ni sbyar byas te || rgyal ba’i gnas gyur byang chub sems | (20) || pad+ma’i snod du bzhag nas ni || bkra shis glu yi tshigs bcad dang || gdugs dang rnga yab rgyal mtshan bcas || phyag rgyar ldan pa’i slob ma ni | (21) || ’gro ba‘i gtso bor dbang bskur bya || slob dpon dbang phyug mchog gis ni || dbang bskur rin chen byin nas su || rang bzhin gsal zhing mngon sbyangs pa | (22) || dam tshig nyams dga‘ sbyin par bya || rin chen chen po ga bur bcas || tsa n+da na dmar po sbyar ba dang || rdo rje yi ni chu dang bcas | (23) || lnga po dag las yang dag byung || ’di ni bu khyod dam tshig ste || sangs rgyas kun gyi mthun par gsungs || bzang pos rtag tu bskyang bar byos | (24) || da ni sdom pa mnyan par gyis |.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

111

a final Mahāmudrā instruction and realization. The term tshig, however, does not appear as a modifier for the consecration itself, but as an adverbial form describing the verbal expression of the consecration according to the rituals described previously in the chapter. The Sanskrit verse reads: deyo ’bhiṣeko vidhibhir yathoktaiḥ śiṣyādhimuktiṃ manasāvagamya udāragambhīranayādhimukto vācaiva dadyād abhiṣekaratnam (PUVS 3.38) The consecration should be given in the various ways mentioned above. Having gained confidence in the disciple mentally, One who is confident in the exalted and profound instruction Should grant the jewel of consecration verbally. (PUVS 3.38) The Tibetan reads: cho ga ’di dag nyid kyis dbang bskur byin nas ni slob ma lhag par mos pa’i yid kyis brtag byas la zab cing rgya che ba la lhag par mos nas ni tshig gis34 rin chen dbang bskur sbyin par bya (PUVS 3.38) Having given the consecration according to these instructions, Having determined mentally that the disciple is very devout, One generates great devotion in the exalted and profound [teaching], And then grants the jewel of consecration verbally.35 One can imagine Padma dkar po’s temptation to read this as a clear example of the guru’s imparting a “word consecration,” and by association a final Mahāmudrā instruction that is bestowed upon the disciple in the absence of a third consecration. The problem is, just as it is somewhat unclear whether or not there is a third consecration in the chapter, it is also not entirely clear that the verse in question constitutes a true “word consecration.” The two issues 34  Padma dkar po’s quote reads tshig gis, but the Beijing and Snar thang Bstan ’gyur both read tshig gi, as does the Sarnath edition of the Tibetan text. The witnesses from Sde dge, Co ne, and Padma dkar po, which all read an instrumental particle here, match the vācaiva in the extant Sanskrit version of the text. 35  Anaṅgavajra, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, Skt. 77; Tib. 127. My translations of the Sanskrit verse follows the variants for PUVS 3.38 that are noted in the Sarnath edition that read udāragambhīranayādhimukto instead of udāragambhīranayādhimukta–.

112

Krug

are in fact related – both revolve around the absence of a clear and standardized vocabulary for the sequence of consecrations in the text. This ambiguity highlights another point at which an important aspect of the commentator’s own tradition has been read into his sources with a degree of certainty that is not borne out in the source material itself. It should also be noted that in his subsequent comments on Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, Padma dkar po admits to reading his own tradition into the text when he presents Anaṅgavajra’s chapter on “Meditation on Ultimate Reality” (tattvabhāvanā, de kho na nyid bsgom pa) as a teaching on the Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā system of four yogas (rnal ’byor bzhi). In this case, he openly states that “chapter four does not mention the names of the four yogas, but it teaches [them] according to [their] meaning.”36 Importantly, this interpretation also rules out the possibility that the material in chapter four is intended as the “word consecration” that Padma dkar po identifies at the end of chapter three. This leaves two possibilities for the potential inclusion of a “word consecration” in chapter three of Prajnopāyaviniścayasiddhi – either this “word consecration” appears in liturgy itself in the form of the “command” or rjes gnang that is imparted following the consecration, or it is not included in the liturgy for chapter three but merely implied in PUVS 3.38d. The former position does not make sense because the guru’s “command” in this text is not a final instruction on the nature of reality or Mahāmudrā. If the liturgy for this “word consecration” is merely implied in PUVS 3.38d, then Padma dkar po’s entire argument rests on a single phrase (tshigs gis, vācaiva) employed in a single verse for which there is no clear referent in the chapter itself. The latter option would seem to be relatively flimsy grounds from which to make such an important claim. Padma dkar po, likely prompted by Don yod grub pa and Go rams pa, also cites Jñānasiddhi 1.32 in his discussion of the role of consecration, treating Jñānasiddhi 1.32–33 and 1.37 as a brief set of summary verses corresponding to the lengthy consecration liturgy that Indrabhūti provides later in chapter seventeen. Here he refers to the consecration chapter in Jñānasiddhi as a “blessing ritual” (byin rlabs kyi cho ga) and elaborates upon these verses with material from Jñānasiddhi’s consecration chapter to argue that the Grub pa sde bdun support the view that the guru’s blessing can perform the same function as a complete set of consecrations. The ritual elements of the chapter include the performance of a feast offering, the disciple’s offering a consort (dakṣinā) to the guru, the return of the consort along with the guru’s blessing, and finally the guru’s command (anujñā, rjes gnang). Toward the end of Jñānasiddhi 36  Padma dkar po, Gan mdzod, 13.5–13.6. Tibetan: le’u bzhi bas rnal ’byor bzhi’i ming ma bshad kyang don ji lta ba bshed de |.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

113

chapter seventeen, Indrabhūti goes to some lengths to reinforce his argument that the disciple has now received the highest consecration, but the chapter only describes a rite approximating what is more commonly referred to as the guhyābhiṣeka.37 For Padma dkar po, Indrabhūti’s argument that this consecration rite confers the highest possible consecration is taken as further proof that the guru’s blessing can render an incomplete set of consecrations soteriologically effective. Pointing this out to his reader, Padma dkar po throws in a bit of his own polemic, stating “[b]ecause this text is indeed accepted as authoritative, only the senile and immature (rgan ’chal kho nar zad) say that the blessing is unable to perform the function of consecration.”38 Padma dkar po thus employs two works from the Grub pa sde bdun, Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi and Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi, as examples of what the Sa skya might consider “incomplete” consecration rituals that are preserved in what are widely recognized as authoritative Indian sources on Mahāmudrā. For Padma dkar po, the fact that in these works the guru’s blessing is still able to confer a realization of Mahāmudrā upon the disciple stands as evidence that the form and sequence of the consecration rite is secondary to the guru’s blessing. This effectively opens up an opportunity for rejecting the Sa skya view that Mahāmudrā can only be conferred upon and realized by a disciple who has received the complete sequence of four consecrations. The Sa skya author Mang thos Klu grub rgya mtsho’s (1523–1596) Sdom gsum rab dbye’i dka’ ’grel gnad kyi snying po byed las phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer (henceforth Nyi ma’i ’od zer)39 responds directly to Padma dkar po’s Gan mdzod. Klu grub rgya mtsho begins his work with a short description of the type of criticism that the Sa skya pa view of Mahamudrā had suffered by the late sixteenth century, and then states the explicit purpose of his treatise as a response to Padma dkar po in the following passage: The sweet-sounding name of “The Glorious Drukpa Tulku” has become the ear ornament of wise ones in all directions, and they are nourished by a nectar of supreme joy in their hearts. Based on whether or not his bodily image appears or does not appear somewhere, the wise one has 37  As mentioned above, this terminology does not appear in the text itself. 38  Padma dkar po, Gan mdzod, 18.1–3: zhes byin rlabs kyi cho ga kho nas dbang thob pa de rgyud thams cad kyi rdo rje slob dpon du ’os pa sogs gsungs pa’ang mthong || gzhung ’di tshad mar yang khas len bzhin du byin gyis rlabs pas dbang bskur gyi go mi chod zer ba de rgan ’chal kho nar zad do |. 39  The title of this text may also be taken as a veiled attack on Dwags po Bkra shis rnam rgyal’s famous treatise on Mahāmudrā, the Zla ba’i ’od zer.

114

Krug

the power and ability to cause the precious teachings to wax or wane. The great saint who has attained siddhi, who possesses the fortunate name Padma dkar po, has composed a treatise called The Victor’s Treasury: A Cohesive Exegesis of Mahāmudrā Instructions, in which, in order to test the deluded scholars among the followers of the glorious Sa skya pa of this time, he criticizes [them] with degrading words and levels numerous responses and refutations. This is appropriate for a scholar, and is the foundation of analytical logic. I have obtained permission to respond in this work, so it is appropriate that it should be given to discerning scholars.40 He then comments on the role of consecration in the Grub pa sde bdun and challenges Padma dkar po’s reading of both Jñānasiddhi 1.32 and chapter 17. He quotes Padma dkar po’s ad hominem polemic against the “childish and senile” who argue that the guru’s blessing alone cannot perform the function of a full sequence of consecrations, and refers to this statement as “just the senseless babbling of someone poorly trained who was overwhelmed upon seeing the true profundity of the tantra with the discriminating eyes of a mentally challenged fool (byis pa blo gros ma smin pa).”41 Klu grub rgya mtsho argues that the blessing ritual in chapter seventeen is explicitly designated for a disciple who has already been ripened through consecration and has already generated gnosis on his or her own, in contrast to Padma dkar po, who argued that the chapter is itself a rite for the performance of a ripening consecration.42 For Klu grub rgya mtsho, the presence of this ripening consecration at the beginning of Jñānasiddhi chapter seventeen, which he locates in JS 17.4–5, indicates that the 40  Mang thos Klu sgrub rgyal mtshan, Sdom gsum rab dbye’i dka’ ’grel sbas don gnad kyi snying po gsal byed las | phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma’i ‘od zer, 116.3–116.6: dpal ldan ’brug pa sprul sku zhes snyan pa’i grags pa phyogs kyi mkhas pa rnams kyi rna ba’i rgyan du gyur la | snying la rab dga’i bdud rtsis gsos ’debs pa | gang du sku’i snang brnyan shar ba dang ma shar ba las | bstan pa rin po che la ’phel ’grib kyi rngo thogs par nus pa’i mkhas shing grub pa brnyes pa’i skyes chen pad+ma dkar po zhes mtshan gyi dge legs dang ldan pa des | phyag chen man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces pa’i bstan bcos brtsams pa der | dus deng gi dpal ldan sa skya pa’i rjes ’brang dag la mkhas rmongs kyi nyams sad pa’i phyir | nyams ldan gyi gsung gis sun ’byin dang | ’gog byed lan gyi rnam grangs mang du gnang ba ni | mkhas pa la ’os shing | dpyad par rigs pa’i gzhir gyur la | ’di la lan du bka’i gnang ba yang thob pas | mkhas pa dpyod ldan dag gsan par bya ba’i ’os so |. 41  Mang thos, Nyi ma‘i ’od zer, 117.3: de skad smra ba de ni | byis pa blo gros ma smin pa‘i rnam dpyod kyi mig gi rgyud don zab mor lta ma bzod pa‘i bslab nyes kyi bab col kho nar zad do |. 42  Padma dkar po, Gan mdzod, 16.3–16.4: bcu bdun par thog mar smin pa’i dbang dgos pa bskur ba’i tshul ’di ni mdor bstan du |. Translation: “The way that the necessary ripening consecration is conferred is taught at the beginning of chapter seventeen.”

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

115

chapter cannot be interpreted as condoning the conferral of a blessing upon a beginner who has not received any kind of prior consecration. Padma dkar po’s student Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569–1645) takes Klu grub rgya mtsho’s argument to task in his Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces bya ba’i bstan bcos la rtsod pa spong ba’i gtam srid gsum rnam par rgyal ba’i dge mtshan (henceforth Rgyal ba’i dge mtshan), where he attempts to prove that the chapter is a liturgy for a “blessing consecration” (byin rlabs dbang bskur), not, as Klu grub rgya mtsho argues, a liturgy for a “ripening consecration” (smin byed dbang). The confusion around this issue may derive from a problem in the Tibetan translation of JS 17.4–5. The Sanskrit verse for JS 17.4cd, svasamvedyasvabhāvaṃ ca ādattam api niścayam, has been translated into the Tibetan as rang rig pa yi ngo bo la/ /bdag ni shin tu nges pa skyes. Here the Tibetan translation adds a first person subject to the verse (bdag ni) that has no equivalent in the Sanskrit and the past participle ādattam falls out of the Tibetan entirely.43 In order to resolve the issue, Sangs rgyas rdo rje draws upon the following set of instructions (man ngag) from an unidentified work of Pha dam pa [sangs rgyas] (11th–12th century) that parses these verses from Jñānasiddhi and indicates that the disciple remains the recipient of this “nature of self-reflexive awareness”: The Indian [master] Pha dam pa’s instructions [on these verses] say, “The verse that reads ‘Oh compassionate one, due to [your] blessing,’ [JS 17.4a] means that the one who requests the consecration only needs to engage the Vajrācārya. Thus, the disciple says, ‘Compassionate one, due to [your] blessing’ [in reference to] the [Vajr]ācārya. Among Tibetans it is said that you ‘attain the authentic supreme gnosis’ [JS 17.4b], and then ‘One gains certainty in the true nature’ with respect to that realization of ‘the essence of self-reflexive awareness gnosis,’ and [thus the verse in Jñānasiddhi] says, One attains the perfect supreme gnosis and Produces supreme certainty in the true nature With respect to the essence of self-reflexive awareness. [JS 17.4.bcd] Since you [i.e. the Vajrācārya] possess ‘this non-dual gnosis,’ [it] ‘does not exist anywhere else in the world,’ [JS 17.5ab] [meaning among] us [the 43  It is possible that the Tibetan bdag ni reflects the Sanskrit variant *ātmānam api niścayam for JS 17.4d. This variant is not reported in the Sarnath edition, nor does it appear in the Sanskrit manuscripts for Jñānasiddhi that I currently have at my disposal (NGMPP A 134/2, A 137/4, E 1474/4, and IASWR MBB 7/4), which are all consistent with the Sarnath edition.

116

Krug

supplicant(s)]. At that point one ‘supplicates the supreme guru in order to drink the dharma-nectar.’ [JS 17.5cd] After [the guru] makes the portion of dharma-nectar, [the disciple says] ‘Please grant me the blessing consecration.’ ” Thus, the verse [from Jñānasiddhi that reads] This non-dual gnosis is found Nowhere else in the world. In order to drink the dharma nectar, [The disciple] supplicates the supreme guru. [JS 17.5] is in agreement with [Dam pa sangs rgyas’] close reading.44 If one ignores this point and applies [the verse] to the disciple, then [the disciple] must be supplicating [the Vajrācārya] for the dharma nectar after having already realized perfect, supreme gnosis. In that case, what is it that he seeks? Sangs rgyas rdo rje then responds to Klu grub rgya mtsho’s reading of the verse with the following critique: In this verse [i.e., JS 17.4cd], because it says “self-reflexive awareness” and “I” (bdag ni), he made a fundamental error and then misunderstood [the verse], yet the nomad teaches that this mere fragment of a fool’s reasoning is the truth. He must acknowledge the mistake.45 44  The literal meaning of the phrase ’bru gnyer tshul in this context might read something like “paying attention to the details.” This translation – suggested to me by Elizabeth Callahan in a private email correspondence – remains tentative, and further research is needed on similar uses of the phrase to justify this reading. 45  Sangs rgyas rdo rje, Rgyal ba’i dge mtshan, 121.2–122.3: pha dam pa rgya gar ba’i man ngag bzhin | thugs rje’i bdag nyid drin can gyis | zhes sogs ni dbang bskur ba po rdo rje’i slob dpon kho na la sbyor dgos te slob mas | thugs rje’i bdag nyid drin can zhes slob dpon la bod nas | khyod kyis yang dag pa’i ye shes mchog thob nas so sor rang rig pa’i ye shes kyi ngo bo rtogs pa de la bdag nyid nges pa’i shes pa skyes so zhes ’chad pa la | yang dag ye shes mchog thob ste || rang gi rig pa’i ngo bo la || bdag ni shin tu nges pa skyes | zhes pa ’di byung | khyod kyi de ltar rtogs pa’i gnyis med kyi ye shes ’di nyid ni bdag cag ’gro ba gzhan la yod pa ma yin gyi | da ni chos kyi bdud rtsi ’thung ba’i phyir mchog gi bla ma khyod la gsol ba ’debs so || chos kyi bdud rtsi bgo bshar mdzad pa’i slad du byin rlabs dbang bskur stsal du gsol zhes ’chad pa la | gnyis med ye shes ’di nyid ni || ’gro ba gzhan la yod ma yin | chos kyi bdud rtsi ’di ’thung phyir | bla ma mchog la gsol ba ’debs | zhes ’bru gnyer tshul don dang mthun pa ’di ka’o || de ltar ma yin par slob ma la sbyar na | yang dag ye shes mchog thob zin nas slar chos kyi bdud rtsi’i phyir du gsol ba btab nas | ci zhig don du gnyer | ’dir rang gi rig pa zhes dang | bdag ni zhes pas ’khrul gzhi byas nas go log rgyab par ’dug kyang rdzob rtags dum tsam ’brog pas los ston | thugs bden mchis so |.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

117

In other words, Sangs rgyas rdo rje believes that Klu grub rgya mtsho is misled here by the passage’s reference to ‘self-reflexive awareness’ and the inclusion of a first person pronoun in the Tibetan version of the text. This error allowed Klu grub rgya mtsho to read this bdag ni as a subject who “has generated confidence with respect to the nature of self-reflexive awareness,” and to read the verse in agreement with Sa skya Paṇḍita’s view of Mahāmudrā in his Sdom gsum rab dbye as “gnosis arisen from initiation and the self-arisen gnosis that ensues from the meditations of the two processes.”46 This, in turn, allows Klu grub rgya mtsho to argue that the supplicant in JS 17.4–5 has already received a “blessing consecration,” and that the opening supplication constitutes a request for a “ripening consecration.” Without this variant in the Tibetan translation of the text, however, it is clear that the disciple is requesting “perfect supreme gnosis” and “certainty as to the nature of self-reflexive awareness,” which are both attained “from the blessing” (prasādāt, drin can gis). This reading would support Padma dkar po and Sangs rgyas rdo rje’s argument that Jñānasiddhi chapter seventeen preserves evidence from an authentic Indian Mahāmudrā source that the Vajrācārya’s blessing, in the form of a “blessing consecration,” can in fact confer a complete realization of Mahāmudrā. 4

Conclusion: Imagining a Homogenous “Indian Tradition”

This study of the role that the Grub pa sde bdun played in the works of several prominent Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā polemicists has brought to light a number of points that are of broader significance for Tibetologists. It has shown that the corpus of the Grub pa sde bdun exhibited some degree of fluidity in the hands of various Tibetan authors, with some authors swapping out members of the standardized list in the Bstan ’gyur for other “siddhi” texts to bring the corpus closer in line with a particular sectarian identity and others expanding the list of seven to include a number of additional “siddhi” works. An important technical issue has been brought to light concerning the translation of the compounds Grub snying, Grub snying skor, and Grub snying gi skor, which is almost universally mistaken to signify Saraha’s dohā when, in fact, 46  Sa skya Paṇḍita, Sdom gsum rab dbye, 52.3; for a translation of the root text see Sakya Pandita 2002: 117. As mentioned above, Don yod grub pa argued that Sa skya Paṇḍita’s position is supported in the Grub pa sde bdun without pointing to any particular text or passage from the corpus to support his argument. Mang thos’ work thus reflects a greater engagement with the texts contained in the Grub pa sde bdun, and it is likely that this is a direct function of Padma dkar po’s more detailed engagement with the actual content of these works.

118

Krug

it most often signifies (with some exceptions) a shortened form for the two “earliest” corpora of Indian Mahāmudrā works, the Grub pa sde bdun and the Snying po skor drug. The employment of the Grub pa sde bdun in Sa skya-Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā polemical literature from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries has revealed that authors on both sides primarily drew upon the corpus to clarify whether or not a necessary relationship obtains between imparting and realizing the nature of Mahāmudrā and the combination of receiving the higher tantric consecrations while progressing through the two-stage yoga of the “unsurpassed yogatantra.” This analysis has also brought to light some of the ways that polemical authors might twist or manipulate their sources to support their arguments. It has also demonstrated that these authors’ engagement with the Grub pa sde bdun became increasingly more sophisticated over time. This pattern, I argue, is likely a result of the increased awareness and accessibility that the Grub pa sde bdun enjoyed due to its prominent placement in the first volumes of two Bka’ brgyud practical canons published at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, the Phyag chen rgya gzhung and the ’Bri gung chos mdzod. For Tibetan authors on both sides of this polemical divide as well as modern scholars, the task of interpreting the consecration chapters from Guhyasiddhi, Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, and Jñānasiddhi is complicated by the fact that the sequence of the consecration rituals and the terminology used to describe them varies across all three works. This is the case despite assurance from hagiographic sources that these three works represent a single Mahāmudrā lineage transmission from Oḍḍiyāna. In addition, none of these works employs a consecration terminology that matches the more standardized lexicon for the three higher consecrations – the guhya-, prajñājñāna-, and caturthaabhiṣekas.47 The lack of a standardized and consistent consecration-ritual sequence and lexicon across these three works undoubtedly made the job of Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā polemicists that much more difficult. The fact that the Grub pa sde bdun is widely accepted as an authoritative corpus of Indian Mahāmudrā works meant that Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud authors were required to find some way to read aspects of later, more standardized consecration systems into the texts. In doing so, both sides grappled with a corpus containing a series of somewhat loose internal correspondences around the critical issue of consecration rites.

47  This fact seems to go unnoticed by both sides of the debate, which is surprising given that the absence of this common vocabulary could only strengthen the Bka’ brgyud argument against the more rigid conception of a proper consecration ritual among the Sa skya.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

119

When confronted with the relatively unorganized presentation of consecration rites in these works, Tibetan authors on both sides of the Mahāmudrā polemical literature analyzed here show a minimal degree of sensitivity toward the lack of standardization one encounters in discourses of the mahāsiddhas who authored the Grub pa sde bdun. The reason for this, I suggest, is that both sides of this debate may have preferred to leave intact the rhetoric of an imaginary hegemonic “Indian Tradition” instead of problematizing the very foundation of their own arguments by pointing out inconsistencies within the Grub pa sde bdun and undercutting the entire authority-granting structure of the corpus as a collection of Indian Mahāmudrā works. The belief in a monolithic “Indian Tradition” is, after all, precisely the underlying assumption that gives the Seventh Karma pa’s practical canon of Indian Mahāmudrā Works, or Phyag chen rgya gzhung, and the works it contains a certain rhetorical weight. Such rhetoric, however, neglects the fact that the works contained in the Grub pa sde bdun are products of a dynamic and evolving discourse around the soteriological efficacy of various consecration rites and meditative techniques. For instance, the fact that Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi presents a liturgy in which a ritual approximating the guhyābhiṣeka functions as the highest consecration might be taken as an indication that this text reflects a stage in the development of esoteric Buddhism that predates the addition of a third and fourth ­consecration.48 Instead, the authors analyzed here all seem to insist that the Grub pa sde bdun is in direct conversation with the genre of “unsurpassed yogatantra” and fail to recognize that the corpus includes works that are conversant with a number of genres of tantric literature, primarily those associated with the yogatantra and mahāyogatantra class.49 This oversight is surprising, particularly since the absence of a clear delineation of four stages of consecration across the Grub pa sde bdun, the absence of any correlation between stages in the consecration rite and the four types of joy (or, in the case of Padmavajra’s 48  On the historical development of the four-stage consecration system, see Dalton 2004, and Isaacson 2010. 49  This is particularly true with respect to the three texts that feature prominently in the Sa skya-Bka’ brgyud debates around the relationship between the mechanics of consecration and realization of Mahāmudrā. None of these three works (Guhyasiddhi, Jñānasiddhi, and Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi) is aware of any category of “unsurpassed yogatantra.” The Guhyasiddhi is aware of the categories of kriyā and caryā tantra, but Padmavajra does not provide us with any indication of his understanding of the class to which his primary source text, the Guhyasamājatantra, belongs. Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi does not mention its primary source text, the Samputodbhāvatantra, by name, and Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi refers to its own textual sources on several occasions as yogatantra, foregoing even the addition of the modified term mahāyoga despite the fact that it invokes several texts that would later be categorized as part of this genre.

120

Krug

Guhyasiddhi, the presence of a list of only three types of joy), and the fact that authors such as Indrabhūti refer to the textual sources for their Mahāmudrā instructions as yogatantras, and not mahāyogatantra or “unsurpassed yogatantra,” could only play to the advantage of the Bka’ brgyud position. Bibliography

Primary Sources (Indian)



Primary Sources (Tibetan)

Anaṅgavajra. Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ (Thabs dang shes rab rnam par gtan la dbab pa grub pa). In Guhyādi-Aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha. Edited by Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwivedi, 63–89. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Rare Buddhist Texts Project, 1987. Indrabhūti. Jñānasiddhiḥ (Ye shes grub pa). In Guhyādi-Aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha. Edited by Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwivedi, 1–62. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Rare Buddhist Texts Project, 1987. Snellgrove, David, ed. The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study. (Vol. 2.) Bangkok, Thailand: Orchid Press, 2010.

A mgon rin po che, ed. Grub pa sde bdun dang snying po skor gsum yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor. In ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo 1, no. 1. Lhasa: S.N. 2004. Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyas par bshad pa yang gsal sgron me. In Nges don phyag rgya chen po’i khrid mdzod 7, no. 1: 247–296. New Delhi: Rnam par rgyal ba dpal Zhwa dmar ba’i chos sde, 1997. ’Brug chen Pa dma dkar po. Phyag rgya chen po’i mang ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. In ’Brug lugs chos mdzod chen mo 41, no. 1. Kathmandu: Khams sgar gsung rab nyams gso rgyan spel khang, 200?. Dge slong Don yod grub pa. Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭī ka bstan pa’i sgron me las so thar sdom pa’i rnam bshad. In Sngon byon sa skya pa’i mkhas pa rnams kyi gzhung ’grel skor 9, no. 1. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007. Dge slong Don yod grub pa. Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i ṭī ka bstan pa’i sgron me las sngags sdom pa’i rnam bshad. In Sngon byon sa skya pa’i mkhas pa rnams kyi gzhung ’grel skor 9, no. 3. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007. Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge. Sdom gsum rab tu dbye pa’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi sgongs pa gsal ba. In Kun mkhyen go bo rab ’byams pa bsod nams seng ge’i bka’ ’bum 9, no. 1. Kangra, H.P.: Yashodhara Publications and Dzongsar Institute, 1996.

The Seven Siddhi Texts ( Grub pa sde bdun )

121

Mang thos Klu sgrub rgyal mtshan. Sdom gsum rab dbye’i dka’ ’grel sbas don gnad kyi snying po gsal byed las | phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer. In Mang thos klu sgrub rgya mtsho’i gsung skor 5, no. 3. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 1999. Sangs rgyas rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po‘i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces bya ba‘i bstan bcos la rtsod pa spong ba‘i gtam srid gsum rnam par rgyal ba’i dge mtshan. In ’Brug lugs chos mdzod chen mo 42, no. 3. Kathmandu: Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project, 200?. Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. Thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba. In Sa skya bka‘ ’bum 10, no. 1. Kathmandu: Sachen International, 2006. Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba. In Sa skya bka’ ’bum 12, no. 1. Kathmandu: Sachen International, 2006. Zhwa dmar Mi pham chos kyi blo gros, ed. Nges don phyag rgya chen po khrid mdzod. New Delhi: Rnam par rgyal ba dpal zhwa dmar ba‘i chos sde, 1997.



Secondary Sources

Blackburn, Anne M. 1999. “Looking for the Vinaya: Monastic Discipline in the Practical Canons of the Theravāda.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 22.2: 281–310. Blackburn, Anne M. 2001. Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth Century Lankan Monastic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya, trans. 1970. [Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha.] Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Edited by Debriprasad Chattopadhyaya. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. 2006. Mahamudra: The Moonlight – Quintessence of Mind and Meditation. Translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Dalton, Jacob P. 2004. “The Development of Perfection: The Interiorization of Buddhist Ritual in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries.” In Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 1–30. Isaacson, Harunaga. 2010. “Observations on the Development of the Ritual of Initiation (abhiṣeka) in the Higher Buddhist Tantric Systems.” In Hindu and Buddhist Initiations in India and Nepal. Edited by Astrid Zotter and Christof Zotter: 261–279. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Jackson, Roger R. 2008. “The Indian Mahāmudrā ‘Canon(s)’: A Preliminary Sketch.” Journal of the Indian International Association of Buddhist Studies 9: 151–184. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2011. “The Collection of ‘Indian Mahāmudrā Works’ (phyag chen rgya gzhung) Compiled by the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. Edited by Roger R. Jackson and Matthew T. Kapstein, 89–127. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh

122

Krug

Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: ITTBS, GmbH. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2014. “A Summary and Topical Outline of the Sekanirdeśapañjika by ’Bum la ’bar.” In The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjika of Rāmapāla: Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproduction of the MSS. (Serie Orientale Roma Vol. CVII). Edited by Harunaga Isaacson and Francesco Sferra: 367–384. Napoli: Università Degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2016. “bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: ‘Chinese rDzogs chen’ or the Teachings of the Siddhas?” Zentralasiatische Studien 45: 309–340. McDaniel, Justin Thomas. 2008. Gathering Leaves and Lifting Words: Histories of Buddhist Monastic Education in Laos and Thailand. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Roerich, George N., trans. 1996. [’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal.] The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen [Sa skya paṇḍita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan]. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems; the sDom gsum rab dbye and Six Letters. Translated by Jared Douglas Rhoton. Edited by Victoria R.M. Scott. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2011. “Guru-devotion in the Bka’ brgyud pa Tradition: The Single Means to Realization.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. Edited by Roger R. Jackson and Matthew T. Kapstein, 211–255. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: ITTBS, GmbH. Stanley, David Phillip. 2009. “The Threefold Formal, Practical, and Inclusive Canons of Tibetan Buddhism in the Context of a Pan-Asian Paradigm: Utilizing a New Methodology for Analyzing Canonical Collections.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Virginia.

Chapter 3

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents and Beyond Jacob P. Dalton 1 Introduction The present essay looks not at “capital-M” Mahāmudrā, i.e., the contemplative tradition that grew out of the writings of the tantric Nāgārjuna, Maitrīpa (986–1063),1 and other Indian authors of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Rather, it focuses on an earlier period, on Indian ritual developments of the late seventh through ninth centuries, a time when the term mahāmudrā appeared regularly in tantric writings but not necessarily as the ultimate goal of tantric practice that it would become. This essay proposes to trace the development of some early occurrences of the term, taking as its starting point the Dunhuang materials and what they may tell us.2 In his essay, “The ‘Succession of the Four Seals’ (Caturmudrānvaya), together with Selected Passages from Karopa’s Commentary,” Klaus-Dieter Mathes focuses on a crucial text attributed to the tantric Nāgārjuna3 and a twelfth-century commentary on it, written by Maitrīpa’s disciple Karopa.4 The Caturmudrānvaya offers a detailed discussion of the caturmudrā – the karmamudrā, dharmamudrā, mahāmudrā, and samayamudrā, a sequence of four seals that formed the backbone of Maitrīpa’s system. It spread widely and was variously interpreted in tantric Buddhist sources, and when the term mahāmudrā appears in later sources, it is often as part of this set. By the time of the tantric Nāgārjuna, Maitrīpa, Karopa, and what one might call “mature” tantric Buddhism, mahāmudrā had become well established as the goal of the perfection stage of tantric practice. It was, in Mathes’ words, “the realization that bliss and emptiness are inseparable,” or in Karopa’s text, “the recognition 1  See Mathes 2015: 1, who follows Roberts 2014: 4. 2  For a more far-reaching survey of the term mudrā’s varied uses in tantric sources, especially the Yoginī tantras, the reader is referred to Gray 2011. See also Gonda 1972. 3  This attribution was, however, contested by Vibhūticandra (12th/13th cent.); see Mathes 2008: 90–91. 4  See Roerich 1949: 847.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_005

124

Dalton

of the [related] view by becoming mentally disengaged (amanasikāra).”5 This, then, was capital-M Mahāmudrā – mahāmudrā as the ultimate nature of mind.6 At the same time, the samayamudrā was associated with the buddha’s body (kāya), meant here in two senses, both as the body (and maṇḍala) of the deity that is produced through the visualization practices of the generation stage, and as the buddha-body that results from the perfection stage.7 Roughly speaking, then, by the time of capital-M Mahāmudrā, mahāmudrā was associated with the buddha’s mind, while samayamudrā was the body. Oddly enough, these associations are precisely the opposite of what appears in the earliest tantric writings on the four mudrās. There, mahāmudrā is the body of the buddha and samayamudrā the mind. 2

The Ritual Systems of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha

To get a sense of how the term was used in these earlier times, we turn first to the ritual systems of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (STTS).8 The STTS reached its final form, or something closely resembling it, around the early eighth century, with earlier versions probably circulating in the second half of the seventh century.9 It is one of the earliest dateable sources we have for the four mudrās. As is well known, the STTS is structured by a number of (often interrelated) fourfold divisions, from its four sections to its four siddhis and its four buddha-families (the latter in some places having been supplemented to make the more familiar five families by the time of the received version of the STTS). Within this ritual context, the four mudrās referred to four aspects of the buddha, with the mahāmudrā the body of the buddha, the dharmamudrā the speech, the samayamudrā the mind, and the karmamudrā the activities. Thus,

5  Mathes 2008: 90. 6  Such is how Saraha describes it, as noted by Mathes 2008: 122. 7  See Mathes 2008: 117. 8  The term māhāmudrā does appear in several dhāraṇī sources, but most or all of these occurrences are probably due to the influence of tantric Buddhism. For just one example, see, Sarv aprajñāntapāramitāsiddhicaityanāmadhāraṇī (Toh. 884, 134a.2–3): bdag nyid rdo rje ’dzin pa’i sku phyag rgya chen por ting nge ’dzin gyis bsgyur te I snying gar zla ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi steng du rdo rje rtse lnga pa ye shes kyi ’od dpung ’phro ba gnas par byas la. Thus, here the term denotes the form of the buddha in which one imagines oneself. 9  The earliest evidence of the STTS’ existence may be Vajrabodhi’s (671–741 CE) “translation,” titled the Recitation Sūtra Abridged from the *Vajroṣṇīṣa-Yoga (Jin gang ding yu qie zhong lüe chu nian song jing). Vajrabodhi is said to have completed his “translation” in 723 CE, and he is said to have brought the work to China in 720 CE.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

125

we read in IOL Tib J 447, a commentary to the Tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā, a popular STTS-based sādhana preserved at Dunhuang: For the mahāmudrā, one transforms one’s body into the deity. By this means, a pure body is accomplished. For the samayamudrā, one cultivates the symbol that is one’s own mudrā, be it a vajra, lotus, or whichever of the implements is specific to your deity. This accomplishes the mind as pure. For the dharmamudrā, one further cultivates the hṛdaya-mantra or a single seed-syllable of the dharma at the center of a moon disc at one’s heart. Alternatively, one may cultivate many tiny five-spoked vajras the size of mustard seeds. This accomplishes speech as pure. For the karmamudrā, once one is cultivating oneself [as the deity], one cultivates oneself in accordance with whichever physical postures or modes of apprehension (’dzin stangs) for the mudrās are to be performed. Alternatively, the four paths of one’s daily actions10 may be cultivated as resembling the actions of the deity. By this means, one’s activities are cultivated as pure.11 In other words, in imaginatively generating oneself as a buddha, one cultivates the mahāmudrā as the bodily form, the dharmamudrā as the mantra arranged on a moon-disc at one’s heart, the samayamudrā as the symbol of one’s buddha-family, a vajra or a lotus, for example, and the karmamudrā as one’s postures or (adds the root-sādhana itself) recitations.12 The samayamudrā, then, is performed for accomplishing the buddha’s mind, and the same ritual commentary just cited (IOL Tib J 447) explains that the implement instantiating this gnosis (the vajra, the lotus, or whatever) is to be held in one’s hand.13 More commonly, however, other early STTS-related 10  Usually understood to mean walking, moving, lying, and sitting, i.e., one’s normal activities throughout the day. 11   I TJ447/1, r7.1–7: phyag rgya chen po ni bdag gi lus lhar bsgyur ro ba’o |’dis ni sku dag pa bsgrub dam tshig gi phyag rgya ni bdag gi phyag rgya’i mtshan rdo rje ’am | pad mo ’am so so’i lha’i phyag mtshan gang yin pa bsgom ste | ’di ni thugs dag par bsgrub pa’o | chos kyi phyag rgya ni snying gi zla ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi dbus na sngags gyi snying po ’am chos kyi yi ge ’bru gchig bsgom ba la yang bya’ | yang gchig tu na rdo rje rtse lnga pa chung ngu yungs ’bru tsam mang po bsgom ba ste ’ | ’di ni gsung dag par bsgrub ba’o | las gyi phyag rgya ni bdag bsgom ba’i tshe | bzhugs stangs dang | phyag rgya’i ’dzin stangs ci ltar mdzad pa bzhin du bdag bsgom ba’o | yang gchig du na bdag gi spyod lam bzhi yang lha’i spyod pa dang ’dra bar bsgom ste | ’dis ni ’phrin las dag par bsgom ba’o. For more on the manuscript copies of this sādhana and its commentary, see Dalton 2017. 12   I TJ417, 39v.2–3: de nas kar ma mu dra bching ste | ’dzab bam bsgom ba gyi shig. 13   I TJ447, r22.3–4: bdag gi phyag mtshan gang yin ba de | thogs par bsam pa.

126

Dalton

sources have the samayamudrā implement resting at one’s heart. Thus, the eighth-century Indian author Buddhagupta (a.k.a. Buddhaguhya) writes in his Tantrārthāvatāra, a commentary on the STTS: “For this reason, both this and other tantras explain that when accomplishing the samayamudrā, one binds the samayamudrā to be accomplished, then, positioning it in the area of one’s heart, imagines the mind as a vajra at one’s heart.”14 Such an insertion of the samayamudrā within one’s heart by means of the samayamudrā rite involves a ritual sequence in which the gnosis being (jñānasattva) descends into one’s body, a body that has already been generated in the form of the deity.15 Returning to our Dunhuang STTS sādhana, the Tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā, the installation of this samayamudrā-qua-jñānasattva within the practitioner’s heart is to be performed as follows: Then perform the consecrations (byin brlab; *adhiṣṭhāna): Primarily, the consecrations of the bodhisattvas should be performed with the mudrā of one’s own family.16 For the tathāgata [buddha-]family, bind the mudrā of Sattvavajrī.17 “Samayas tvam.” (“You are the samaya.”)18 By means of 14  Tantrārthāvatāra, 6a.3–4: de bas na rgyud ’di nyid dang gzhan las kyang dam tshig gi phyag rgya sgrub pa na bsgrub par bya ba’i dam tshig gi phyag rgya bcings te snying ga’i phyogs su bzhag la rang gi snying gar sems rdo rjer bsam mo zhes bshad do. For the samayamudrā that corresponds with each of the buddha-families, see the STTS in Horiuchi, vv. 263ff. or Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha, 31a.6ff. On this and several other points, ITJ447 does not appear to be an entirely reliable witness for the larger tradition. 15  See PT792, 1v or ITJ417/1, 42v. 16  This seems to mean that one begins with the consecrations for one’s own family before continuing on to consecrate oneself with the rest of the sixteen bodhisattvas surrounding the buddha, as seen below and explained by the sādhana’s commentary at ITJ447, r15.6. 17  Here and throughout, the masculine and feminine forms of Sattvavajra/ī are used more or less indiscriminately. According to one reading, the present mudrā should be that of Sattvavajrī; see the explanations in ITJ447, r15.5 and by Śākyamitra (Kośalālaṁkāra, 108a.6 and 126a.5), who refers to it as the sems dpa’ rdo rje ma’i phyag rgya and the sems ma rdo rje ma’i phyag rgya. Compare, too, Amoghavajra’s ritual manual for the worship of Uṣṇīṣavijayā (T. 972, 367a4), where the same mudrā is used for a similar purpose but is called the “vajrapāramitāmudrā,” a further indication of the feminine gender associated with this mudrā. At the same time, the same mudrā is referred to again below as the sattvavajra, and the corresponding point in the STTS’ narrative refers to the consecrating form as the sattvavajre/a (see Horiuchi, v. 30 and n. 3 and Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, 4b.5). Śākyamitra observes that the masculine and feminine forms are really the same: rdo rje sems dpa’ dang sems dpa’ rdo rje ma’i phyag rgya ’ba’ zhig tha mi dad pa (Kośalālaṁkāra, vol. yi, 108b.1). 18  Note that Kośalālaṃkāra, vol. yi, 108a.7 prefers the mantra, samayastvam ahaṃ, and writes that this means that both you are I and I am you.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

127

this [mudrā and mantra], place a moon-disc that encircles one with light behind. For binding the sattvavajri[mudrā], raise the middle fingers with level fingertips. With this [mudrā], bless the four places – the heart, between the eyes, the throat, and the top of the head – together with this mantra: “Sattva–vajri adhitiṣṭhasva mām.”19 Then generate pride, saying, “I am the mahāsamaya.” Then, thinking that oneself is identical with that sattva, who is one’s own mudrā, recite this heart[-mantra] and imagine it is so: “Samayo ’ham.”20 Then one should cultivate, that is consecrate, the four places using the mudrās for the [remaining] relevant sattvas with this mantra: “Samayasattva adhitiṣṭhasva mām.”21 In discussing this same procedure, the late eighth-century scholar Śākyamitra distinguishes two methods for consecrating oneself with the jñānasattva. The primary method involves forming the sattvavajrimudrā, clasping one’s hands together into a single fist and raising one’s middle fingers to face each other. This mudrā is likened to a vajra (i.e., the middle fingers) sitting atop a moondisc (i.e., the interlaced fingers). It is the samayamudrā and is identical with the jñānasattva. The jñānasattva is then brought into one’s body by touching the mudrā to the four places on one’s body. Alternatively (and in our sādhana both methods are implied, perhaps functioning alongside one another), one creates a moon-disc behind one’s back, within which is reflected the image of the jñānasattva, a form that is identical with the vajrasattvimudrā. In the STTS’s own account of the moon-disc behind the practitioner, the āveśa (“entry”) is effected by reciting a further mantra: “samayas tvam ahaṃ” (“I am 19   I TJ447, r16.4–6 aligns the heart with the mind, the forehead with the body, the throat with the speech, and the crown of the head with the activities. 20  Kośalālaṃkāra, vol. yi, 108a.7, prefers samayas tvaṃ aham, while Ānandagarbha, Tattvāloka, 150a.5, recognizes either possibility. 21   I TJ417, 42v.4–41r.2: de nas byin gyis brlab pa bya’o | thog mar bdagi rigs gyi phyag rgyas | byang chub sems dpa’ rnams gyi byin gyi rlabs bya | yang dag par gshegs pa’i rigsu sad twa ba dzra’i phyag rgya bchings la | sa ma ya stwam |’dis rgyab du ’od gyi ’kord du gyurd pa’i | zla ba’i dkyil ’khor zhog shig | sad twa ba dzra’i bchings la | gung mo bsgreng ste | rtse mo bsnyams la ’dis snying ka dang smyin mtshams dang | lkog ma dang spyi bo dang gnas bzhir sngags ’di dang bcas te byin gyis brlab pa bya’o | sad twa ba dzri a dhi ti sta swa mān | de nas bdag ni ma ha sa ma ya yin no zhes | nga rgyal skyed chig | de nas bdagi phyag rgya’i | sad twa bdag yin no snyam du | snying po ’di rjod de soms shig | sa ma yo ham | de nas bsgom ste | ad t+wa gang gi phyag rgya gang yin ba des | de bzhin du | gnas bzhir sngags ’dis byin gyis rlobs shig | sa ma ya sad t+wa a d+hi ti s+tha s+wa mām. Here, the folio marked by the British Library as f. 42 should come immediately before (not after) f. 41. That the “mudrā for one’s family” named in the first line is indeed the samayamudrā is clarified by Śākyamitra’s Kośalālaṃkāra, vol. yi, 107b.7–108a.1.

128

Dalton

the samaya you are”). Śākyamitra explains: “This is to say, ‘that which you are, I am,’ and ‘that which I am, you are.’ ” As this mantra is recited, the image within the moon unites with oneself, and oneself unites with the image in the moon. Adds Ānandagarbha, “One should cultivate them as indistinguishable, [mixing] simultaneously, like water and milk.”22 Such passages can be confusing for the modern reader, as later and thus more familiar sources refer to the form of the deity as the samayasattva, into which the deity’s mind, the jñānasattva, enters to enliven it. According to present-day Tibetan Buddhism, the samayasattva is the visualized deity, and the jñānasattva the deity itself, invited from its realm to bring life to the visualized form. In earlier sources such as the Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā, however, the jñānasattva is called the samaya or samayamudrā. This early identification of the samayamudrā with the jñānasattva is clear not only from ritual procedures such as the one translated here, but from explicit statements in an array of early sources. Thus, the ninth-century Vaidyapāda writes, “The so-called samayamudrā at one’s heart refers to the samayamudrā at one’s deity’s heart and that is identified as the jñānasattva.”23 And Pelliot tibétain 656 makes an intriguing distinction: “When the jñānasattva is together with oneself, that is called the samayamudrā.”24 It is unclear how much weight to give this line, but it may suggest that some, at least, saw the samayamudrā as the jñānasattva specifically when the latter has already descended into oneselfqua-the deity. In any case, the relationship between mahāmudrā and samayamudrā in tantric Buddhism’s early days was precisely the opposite of that described in the Caturmudrānvaya and Karopa’s twelfth-century commentary. There, mahāmudrā was the buddha’s gnosis and samayamudrā was the imagined form. In his commentary on the Caturmudrānvaya, Karopa distinguishes two types of samayamudrās: one is the visualized one, the other refers the tantric form-kāyas unfolding as one’s buddha activity upon having attained mahāmudrā (in the root text only the latter form is explained).25 In 22  Tattvālokakarī, vol. li, 152a.4: de rnams dang lhan cig tu chu dang ‘o ma ltar tha mi dad par bdag nyid bsgoms par bya’o. 23  Sukusuma, 114b.4: rang snying dam tshig phyag rgya zhes te rang gi lha’i snying gar dam tshig gi phyag rgya ye shes sems dpa’ gnas dang bcas pa’o. The identity of the samayamudrā and the jñānasattva in early tantric sources has already been mentioned in a brief note by English 2002: 470 n. 411. Note that the identity of the samayamudrā and the jñānasattva suggests that the samayasattva/jñānasattva distinction, even if under a different name, was already present in the STTS, i.e., by around the turn of the eighth century at the latest. 24   P T656, ll. 17–18: ye shes sems dpa’ bdag la bcas pas dam tshig gyi phyag rgya zhes bya. 25  See Mathes 2008, 98–99, 119.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

129

our Dunhuang manuscripts, however, the mahāmudrā is the form and the samayamudrā is the jñāna. And insofar as early Yogatantra sources identify the samayamudrā with the mind of the buddha, they may even have valued it more highly than the mahāmudrā, the latter being merely the outward form of the buddha that functioned as a mere shell, if a very pure and well-proportioned shell. Just as mahāmudrā came to be prized as the highest state of Buddhist realization from the tenth century on, samayamudrā appears to have enjoyed a similarly high status in the early eighth century. The high valuation given to the samayamudrā and samaya in general in early Yogatantra ritual is seen in certain Chinese tantric texts from Dunhuang. In addition to the Tibetan Dunhuang materials relating to the STTS, there are also some in Chinese. The relevant Chinese manuscripts number twelve, the one complete copy being contained in Pelliot chinois 3913, a codex of eightysix folios and referred to in scholarship as the Ritual Instructions for Altar Methods (Tanfa yize; 壇法儀則).26 The ritual forms presented in these manuscripts are highly sinified but still loosely based on the STTS system, which arrived in China with Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra in the early-to-mid-eighth ­century.27 The first part of these two-part ritual works offers preliminary rites that may be further divided into two primary types: those describing what seems to be an initiation rite, and those offering a kind of maṇḍalavidhi, that is, instructions for constructing the mandala-altar.28 The former, which seems to constitute a kind of abhiṣekavidhi, bears the title, The Scripture on Entering the Dharmadhātu Ground, the Profound and Secret Vajradhātu Great Samaya, the Dhāraṇī Great King of Teachings, the Secret Dharma Precept Altar Method for Attaining Buddhahood. Given that the first two subtitles stand in apposition to one another, we may infer that the author(s) of these manuals took the dharmadhātu ground to be identical with the mahāsamaya, a term that is elsewhere in the collection is variously identified as its central teaching.29 And there is some reason to believe that the Chinese authors of the Tanfa Yize saw this all-important “profound and secret mahāsamaya” as a mudrā specifically associated with the mind of the buddha. S.2272, for example, refers to the teaching as “the secret dharma precept, the profound and secret mind-ground 26  For a recent study of these materials, see Goodman 2013. I myself do not read Chinese, so I my observations here are entirely derivative and dependent on Goodman’s important research. 27  Note, however, that the manuscripts themselves appear to date to the tenth century. As Goodman 2013 discusses, the manuscripts also show some allegiance to early Chan lineages. 28  Goodman 2013 refers to the latter as “Recension B.” 29  Goodman 2013: 15.

130

Dalton

dharma gate, the great samayayoga practice, the rite of the mind seal (Ch. 心 印; Skt. cittamudrā).”30 Finally, we may note too that some of Amoghavajra’s more canonical works preserved in the Taishō similarly attest to the importance of achieving union with this mahāsamaya, or the “great samaya yoga.”31 At this point one might object that we have slipped into a different sense of the word samaya, that these Chinese sources are using the term only in its sense as a vow, and that the term’s associations with the samayamudrā and the buddha’s mind are not really relevant. In his mid-eighth-century discussion of the samayamudrā, however, Buddhagupta addresses these two uses of the term (as vow and as the mind of the buddha) head-on, and he reconciles its two meanings: The secret mind of the great beings is referred to with the term “samaya.” The tantras explain that the samaya can be for what will be correctly attained or realized or for the purpose of not transgressing. Why? The suchness of one’s own sphere is the samayamudrā. The essence that is not transgressed by the great beings has already been explained [above]. Because it is like that, the symbol of the secret mind of the deity is explained as a “samaya.”32 For Buddhagupta, then, the samaya defines the horizon of the buddha’s mind, as both a vow not to be transgressed and the mind of awakening that is to be accomplished. A connection between the samayamudrā and the samaya vows is also seen in the STTS’ procedure for bestowing the tantric vows in the context of the initiation: Then, having donned a red upper garment and covering his face with a red cloth, [the student] binds the sattvavajrimudrā while [reciting] this heart[-mantra]: samayas tvaṃ.

30  Goodman 2013: 30. 31  Goodman 2013: 47, citing Amoghavajra’s Jin’gangding yiqie rulai zhenshishe dasheng xianzheng dajiaowang jing (Taishō 18.874). 32  Tantrārthāvatāra, 6a.1–3: bdag nyid chen po rnams kyi thugs gsang ba ni dam tshig ces bya ba’i sgrar brjod de | rgyud nas bshad pa ni yang dag par ’thob pa ’am | rtogs par bya ba’i phyir ram | mi ’da’ ba’i don du dam tshig ces bya’o | gang gi phyir zhe na | de rang gi yul gyi de kho na nyid ni dam tshig gi phyag rgya ste | bdag nyid chen po rnams kyis mi ’da’ ba’i ngo bo zhes sngar bshad pa yin no | de lta bas na lha’i thugs gsang ba’i mtshan ma ni dam tshig ces bshad pa’i don te.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

131

Then [the master] gives him a [flower] garland to hold with his two middle fingers and guides him [into the maṇḍala] while [reciting] this heart[-mantra]: samaya hūṃ. Then, as soon as [the student] has entered [the maṇḍala], [the master] should pronounce, “Now you have entered the family of all the tathāgatas. I will generate within you the vajra-gnosis, and by means of that gnosis you will attain the accomplishment of all the tathāgatas – what need even to speak of the other siddhis? And you must not tell anyone who has not seen the great maṇḍala, or your samaya will be violated! Then the vajrācārya himself binds the sattvavajrimudrā and places it pointing downward atop the head of the vajra-student, he should say, “This is your samayavajra; if you tell anyone about it, it will split your head. Then he empowers the oath-water with the samayamudrā and a recitation of the oath-heart[-mantra], then gives it to the student to drink. This is the oath-heart[-mantra]: “Now Vajrasattva himself abides at your heart. If you speak of this method, you will immediately be destroyed. Vajrodaka ṭhaḥ!”33 Here at the key moment of the initiation, the vajra-master deploys the same vajrasattvī-mudrā that is used to install the samaya/jñānasattva in the sādhaka’s heart. In his commentary on this passage, Śākyamitra makes it explicit that the vajra-gnosis that the vajra-master here generates within the student’s heart is equivalent to the descent (vajrāveśa) of the jñānasattva.34 The master thus places the mudrā, which we have already seen represents a vajra upon a moondisc, upon the student’s crown, whence it descends to rest at his heart. The descent is effected by the drinking of the oath-water, which itself has been 33   Horiuchi, vv. 218–222: tato raktavastrottarīyo raktanaktakāvacchāditamukhaḥ sattva­ vajrimudrāṃ bandhayed anena hṛdayena | samayas tvam | tato madhyāṅgulidvayena mālāṃ granthya praveśayed anena hṛdayena | samaya hūṃ | tataḥ praveśyaivaṃ vadet | adya tvaṃ sarvatathāgatakulapraviṣṭaḥ. tad ahaṃ te vajrajñānam utpādayi­ ṣyāmi, yena jñānena tvaṃ sarvatathāgatasiddhim api prāpsyas  |. kim utānyāḥ siddhīḥ | na ca tvayādṛṣṭamahāmaṇḍalasya vaktavyaṃ, mā te samayo vyathed iti | tataḥ svayaṃ vajrācāryaḥ sattvavajrimudrām avamūrdhamukhīṃ baddhvā vajraśiṣyasya mūrdhni sthāpyaivaṃ vadet | ayaṃ te samayavajro mūrdhānaṃ sphālayed, yadi tvaṃ kasya cid brūyāt | tatas tathaiva samayamudrayodakaṃ śapathāhṛdayena sakṛt parijāpya tasmai śiṣyāya pāyayed iti | tatredaṃ śapathāhṛdayaṃ bhavati | vajrasattvaḥ svayaṃ te ’dya hṛdaye samavasthitaḥ | nirbhidya tatkṣaṇaṃ yāyād yadi brūyād imaṃ nayam | vajrodaka ṭhaḥ. 34  Śākyamitra, vol. yi, 98b.2: rdo rje yes shes ni rdo rje dbab pa ste.

132

Dalton

empowered with the same vajrasattvimudrā. Vajrasattva descends at the moment when the student drinks the water. “In order for the gnosis to descend,” concludes Śākyamitra, “the sattvavajrimudrā is placed in the student’s heart, and the heart[-mantra] is recited.”35 The samaya that is the tantric vow is thus the mind of the buddha, which takes the form of a vajra upon a moon-disc at the practitioner’s heart. And in this sense, the practitioner of the Dunhuang sādhana seeks to reenact his original initiation, to return to the original transmission that he received from his master. 3

The “Rise” of Mahāmudrā

Having established the significance of the samayamudrā in early tantric Buddhism, we now return to the question of the mahāmudrā and its gradual rise and eventual eclipse of the samayamudrā. While the story told by the Dunhuang materials leaves off before mahāmudrā really comes into its own, they do offer some suggestive insights into its ascent. As is well known, the so-called Mahāyoga tantras usually exhibit a slightly later stage of tantric ritual development from that of the STTS. Nonetheless, most of the Mahāyoga materials from Dunhuang continue to use the term mahāmudrā in the sense of the deity’s body. This is not surprising, since they generally reflect a period in Indian ritual development of around the end of the eighth century, after which the transmission of tantric Buddhism to Tibet was largely, though not entirely, interrupted, to begin again only with the phyi dar period, starting in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. Thus the early ninthcentury Questions and Answers of Vajrasattva (Rdo rje sems dpa’i zhus lan) by Gnyan Dpal dbyangs reads, “By cultivating one’s own body as the mahāmudrā of the conqueror, one becomes a manifest deity, endowed with the marks and signs and the higher perceptions.”36 Even the Tibetan Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes, in his circa late ninth-century Armor against Darkness (Mun pa’i go cha) commentary, still uses the term in the same way.37 Nonetheless, as we look further into the Mahāyoga manuscripts from Dunhuang, we see indications of mahāmudrā beginning to be used in some slightly different ways. Or.8210/S.95 is a tenth-century scroll, the seventh item 35  Śākyamitra, vol. yi, 99a.1: ye shes dbab pa’i phyir sems dpa’ rdo rje ma’i phyag rgya rdo rje slob ma’i snying gar bzhag la snying po brjod par bya’o. 36  Pelliot tibetain 837, question 46: rang lus rgyal ba’i phyag che | bsgoms pas mngon sum gyur pa’i lha | mtshan dang dpe byad mngon shes ldan | phyag rgya chen po rigs ’dzin grags. 37  See, for example, Mun pa’i go cha, vol. 50, 196.4–5: “There are two – the dharmakāya and the rupakāya, that is, the bodily aspect of the mahāmudrā” (dag gnyis ni | chos kyi sku dang | gzugs kyi sku ste sku phyag rgya chen po’i rnam pa ste).

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

133

of which is a short, fairly generic Mahāyoga sādhana focused on a maṇḍala with Vairocana and Samantabhadrī at its center. Toward the end, we read, “By means of the three samādhis and the three heroic seed-syllables, one clearly cultivates the mahāmudrā of the deity’s body, speech, and mind.”38 Here, the meaning of mahāmudrā is extended beyond just the buddha’s body to all three of his aspects – his body, speech, and mind – which are normally covered by the mahā-, dharma-, and samayamudrās. One might well argue that such a change reflects nothing more than the ignorance of this particular manuscript’s author, and certainly it is a rudimentary work. Nevertheless, it is at least a somewhat understandable mistake; one can imagine, after all, that the idea of generating oneself in the form of the deity might easily shade off into simply generating oneself as the deity, complete with his body, speech, and mind. Even in the Tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā discussed above, the mahāmudrā procedures for generating oneself in the form of the deity are considerably more complex than the simple visualizations of a seed-syllable at one’s heart for the dharmamudrā and an implement at one’s heart (or in one’s hand) for the samayamudrā.39 We see a similar slippage, with mahāmudrā taking the place of mudrā, occurring in Pelliot tibétain 42, part of a long concertina containing no less than seventeen items on Mahāyoga. In Item 6, at the beginning of a discussion of a sexual yoga, we see reference to the importance of performing the rite “without diminishing the four mahāmudrās,” presumably a warning against potentially distracting feelings that may arise.40 The foursome referred to as “the four mahāmudrās” is then presented in a fairly standard treatment of the four mudrās, with each corresponding to the body, mind, speech, and activities, respectively. While both this terminological slippage and that of Or.8201/S.95 might have been simple mistakes, they may reflect the beginnings of something more significant. The latter possibility is leant further weight toward the end of the same Mahāyoga collection, where we find a discussion of “how to relate the activities of [sexual] union to the four mahāmudrā.”41 According to this interpretive 38  Or.8210/S.95_7, ll. 7–9: ting nge ’dzin rnam pa gsum dang | yi ge dpa’ bo ’bru gsum gyis | lha’i sku gsung thugs gyi phyag rgya chen po gsla bar bsgom. 39   As noted above, however, the procedures for the self-consecration (svādhiṣṭhāna) with the samayamudrā were somewhat more complex, and even in the Tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā discussed above, the karmamudrā also involved lengthy mantra recitations. 40   P T42, v7.2–3: sngags kyi don phyag rgya chen po bzhi ma nyams par spyad de. 41  Pelliot tibétain 36, v2.2: sbyor ba’i las phyag rgya chen po rnam bzhi dang | sbyar ro zhes bgyi ba. Note that all three items – Pelliot tibétain 36, IOL Tib J 419, and Pelliot tibétain 42 – originally constituted a single manuscript.

134

Dalton

schema, the dharmakāya-mudrā refers to the initial generation of the deities without wavering from the dharmadhātu, the karma-mahāmudrā corresponds to the movement of the vajra within the lotus, the deva-mahāmudrā is the enacting of the welfare of all beings by the buddhas that emerge with the bo­ dhicitta, and the mahāmudrā of non-returning (phyir myi ldog pa’i phyag rgya chen po) covers the offering and reception of the bodhicitta with its attendant siddhis.42 This seems to be a rather anomalous system, but its existence may support the idea that the term mahāmudrā was beginning to take precedence over the other three mudrās and be deployed for interpreting different aspects of tantric practice. Among all the Dunhuang manuscripts, the rise of mahāmudrā is perhaps clearest in IOL Tib J 332/1, a lengthy Mahāyoga sādhana titled An Appearance of Suchness: A Sublime Ornament that is a Means for Cultivation (De kho na nyid kyi snang ba dam pa rgyan gi bsgom thabs) and closely based on the *Guhyagarbhatantra (Gsang ba’i snying po), also referred to as the Māyājāla and thought to date from the second half of the eighth century, sometime after the influential Guhyasamājatantra. Already on the first folio of this work we find reference to the “secret definitive meaning” as “the supreme among the mahāmudrās of all,”43 thereby identifying the ultimate goal of the awakening as the supreme of all the mahāmudrās. Even if mahāmudrā is still being used here to mean the buddha’s body, it is an increasingly abstract, ultimate-truth kind of body that is being emphasized. Elsewhere in the same sādhana, the practitioner sings a verse and mantras to request that the buddhas “bestow upon me the mahāmudrā,”44 and here again a more formless “state of union within reality” (de nyid du ni mnyam bsbyor [sic] ba) is intended. Further analysis reveals that this and a number of other ultimate-truth-style references to the mahāmudrā that appear throughout the sādhana are in fact quotations (explicit or otherwise) from the *Guhyagarbha itself. The tantra uses the term mahāmudrā in at least eight different passages. Some use the term in the old way, to refer to the body of the buddha, as in chapter nine: “Alternatively, with the hands folded, in the 42  See IOL Tib J 419, v45.3–47.5 and Pelliot tibétain 36, v1–2. Note that the deva-mahāmudrā involves the activation of the buddhas’ samaya to help all beings, so samaya does play a role here. If we take the dharmakāya-mahāmudrā as the dharmamudrā, we have the normal set of four, though they are being used toward different interpretive ends. 43   I OL Tib J 332/1, 1v.1: kun gi phyag rgya chen po ’i mchog. The same lines seen toward the end of chapter thirteen of the tantra itself; see *Guhyagarbha-tantra (Toh. 832), 124b.1 or Dorje 1987: 986. 44   I OL Tib J 332/1, 16b.5: phyag rgya’ chen po bdag la stso |. Compare the similar line in chapter seven of the *Guhyagarbha-tantra (Toh. 832), 117b.1 (phyag rgya chen por bdag sbyor cig) or Dorje 1987: 684.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

135

lap of the mahāmudrā, use a maṇḍala one thumb in diameter …”45 Several occurrences of the term are unclear as to their precise referents, but others, perhaps including the ones already mentioned from ITJ332, as well as one or two others, refer to not just the form of the deity but the entire maṇḍala, and in a rather abstract sense. Thus, we read, “When one endowed with means and wisdom unites with the supreme gathering of the mahāmudrā, without wavering nor stirring, all dwells within the state of the mahāmudrā,”46 and, “qualified yogins will perfect the mahāmudrā, and the great maṇḍala will blaze within the non-dual mind of luminosity.”47 Today, the *Guhyagarbhatantra is a – perhaps even the – central scripture of the Rnying ma School of Tibetan Buddhism, though it is not terribly influential in the gsar ma schools, largely because its teachings had died out in India by the time those schools received their first Indian transmissions, that is, by the eleventh century. In the late eighth century, however, the *Guhyagarbha appears to have been a popular tantra from which, or at least around which, the early tradition of Rdzogs chen emerged in the ninth and tenth centuries. The tantra itself uses the term rdzogs chen several times, but perhaps more significant was its “gnostic” approach to Mahāyoga practice, an approach that was shared by an array of early tantric authors writing in a similar vein.48 Examples of such *Guhyagarbha-inspired “gnostic” works include several of its early commentaries, a number of Dunhuang manuscripts containing references to the *Guhyagarbha, sometimes in explicit connection to Rdzogs chen, the 45  Toh. 832, 120a.6–7: yang na thal mo rab bsnol nas/ phyag rgya chen po’i ’phang du ni | dkyil ’khor mdzub gang tshad du bya. 46  Toh. 832, 119a.3: phyag rgya chen po’i tshogs mchog ni | thabs dang shes rab ldan ‘byor na | ma bskyod ma bsgul thams cad kun | phyag rgya chen po’i ngang du gnas. 47  Toh. 832, 129b.3–4: rnal ’byor las su rung rnams kyis | phyag rgya chen por rdzogs gyur cing | gsal ba yid gnyis med pa na | dkyil ’khor chen por ’bar bar ’gyur. Here it may be worth noting that I disagree slightly with Gray’s reading of the line from the Śrīparamādya-mantrakalpakhaṇḍa, 175b.1, that reads, “having gained equipoise in the mahāmudrā, one should establish the mandala there” (phyag rgya chen po mnyam gzhag nas / der ni dkyil ‘khor bsgrub par bya). Gray (2011: 461) writes that, “Here mahāmudrā appears to be used in precisely its sense of ultimate reality, which is contemplated prior to the creation of the maṇḍala.” I see no reason, however, not to read the term in its more conservative sense of the form of the central deity, which the master is to establish prior to the creation of the maṇḍala. That said, as Gray observes, the multiple valences of the terms mudrā and mahāmudrā are often exploited by tantric authors. 48  Here I have in mind the distinction made by David Germano between a more ritual vs. a more gnostic approach to tantric Buddhist practice in general. He names the *Guhyagarhba as a particularly clear example of the latter; see Germano 2002: 233. Building on this distinction, van Schaik (2008: 64) further notes the similarities between these two exegetical styles and the Rnying ma categories of the “path of means” (thabs lam) and the “path of liberation” (grol lam).

136

Dalton

early ninth-century writings of Gnyan Dpal dbyangs, and so on. If the evidence from Dunhuang is representative of larger trends within tantric Buddhism (and admittedly this may be a significant if), then such a “gnostic” approach to Mahāyoga thought and practice may have facilitated the promotion of mahāmudrā from a term for the form of the deity to a name for full-blown buddhahood. Here I am not arguing that gnostic works like the *Guhyagarbha caused the mahāmudrā’s rise, but that they provided a space for it to be reflected in the literature. In this regard, it is significant that both Vilāsavajra and his immediate disciple, Buddhajñānapāda, use the term mahāmudrā in a more “gnostic” way. In his commentary to the Nāmasaṃgīti, Vilāsavajra writes of a sixth mahāmudrā buddha-family headed by Bodhicittavajra: “Because Vairocana and [the other buddhas of the directions] have the bodhicitta as their nature [i.e., as their mark or seal], it is ‘foremost.’ The great seal family is the family connected with that [bodhicitta].”49 Similarly, Buddhajñānapāda writes in his Dvikrama-mukhāgama: “Enacting the conditions by means of the goddess [i.e., consort], there is no doubt that the mahāmudrā will be transmitted into one’s own mindstream.”50 Both of these authors were writing around the late eighth or early ninth century, both were aware of the Māyājālā corpus, and both may be said to evidence “gnostic” leanings.51 Buddhajñānapāda even famously uses the term rdzogs pa chen po in his Dvikrama-mukhāgama.52

49  See chapter three of Vilāsavajra’s Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, as translated by Tribe (2016: 129). Note, too, that Vilāsavajra is said to have studied under Mañjuśrīmitra, another late eighth-century author who might be termed “gnostic” in at least some of his writings; see for example the influential Byang chub sems bsgom pa (Toh. 2591, also known as the Rdo la gser zhun). 50  Dvikrama-mukhāgama, 14a.5. lha mos rkyen ni rab byas te | phyag rgya chen po rang rgyud la | ’pho bar the tshom mi bya’o. 51  On dating Vilāsavajra, see Tribe 2016: 22–25. On dating Buddhajñānapāda, see Szántō 2015: 538–40. In terms of their connections to the Māyājāla, most significant is the Phar khab commentary to the *Guhyagarbha, which is attributed to Vilāsavajra. For further evidence of his interest in the Māyājāla, see Tribe 2016: 131. While evidence of Buddhajñānapāda’s direct involvements in the system is weaker, even though he studied under Vilāsavajra, Buddhajñānapāda’s own disciple, *Praśāntamitra, likely composed a commentary on the Māyājāla, as discussed by Szántó (2015: 547 n. 22). On the gnostic leanings of both authors, see the forthcoming Ph.D. thesis by my student, Catherine Dalton, who highlights their strong mutual interest in nondual gnosis (advayajñāna). On Vilāsavajra’s interest, see Tribe 2016. 52  Dvikrama-mukhāgama, 17a.2: “Having fully comprehended in this way, the great perfection, the universal form of gnosis [is actualized]” (de ltar rab tu shes par byas nas su | rdzogs pa chen po ye shes spyi yi gzugs).

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

137

With this in mind, it may also be significant that the same trend is also seen in the Rtse mo byung rgyal, an early Rdzogs chen tantra well known to Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes in the early tenth century. (Indeed, he cites the work in his Bsam gtan mig sgron and has one commentary on the tantra ascribed to him.)53 In this tantra we read: “The self-arising Blessed One, Samantabhadra, the singular supreme dharmakāya, is the mahāmudrā of the spontaneously perfect body, speech, and mind.”54 Here we see the mahāmudrā being identified at once with the buddha’s form – to the degree that the dharmakāya is a form – and with all three aspects of the body, speech, and mind. Given the more “gnostic” perspective on mahāmudrā that we have now seen is widespread within the *Guhyagarhba and Rdzogs chen literature, such a two-pronged use of the term now looks less like mere slippage caused by an author’s sloppiness than by what we might call an increasingly prevalent reinterpretation of the mahāmudrā as an ultimately undifferentiable buddha wherein any separation among body, speech, and mind is dissolved. Having established the existence of such gnostic inclinations, we may now wonder whether they might also have contributed, in some small part at least, to the “slippages” we saw elsewhere in the Dunhuang materials, such as in Or.8210/S.95 and PT42, as well. Rather, we may be seeing here the gradual disaggregation of mahāmudrā from its companions, i.e., the other three mudrās. A final piece of evidence of mahāmudrā’s rise demonstrates exactly this – mahāmudrā extracted from its original fourfold matrix and being used to describe a state of awakening achievable through Mahāyoga tantric practice. The passage in question appears in a short treatise on “classifications of the vidyādharas” (rigs ’dzin dbye ba) from Dunhuang. IOL Tib J 644/2 presents the vidyādhara-levels of realization that are achievable by practicing each class of tantras: Kriyā, Yoga, and Mahāyoga. It adds that, “There are no vidyādharas in Anuyoga and Atiyoga. There is not even any knowledge to hold!”55 In practicing Mahāyoga, however, there are four levels to be attained: the deity-vidyādhara, the medicinal vidyādhara, the vidyādhara of maturation, and the mahāmudrā-vidyādhara. The manuscript continues:

53  See Rtse mo byung rgyal ’grel ba. 54  Rtse mo byung rgyal, Mtshams brag edition of the NGB, vol. 1, 305.6–7. kun tu bzang po rang byung bcom ldan ’das | gcig pu rab tu che mchog chos kyi skum | lhun rdzogs sku gsung thugs kyi phyag rgya che. Gnubs chen quotes the same lines in his Bsam gtan mig sgron, 372.1. 55   I OL Tib J 644, 3r.2: a nu yo ga dang a ti yog ga la ni rigs ’dzin yang myed do | rigs gang du yang myi ’dzin to. For a translation and discussion of this manuscript, see Dalton 2005.

138

Dalton

Of those, a deity vidyādhara gains accomplishment by means of a deity, a medicinal vidyādhara gains accomplishment through extracted nectars and so forth, a vidyādhara of maturation is one who is incomparable in gaining accomplishment from the highest of experts, and a mahāmudrā vidyādhara is endowed with the five kinds of clairvoyance, like Ācārya Padmasambhava and so forth. The five kinds of clairvoyance include the vajra-eye, the vajra-ear, vajra-mind, and the vajra-miracles.56 He is also called a “second buddha,” and should be understood as such in everything he does. There is no difference between a second [buddha and the first]; they are equal. One only says “second” because [they used] different ways to gain accomplishment.57 Here we see mahāmudrā functioning free of the other three mudrās and well beyond its more limited meaning of the buddha’s body. In this late tenthcentury manuscript, the term is used to identify the highest level of Mahāyoga vidyādhara-hood, a state of buddhahood equal to that of Śākyamuni. 4 Conclusion We may conclude by observing the value of the Dunhuang manuscripts to our understanding a history of early tantric ritual. These are documents that reflect living forms of tantric Buddhism between the more canonical tantras, local writings full of experimentation, where different ideas are being tested. Some were successful and are seen in later writings, while others simply died away. The present essay shows how the samayamudrā played a role in the earliest 56  Something like recollection of former lives (sngon gnas rjes su dran pa) appears to be the one missing. 57   I OL Tib J 644/2, 2v.5–3r.1: de la lha ’i rigs ’dzin ni lha las grub pa ’o | sman ni ra sa ya na la stsogs pa las grub pa ’o | rnam par smin pa’i rigs ’dzin ni | mkhas pa ’i rab las grub pa ni dpe zla myed pa ’o | phyag rgya chen po ’i rigs ’dzin ni | mngon bar shes pa lnga dang ldan ba ste | slobs pon pad ma sam ba ba lta bu lastsogs pa ’o | mngon bar shes pa lnga la | rdo rje spyan dang | rdo rje snyan dang | rdo rje thugs dang | rdo rje rdzu ’phrul dang lnga ’o | rdo rje rdzu ’phrul dang lnga’o | sangs rgyas gnyis pa zhes bya ba ni | ril ’rna bar ’di ltar chud pa la bya’o | gnyis la khyad par myed de mnyam | grub pa’i sgo so so bas | gnyis zhes bya’o. It should be admitted here that, despite the fact that the above line about Padmasambhava was what originally drew my attention to ITJ644 for my 2004 essay, “The Early Development of the Padmasambhava Legend in Tibet,” I somehow neglected to include the line in my transcription and translation of the manuscript in Dalton 2005. This embarrassing oversight can only be ascribed to my impatience and inexperience, both of which I certainly possessed in abundance at the time.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

139

days of tantric Buddhism that was more important than has been recognized in the scholarship so far. Our explorations have further borne witness to the gradual rise of mahāmudrā as it grew to eclipse the earlier samayamudrā, and that its growth was reflected in the more “gnostic” trends of Mahāyoga thought of sort seen in the literature surrounding the *Guhyagarbha-tantra and early Rdzogs chen. Bibliography

Dunhuang Manuscripts Cited



Other Primary Sources

IOL Tib J 332, 447, 417, 429. Or. 8210/S.95. Pelliot tibétain 36, 42, 656, 792, 837.

Bsam gtan mig sgron. Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes. Leh, India: S.W. Tashigangpa, 1974. Dvikrama-mukhāgama. Buddhajñānapāda. Full title: Rim pa gnyis pa’i de kho na nyid bsgom pa zhes bya ba’i zhal gyi lung. Toh. 1853. Vol. di, 1a.1–17b.2. Foding zunsheng tuoluoni niansong yigui fa (佛頂尊勝陀羅尼念誦儀軌法). Amoghovajra. Taishō 972. *Guhyagarbha-tantra. Full title: Dpal gsang ba’i snying po de kho nan yid rnam par nges pa (Śrī-Guhyagarbhatattvaviniścaya). Toh. 832. Vol. kha, 110b.1–132a.7. Śākyamitra. Kośalālaṁkāra. Full title: De kho na nyid bsdus pa’i rgya cher bshad pa ko sa la’i rgyan (Kośalālaṁkāratattvasṁgrahaṭikā). Toh. 2503. Vols. yi, 1b.1–ri, 202a.5. Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes. Mun pa’i go cha. Full title: Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi dgongs pa ’dus pa mdo’i dka’ ’grel mun pa’i go cha lde mig gsal byed rnal ’byor nyi ma. In Rnying ma bka’ ma rgyas pa, ed. Bdud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje, vols. 50–51. Kalimpong, India: Dubjang Lama, 1982. Rtse mo byung rgyal, Rdo rje thogs med, ed. The Mtshams brag Edition of the Rñing ma rgyud ’bum. 46 volumes. Thimphu, Bhutan: National Library, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1982: vol. 1, 606–618. Rtse mo byung rgyal ’grel ba. In Snga ’gyur ka’ ma shin tu rgyas pa. 133 vols. Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009: vol. 98, 159–200. Sarvaprajñāntapāramitāsiddhicaitya-nāma-dhāraṇī. Full title: Shes pa thams cad mthar phyin par grub pa’i mchod rten zhes bya ba’i gzungs. Toh. 884. Vol. e, 129a.3–135b.3. Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha. Full title: De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi de kho nan yid bsdus pa shes by aba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁgraha -nāma-mahāyānasūtra). Toh. 479. Vol. nya, 1b.1–142a.7.

140

Dalton

Śrīparamādya-mantrakalpakhaṇḍa. Full title: Dpal mchog dang po’i sngags kyi rtog pa’i dum bu. Toh. 488. Vol. ta, 173a.4–265b.7. Vaidyapāda. Sukusuma. Full title: Mdzad pa’i me tog ces bya ba rim pa gnyis pa’i de kho nan yid bsgom pa zhel gyi lung gi ’grel pa (Sukusuma-nāma-dvikramatattv abhāvanāmukhāgama-vṛtti). Toh. 1866. Vol. di, 87a.3–139b.3. Buddhagupta. Tantrārthāvatāra. Full title: Rgyud kyi don la ’jug pa. Toh. 2501. Vol. ’i, 1b.1–91b.5. Ānandagarbha. Tattvāloka. Full title: De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi de kho nan yid bsdus pa theg pa chen po mngon par rtogs pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud kyi bshad pa de kho nan yid snang bar byed pa zhes bya ba (Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁgrahamahāyānābhisamaya -nāma-tantratattvālokakarī-nāma-vyākyā). Toh. 2510. Vol. li, 1b.1–352a.7.



Secondary Sources

Dalton, Jacob. 2005. “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th–12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28.1: 115–181. Dalton, Jacob. 2017. “On the Significance of the Ārya-tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā and Its Commentary.” Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism. Edited by Yael Bentor, 321–337. Leiden: Brill. Dorje, Gyurme. 1987. The Guhyagarbhatantra and its XIVth Century Tibetan Commentary, phyogs bcu mun sel. Ph.D. thesis, SOAS, University of London. English, Elizabeth. 2002. Yajrayoginī, Her Visualizations, Rituals, and Forms. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Germano, David. 2002. “The Seven Descents and the Early History of Rnying ma Transmissions.” In The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Edited by Helmut Eimer and David Germano, pp. 225–263. Leiden: Brill. Gonda, Jan. 1972. “Mudrā.” Studies in the History of Religions 12: 21–31. Goodman, Amanda. 2013. The Ritual Instructions for Altar Methods (Tanfa yize): Prolegomenon to the Study of a Chinese Esoteric Buddhist Ritual Compendium from Late-Medieval Dunhuang. Ph.D. thesis, University of California-Berkeley. Gray, David. 2011. “Imprints of the ‘Great Seal’: On the Expanding Semantic Range of the Term of Mudrā in Eighth through Eleventh Century Indian Buddhist Literature.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34.1–2: 421–481. Horiuchi Hanjin, ed. 1983. Kongochokyo no Kenkyu (Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha -nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra). Koyasan University: Mikkyo Bunka Kenkyujo. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. “The ‘Succession of the Four Seals’ (Caturmudrānvaya), Together with Selected Passages from Karopa’s Commentary.” In Tantric Studies. Edited by Harunaga Isaacson, vol. 1: 89–130. Hamburg: Center for Tantric Studies. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Österreichische Akade­mie der Wissen­schaften.

Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents

141

Roberts, Peter Alan. 2014. The Mind of Mahāmudrā: Advice from the Kagyü Masters (Tibetan Classics). Boston: Wisdom Publications. Roerich, George R., trans. 1949. [’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal.] The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. 2015. “Early Works and Persons Related to the So-called Jñānapāda School.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 36/37: 537–562. Tribe, Anthony. 2016. Tantric Buddhist Practice in India: Vilāsavajra’s Commentary on the Mañjuśrī-nāmasaṃgīti. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. van Schaik, Sam. 2008. “A Definition of Mahāyoga: Sources from the Dunhuang Manuscripts.” In Tantric Studies. Edited by Harunaga Isaacson, vol. 1: 45–88. Hamburg: Center for Tantric Studies.

Chapter 4

A Neglected Bka’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung and the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud Transmission Cécile Ducher 1 Introduction In the 1540s, Tshar chen Blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502–1566/67) came to the Gzhung valley, where he met one of his masters, Rngog Bsod nams bstan ’dzin, from whom he had received the seven maṇḍalas of the Rngog and the outer sādhana of Dud sol ma a few years earlier.1 Tshar chen was again offered the outer sādhana of Dud sol ma, for she was the protector of Mar pa Lo tsā ba Chos kyi blo gros (1000–1081?)2 and the Rngog lineage, and he felt an irreversible trust in the guru. Bsod nams bstan ’dzin was worried, however, because there was in Gzhung an enemy he could not eliminate because, he suspected, the enemy also propitiated Dud sol ma. Tshar chen agreed to help Bsod nams bstan ’dzin and went to a nearby mountain, where he practiced the ritual of the fierce protector for several months. When he came back, Rngog Bsod nams bstan ’dzin told him signs of success had appeared and handed to him the secret sādhana of Dud sol ma, which could only be granted to someone who would definitely be a holder of the Rngog teachings. After that, Tshar chen dreamt that he purified his negativities, and felt even more trust and certainty in the guru, considering his subjugation of Rngog’s enemy as a guru-yoga practice. Despite that success story, less than a century later, the seat of Spre’u zhing was empty and the administration of the Fifth Dalai Lama handed the precincts over to the neighbouring Gong dkar Monastery. This was the end of an illustrious family whose roots went as far back as the Tibetan Empire. The present essay recounts the story of this family, and describes their transmissions.

1  Tshar chen rnam thar, 556–561. 2  No consensus has been reached on Mar pa’s dates of birth and death. The ones generally recognized in the West (1012–1097) come from the Deb ther sngon po, and were not widely accepted in Mar pa’s biographical tradition until recently. As in the case of the Rngog, I follow the Lho rong chos ’byung’s dates. See Ducher 2017b, 301–306, for details and argumentation.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_006

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

2

143

The Mar pa Bka’ brgyud Tradition

It is generally accepted that Mahāmudrā and the Six Doctrines of Nāropa are the core of all Bka’ brgyud lineages. As the contributions by the authors of this volume amply demonstrate, the Bka’ brgyud school is not a monolithic tradition; Mahāmudrā can be approached from many different angles, and approaches to the Six Doctrines are similarly varied. This study is concerned with one specific but relatively forgotten Bka’ brgyud lineage coming from Mar pa Lo tsā ba and one of his four main disciples, Rngog Chos sku rdo rje (1023–1090).3 Mar pa brought from India to Tibet a large corpus of meditation techniques associated with most of the famous Highest Yogatantras of the period (Guhyasamāja, Hevajra, Cakrasaṃvara, Mahāmāyā, Buddhakapāla, and Catuṣpīṭha) and his Mar pa Bka’ brgyud tradition became especially distinguished by the key instructions Mar pa received from Nāropa, Maitrīpa and other masters. The Hevajra tradition, for instance, is famous in both the Sa skya and Bka’ brgyud lineages. Sa skya pas adhere to a strong exegetical tradition of the Hevajra root-tantra and its two main explanatory tantras, the Vajrapañjara and the Saṃputa; Mar pa’s tradition, on the other hand, is mainly based on the root-tantra and the Vajrapañjara, as well as on Nāropa’s key instructions, but 3  The Rngog lineage is known from six main sources, all derived from the first, Bla ma rngog pa yab sras rim par byon pa’i rnam thar rin po che’i rgyan gyi phreng ba, henceforth ST1. This group biography of Mar pa and all successive Rngog family masters was compiled in 1360 by Dpal gyi rdo rje, a student of several of them. The version we have was copied several decades later by Puṇyaśrī (Bsod nams dpal), during a transmission of the Rngog tradition by Rngog Byang chub dpal (1360–1446). It was continued and summarized at about the same time (maybe in the 1410s or 1420s) by an unknown author in the Rje btsun mar rngog bka’ brgyud kyi mdzad rnam mdor bsdus, henceforth ST2. These two were used by Rngog Byang chub dpal to compile his Rje mar pa nas brgyud pa’i rngog gzhung pa yab sras kyi bla ma’i rnam thar nor bu’i phreng ba, henceforth ST3, in the 1430s. These three sources were stored in ’Bras spungs’s Gnas bcu lha khang from the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama and published a few years ago together with ten volumes of tantric commentaries from the Rngog tradition (see bibliography for details). Until then, the main sources of knowledge about this tradition were the Lho rong chos ’byung (compiled by Tshe dbang rgyal [1400?–1470?] in 1446), the Deb ther sngon po (compiled by ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal [1392–1481] in 1476), and the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (compiled by Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba [1504–1566] between 1545 and 1555). All three rely heavily on one or several of these three texts as well as on the personal relationship of the first two authors with Rngog Byang chub dpal. Although ST1, ST2 and ST3 give the animal year of birth and the age at death of each Rngog family member, they do not provide the relevant element. Exact dates are provided in the Lho rong chos ’byung and the Deb ther sngon po. The former generally chooses one cycle of 12 years earlier than the latter. I generally follow the Lho rong chos ’byung’s dates unless otherwise indicated. See the family tree below pp. 168–169 for details.

144

Ducher

not on the Saṃputa.4 As a consequence, early “Bka’ brgyud” masters (before they were called such) often studied in detail with other teachers. For instance, Sgam po pa (1079–1153) trained with Bka’ gdams pa lamas and Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po (1110–1170) with Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po (1092–1158), before each turned to a Bka’ brgyud guru (Mi la ras pa and Sgam po pa, respectively), receiving key meditative instructions. From there they went on to attain the accomplishments of that practice, thus becoming holders of the Bka’ brgyud lineage. Mar pa’s transmission was made up of three main components, blended in different ways by the many disciples who inherited and practiced it: – tantric practices associated with the creation phase (bskyed rim); – practices associated with the perfection phase (rdzogs rim), the so-called Six Doctrines of Nāropa. These two are subsumed under the term “path of methods” (thabs lam); – Mahāmudrā, or the “path of liberation” (grol lam). The practice of mahāmudrā is understood in various ways, here summarized by Klaus-Dieter Mathes:5 Mantra-mahāmudrā is transmitted through the Vajrayāna path of method, which involves Tantric empowerment. Essence mahāmudrā leads to the sudden or instantaneous realisation of one’s natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa). It requires a realised master who bestows a particular type of blessing called the “empowerment” of vajra-wisdom on a receptive and qualified disciple. Sūtra-mahāmudrā is characterised by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche6 as being connected with the Pāramitāyāna, while at the same time being in accordance with Tantra, and mainly consists in resting one’s mind in the state of non-conceptual wisdom. He further describes the method of this approach as being hidden in the Sūtras, wherefore sūtra-mahāmudrā is also called the hidden or secret path of the Sūtras (mdo’i gsang lam). The Rngog transmission, like Mar pa’s, is mainly concerned with the first aspect, Mantra Mahāmudrā. One does not find among the ten volumes of tantric commentaries coming from the Rngog tradition any text related to Essence Mahāmudrā or Sūtra Mahāmudrā, or progressive explanations containing instructions on calm abiding (zhi gnas) and insight (lhag mthong). Thus, 4  See Sobisch 2008: 146 n. 114, for details. 5  Mathes 2006: 201–202. See also Mathes 2016. 6  Callahan 2001: xxvif.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

145

although Rngog masters received over the years most teachings available in Tibet, their own tradition was exclusively tantric, and proposed one specific way of attaining ultimate realization (mahāmudrā) through tantric means.7 As illustrated by the introductory story, the Rngog tradition ceased to be essentially a family lineage in the fifteenth century, and we lose track of them sometime between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. By then, their spiritual teaching was mostly transmitted by masters outside of the Rngog family. The fourth Zhwa dmar pa (1453–1524), whose teachings about Mahāmudrā are discussed by Martina Draszczyk in this volume, played an especially important role in systemizing the Rngog tradition, as did other individuals like Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507–1565), Tāranātha (1507–1566), and Karma Chags med (1613–1678). The works (sādhanas, empowerment rituals, and tantric commentaries) of these masters as well as those authored within the Rngog pa lineage were the sources used by ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813–1899) when he compiled his Treasury of Bka’ brgyud Mantras (Bka’ brgyud sngags mdzod, henceforth KGND8) in 1854. Kong sprul used the term “Mar rngog Bka’ brgyud” in the title of the collection’s index in order to describe its content.9 He conceived it as a compilation of Bka’ brgyud tantras, as opposed to key instructions of the various Tibetan traditions (the Gdams ngag mdzod), Rnying ma Treasures (the Rin chen gter mdzod), an encyclopaedia of the various fields of knowledge (the Shes bya mdzod), or Kong sprul’s personal compositions on various subjects (the Rgya chen bka’ mdzod). The KGND is divided into three main parts: the first, the “initial virtue,” is made up of practices for long life (White Tārā, Amitāyus, and Mar pa’s three special deities) and for opening to blessing (bla ma mchod pa). The “middling virtue” is made up of thirteen Highest Yogatantras associated with sixteen transmissions. Out of these sixteen, nine transmissions transited via the Rngog, two came from Mar pa through his disciple Mtshur ston dbang nge (Buddhakapāla and Guhyasamāja), two from Mar pa through Mi la ras pa (Cakrasaṃvara five deities and Vajravārāhī) and three from other masters altogether (Red Yamāntaka, Vajrabhairava and Vajrapāṇi). The “final virtue” is associated with protector practices (Vajramahākāla, Four-Arm Mahākāla, Dud sol ma, and the 7  This essay is the summary of my Ph.D. dissertation, entitled “A Lineage in Time: The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa bka’ brgyud from the 11th through 19th Centuries,” prepared under the supervision of Professor Matthew Kapstein and defended in December 2017 at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Ducher 2017b). In several cases, the full argument that led to one particular declaration is found in the dissertation and cannot be developed here for lack of space. 8  Abbreviations used appear in the bibliography. See Ducher 2019 for details on that collection. 9  KGND, 1: 1.

146

Ducher

Five Tshe ring ma sisters). As demonstrated by the title of the introduction and the content of this compilation, a large part of the tantric heritage coming from Mar pa and what we call “Bka’ brgyud” passed through members of the Rngog family lineage. Before the dispersion of the Rngog pa teachings in several orders and their compilation in the KGND, the Rngog family played an important role in the transmission of Mar pa’s tantras in Tibet. I will therefore first give a broad outline of the main transmissions and will then turn towards the more human aspect of the lineage, with a description of the family line and their relationship with other masters. 3

The Seven Maṇḍalas of the Rngog (rngog dkyil bdun)

In the Rngog accounts of their religious and family lineage (ST1, ST2, and ST3), their transmission is called the “Rngog pa Teaching” (rngog pa’i chos/chos skor) or “Paternal Teaching” (pha chos); in lists of teachings received or in other catalogues, it is generally referred to as the “Rngog Tradition” (rngog lugs). This family heritage is made up of eight main transmissions and a few others that figure in the KGND but were not considered representative of the Rngog tradition even though some lineages passed through them.10 The eight are seven maṇḍalas associated with the creation phase of the Highest Yogatantras, and the practice of one protector, Dud sol ma. From the fifteenth century onwards, when these cycles started to be mainly transmitted outside of the Rngog family, the name used to refer to their tradition was the “Seven Maṇḍalas of the Rngog” (rngog dkyil bdun). The first occurrence of this particular formulation is found in the biography of Khrims khang Lo tsā ba (d. 1482) included within the Deb ther sngon po.11 Although similar expressions appear at approximately 10  These transmissions are White Tārā (yid bzhin ’khor lo rngog lugs, see KGNG 1: 16), Peaceful Cakrasaṃvara Vajrasattva (bde mchog zhi ba rdor sems, KGNG 1: 23), Six-Cakravartin Cakrasaṃvara (bde mchog ’khor los sgyur drug, KGNG 1: 27), and Vajramahākāla (rdo rje nag po chen po; mar pa’i snyan rgyud, KGNG 1: 39). It must be noted that there exist several lineages of each transmission, all received by Kong sprul, only some of which passed through the Rngogs. 11  Deb ther sngon po, 948, 952, 964, 966, 972: rngog dkyil bdun. The biography of Khrims khang Lo tsā ba (who died in 1482, that is to say after the compilation of the Deb ther sngon po in 1476, and after the death of ’Gos Lo tsā ba in 1481) was added by the editors of the Deb ther sngon po at the time of printing. It is a summary of the longer text by the Fourth Zhwa dmar and was composed by Karma ’Phrin las pa (1456–1539; see Ehrhard 2002: 27–31 and van der Kuijp 2006). The biography authored by the Fourth

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

147

the same time,12 it is likely that the exact phrase was coined by the author of the biography, Karma ’Phrin las pa (1456–1539), and it became widespread in later centuries because of the success of the Deb ther sngon po. Chos rdor is known to have received Mar pa’s “exegetic lineage” (bshad brgyud) and to have been the one who preserved extensively the tantric commentaries that Mar pa had received in India and enriched with profound key instructions. In most biographies, this legacy is described as the result of three cycles of teachings received as a consequence of three great donations. The first donation was made shortly after the first meeting, in between Mar pa’s two journeys to India. Mar pa was invited to Gzhung and granted Chos rdor his foremost practice – associated with the Hevajratantra – which became central in the Rngog pa lineage. The second donation occurred at the end of Mar pa’s life. It was made up of books and everything that Chos rdor could bring to Lho brag, and served as a support for the transmission of the Catuṣpīṭhatantra. The final cycle, the Mahāmāyātantra, was also received in Lho brag, after Chos rdor brought his entire herd as a gift to Mar pa. Through these three donations, Chos rdor became the lineage holder of six maṇḍalas and of the protector Dud sol ma. 3.1 Hevajra The first two maṇḍalas are practices associated with the Hevajra root-tantra,13 in which the meditator creates a nine-deity maṇḍala of Hevajra and a fifteendeity maṇḍala of his consort Nairātmyā.14 As noted above, the Hevajratantra Zhwa dmar contains the words rngog pa’i dkyil ’khor bdun po (e.g., p. 283), but not the short-hand rngog dkyil bdun. 12  The Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rin po che by Dge ye Tshul khrims seng ge (dates unknown), compiled in 1474, contains the expressions rngog pa’i dkyil ’khor bdun, f. 30:2. Another student of Byang chub dpal, Kun dga’ rnam rgyal (1432–1496) refers to the rngog pa’i dbang bdun in his List of Teachings Received (Rdzong pa kun dga’ rnam rgyal gyi gsan yig, 415). 13  The name of the Hevajratantra is translated as Kye’i rdo rje in the Sa skya tradition, but Dgyes pa rdo rje (dgyes rdor) in the Rngog tradition, though ’Brog mi’s translation of the root-tantra was used in both cases. The Rngogs also refer to it by the tantra’s alternative name, the Two Chapters (Dvikalpa, Brtag gnyis). 14  The practices associated with these maṇḍalas were compiled by Kong sprul in the KGND. A few years later, Blo gter dbang po (1847–1914) reused Kong sprul’s versions of the seven maṇḍalas in the Rgyud sde kun btus, which gathers 139 maṇḍalas associated with all four classes of tantras. Representations of these maṇḍalas were commissioned in the Ngor Monastery in the late 19th century, and safely brought into exile by the Ngor abbot Bsod nams rgya mtsho (1930–1988). He, together with Musashi Tachikawa and other Japanese scholars, reproduced the maṇḍalas and published clear schemas of them, with the names of all deities (Tachikawa 1989 and 1991). Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra also published the line drawings of the maṇḍalas (Vira 1967). For the Hevajra maṇḍala see Vira 1967:

148

Ducher

has two main “explanatory tantras” (bshad rgyud), the Vajrapañjara15 and the Saṃpuṭa.16 The Rngog were holders of the first, an uncommon explanatory tantra referring only to the Hevajra root-tantra, which makes up the third maṇḍala, with forty-nine deities.17 Mar pa’s tradition of the Hevajratantra, according to Kong sprul,18 is mostly based on Nāropa’s and Maitrīpa’s oral instructions as well as on the Indian traditions of Saroruhavajra (Mtsho skyes rdo rje) and Ḍombīheruka.19 There are plenty of commentaries on this tantra in the Rngog pa lineage, but the most famous is the Rin po che’i rgyan ’dra, composed by Rngog Mdo sde (1078–1154) as a replacement for his father’s lost Rin po che’i rgyan.20 3.2 Bsre ’pho Rngog Chos rdor’s personal deity, like Mar pa’s, was Hevajra. The form of the Six Doctrines of Nāropa (na ro chos drug) practiced in the Rngog tradition was therefore especially related to the Hevajratantra and referred to by the term “Merging and Transference” (bsre ’pho), also called the “Six Doctrines of the Rngog.”21 As Tāranātha explains in the introduction to his Manual of vol. 3, maṇḍala 107; Tachikawa 1991: 182. For the Nairātmyā maṇḍala, see Vira 1967: vol. 3, maṇḍala 108; Tachikawa 1991: 183. 15  Mkha’ ‘gro ma rdo rje gur (in short Gur), Tōhoku 419. 16  Yang dag par sbyor ba (often called Dpal kha sbyor), Tōhoku 381. 17  Vira 1967: vol. 3, maṇḍala 111; Tachikawa 1991: 186–187. 18   KGND, 1: 5–6. 19  For a presentation of the Hevajra literature (the root and explanatory tantras) and the eight traditions that developed in India, see Sobisch 2008: 29–49. The eight are the “six great chariot systems” (shing rta’i srol chen po drug) and the “two systems of pith instructions” (man ngag lugs). Mar pa’s tradition is one of these two, and is explained on pp. 46–48. According to Sobisch (2008: 26 n. 36), Saroruhavajra is generally identified as Padmavajra (Padma rdo rje) in Sa skya pa literature. See also Szántó 2015b for a general presentation of the Hevajratantra. 20   N KSB, vol. 3. For these texts and other commentaries composed within the Rngog tradition, see Sobisch 2008: 47–48. 21  See SByD, 3: 239 (Kongtrül 2008: 162–163) for a short description of the eight traditions, and vol. 3: 325 (Kongtrül 2007: 149–152) for the various syntheses of the genre “Six Doctrines” that were developed in the early Bka’ brgyud schools. The name Bsre ’pho was also used in the ’Brug pa bka’ brgyud lineage, covering a meaning larger than that applied in the Rngog tradition. The Fourth ’Brug chen, Padma dkar po (1527–1592), compiled two volumes on the topic. He held several Rngog pa lineages: one came down from Mar pa, Rngog Chos rdor, and Mi la ras pa, another from Gtsang pa rgya ras (the First ’Brug chen, 1161–1211) and Rngog Mdo sde’s grandson Rdo rje seng ge (1140–1207), and yet another from Kun dga’ dpal ’byor (the Second ’Brug chen, 1428–1476) and Rngog Byang chub dpal. See Tāranātha: Jo bo nā ro pa’i khyad chos bsre ’pho’i khrid rdo rje’i theg par brgod pa’i shing rta chen po, 10–12.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

149

Instruction on the Hevajratantra in the Mar pa Tradition, although all of Mar pa’s instructions on the completion phase can be referred to by the expressions “merging” and “transference,” the combined term “Merging and Transference” applies more specifically to the instructions related to the Hevajratantra.22 There are completion phases associated with the other maṇḍalas, but Merging and Transference was the main system practiced in the Rngog tradition.23 3.3 Catuṣpīṭha The next two maṇḍalas derive from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra24 and are centered on the seventy-seven-deity maṇḍala of Yogāmbara (Rnal ’byor nam mkha’)25 and the thirteen-deity maṇḍala of his consort Jñāneśvarī (Ye shes dbang phyug ma).26 This yoginītantra was less widespread than the Hevajratantra in Tibet, where Mar pa’s tradition became one of the most successful. According to most sources, Chos rdor received from Mar pa the root tantra together with two explanatory tantras, the Great Explanatory Tantra27 and the *Mantrāṃśa.28 The latter is the fourth chapter of the Maṇḍalopāyikā, the “ritual of the maṇḍala,”29 which was responsible for thoroughly reshaping the pantheon of the cult by replacing the main female deity of the root tantra, Jñānaḍākinī, with her male consort, Yogāmbara. Mar pa received this transmission from several masters, most notably Nāropa in India and Spyi ther pa in Nepal.30

22  D  gyes pa rdo rje mar lugs kyi khrid yig ’khrul med nges gsang. KGND, 2: 110: spyir mar pa’i gdams ngag rdzogs rim thams cad la | bsre ba dang ’pho ba’i brda chad re mdzad mod kyang |gdams ngag ’di la ni khyad par du yang dgyes pa rdo rje’i ’khrid bsre ’pho zhes grags so. For a general presentation of the practices related to Merging (bsre ba) in the early Bka’ brgyud lineages, see Kemp 2015. 23  Kong sprul includes most of these traditions in the KGND, and briefly explains them in the SByD (Kongtrül 2008: 179–186 for Catuṣpītha and Mahāmāyā). 24  Gdan bzhi, Tōhoku 428. See Szántó 2015b for a general presentation of this tantra, its title, sources, pantheon, language and contents. The Bka’ ’gyur version was translated by Gayādhara and ’Gos Khug pa Lhas btsas. 25  Vira 1967, vol. 2, maṇḍala 87; Tachikawa 1991: 152–154. 26  Vira 1967, vol. 2, maṇḍala 88; Tachikawa 1991: 155. 27  Bshad rgyud chen mo; Tōhoku 430. See Szántó 2012: 89–91. 28  Dpal gdan bzhi pa’i bshad pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po sngags kyi cha; Tōhoku 429. See Szántó 2012: 89. 29  Szántó 2012: 123–152. He explains that there were three versions of that text, the third (Tōhoku 1613) being the most popular. Although its long title is Rgyud kyi rgyal po dpal gdan bzhi pa zhes bya ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga snying po mdor bsags pa, it was generally known in Tibet with the short title Snying po mdor bsags pa, used in the Rngog tradition. 30  See lineages in KGND, 1: 31–33.

150

Ducher

3.4 Mahāmāyā The sixth maṇḍala comes from the Mahāmāyātantra, and has five deities.31 The Rngog transmission is that of Kukuripa, which Mar pa received from Śāntibhadra, otherwise known as Kukuripa Junior. According to Tāranātha, Mar pa also received the traditions of Ratnākaraśānti and Kṛṣṇa (Nag po), but the lineage he spread in Tibet is that of Kukuripa “ornamented by Nāropa’s instructions.”32 Kukuripa’s transmission is made up of seven teachings: the tantra itself; three sādhanas related to the creation phase;33 the Key-Instructions on Suchness and its commentary, related to the completion phase;34 and a maṇḍala ritual.35 All were translated by ’Gos Khug pa Lhas brtsas (11th cent.), except the two on suchness (translated by Lo chen Rin chen bzang po, 958– 1055). They were revised by Klog skya Shes rab rtsegs, in collaboration with Rngog Chos rdor. The Rngogs held two more important cycles, Dud sol ma and the Nāmasaṅgīti. Some, such as Tshar chen and the Fifth Dalai Lama, argued that Dud sol ma should be included within the seven maṇḍalas instead of the Nāmasaṅgīti.36 Kong sprul asserts that even though the Rngog transmission of the Nāmasaṅgīti is not a proper Highest Yogatantra transmission (the Gsang ldan tradition practiced by the Rngogs is a Yogatantra-level interpretation of the Nāmasaṅgīti), Chos rdor received the Highest Yogatantra blessing of Nāmasaṅgīti from Mar pa, hence his tradition qualifies as Highest Yoga although it is externally Yoga.37 The Dud sol ma transmission, on the other hand, is not a proper Highest Yogatantra but a protector of the Catuṣpīṭhatantra, and therefore does not qualify as a maṇḍala and cannot be included in the seven maṇḍalas, although her transmission, unlike that of the Nāmasaṅgīti, comes from Mar pa.

31  D  pal sgyu ’phrul chen mo’i rgyud, Tōhoku 425. An English translation is available on the 84,000 website: http://read.84000.co/#UT22084-080-009/title (accessed on 2017/03/10). Vira 1967: vol. 2, maṇḍala 86; Tachikawa 1991: 151–152. 32  Tāranātha: Dpal rgyud kyi rgyal po sgyu ’phrul chen mo ma hā mā ya’i rgya cher bshad pa de kho na nyid kyi sgron ma. In Gsung ’bum dpe dur ma, 22: 60–61. 33  See for instance Rngog Thogs med grags’s commentary, NKSB, 10: 8. 34  De kho na nyid kyi man ngag, Tōhoku 1632, and its commentary, Tōhoku 1633. For instructions on the completion phase of the Mahāmāyātantra, see Kongtrül 2008: 183–186 and 387–392. 35  Sgyu ’phrul chen mo’i sgrub pa’i thabs kyi dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga, Tōhoku 1630. 36   D L5 thob yig, 369a. 37   KGND, 1: 36–37.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

151

3.5 Dud sol ma Although she is not included in the seven maṇḍalas, Dud sol ma is the hallmark of the Rngog tradition and is considered the special protector predicted by Nāropa for their exegetical lineage. Her full name is “the Great Black Glorious Goddess (śrī devī), Charnel Ground Owner, Terrifying Charcoal Smoke-[coloured] Lady” (Dpal ldan lha mo nag mo chen mo dur khrod kyi bdag mo ’jigs byed dud pa’i sol ba can), for short Dud sol ma (Skt.: Dhūmāṅgārī).38 Another name is “Powerful Lady of the Desire Domain” (’Dod khams dbang phyug ma). She was initially the protector of the Catuṣpīṭha and Hevajra tantras, and later became the protector of the Rngog Bka’ brgyud pa tantric lore in general. Her name can be found in several texts from the Catuṣpīṭha cult, chiefly the Maṇḍalopāyikā (Tōhoku 1613) and Rnam par rgyal ba’i dbang po’i sde’s Sādhana of Yogāmbara (Tōhoku 1619).39 We know of her practice mainly through Kong sprul’s compilation in the KGND, introduced by Tshar chen Blo gsal rgya mtsho’s story, alluded to at the opening of the present essay.40 According to Tshar chen,41 Mar pa had three main protectors, called Ka ka rtsal, Thod ’phreng can,42 and Dud sol ma, all protectors of the Catuṣpīṭhatantra. Rngog Chos rdor, like Mar pa before him, chose Dud sol ma after seeing his master offering gtor mas to her every morning. 3.6 Nāmasaṅgīti Unlike all previous transmissions, the fifty-three-deity maṇḍala of the Nāmasaṅgīti43 does not come from Mar pa but from a tradition imported in Tibet by the Indian paṇḍita Smṛtijñānakīrti. There exist many commentaries on the Nāmasaṅgīti, classified within the various classes of tantras, from 38  Her name is sometimes spelled Dud gsol ma “Smoke-clad Lady” (Skt.: Dhūmavas or Dhūmavatī) but this spelling does not figure in the KGND or in Rngog-related texts. The Sanskrit name Dhūmāṅgārī corresponds to the Tibetan Dud sol ma, and is found in several Sanskrit manuscripts of the Catuṣpīṭha cycle, for instance the Yogāmbarasādhanopāyikā of Amitavajra (Szántó 2012: 170–172). Her name also appears in several fragments related to the Catuṣpītha cult (Szántó 2012: 180). It is noteworthy that the original title of the Dud sol ma’i sgrub thabs (Tōhoku 1769) composed by Vanaratna (1384–1468) is given as Dhūmāṅgārīsādhana. The translator was Khrims khang Lo tsā ba, who had previously received that transmission from Rngog Byang chub dpal. 39  Rnam par rgyal ba’i dbang po’i sde (*Vijayendrasena) was a Newar scholar (see Lo Bue 1997: 637). According to Szántó 2008: 4 n. 15, Amitavajra may be his initiation name. 40   KGND, 6: 53–410. Tshar chen’s Dud sol ma dkar chag is on pp. 53–67. 41   KGND, 6: 55–57. 42  In ST2, 34 and ST3, 72–73, they are also called Kaṃ ka rtsal and Thod ’phreng rtsal. No further details about these protectors are available to me. 43  Mtshan yang dag par brjod pa, Tōhoku 360. See Vira 1967: vol. 1, maṇḍala 41B; Tachikawa 1991: 82–83.

152

Ducher

Yoga to Mahāyoga, Yoginī, and “Non-Dual” (i.e., Kālacakra) tantras.44 The tradition followed by the Rngog is that derived from Vilāsavajra’s (sgeg pa’i rdo rje)45 commentary, the Explanation of the Meaning of the Name-mantra, corresponding to the Yogatantra division and called Gsang ldan, “Endowed with Secret.”46 Smṛtijñānakīrti was an Indian paṇḍita who lived in the mid-tenth/beginning of the eleventh century.47 After the death of his translator, he was stranded in Tibet and accompanied some merchants to Khams, where he learned Tibetan from his disciple, Ngag gi dbang phyug. Ngag gi dbang phyug’s student was Shes rab rdo rje, sometimes said to be from Spu rangs, and sometimes from Khams. According to Bu ston, he was born in Spu rangs but moved early to Khams, where he spent a long time. As a result, he was called Khams pa Shes rab rdo rje. Smṛtijñānakīrti’s translations spread in Tibet, and the Central Tibetan Bye ma lung pa Chos kyi seng ge came to know about them. He felt great devotion for that tradition of the Nāmasaṅgīti and received it from Sūryasiddhi in Spu rangs. Rngog Chos rdor met Bye ma lung pa several years later and received the transmission completely from him. At that time, Khams pa Shes rab rdo rje returned to Central Tibet and studied the Nāmasaṅgīti again with Bye ma lung pa, as well as with Sūryasiddhi. When Rngog Chos rdor heard that he held the transmissions of both Smṛtijñānakīrti – the Eastern Tradition (smad lugs) – and Sūryasiddhi – the Western Tradition (stod lugs) – he invited Khams pa Shes rab rdo rje to Gzhung, where the latter stayed for a year. Chos rdor then 44  See Tribe 1994: 128–129 n. 21. 45  There are many mistranslations, in Tibetan and in Sanskrit, of the name of this master, who was first only known through his Tibetan name, Sgeg pa’i rdo rje. As pointed out in Davidson 1981 (18–19 n. 18), in the West the name Sgeg pa’i rdo rje was often wrongly backtranslated as Līlāvajra (e.g., in Roerich’s Blue Annals) or Lalitavajra (Rol pa’i rdo rje), which led to the erroneous attribution of several of Lalitavajra’s texts to Vilāsavajra. As further shown in Tribe 1994 (18–23), the colophon of Vilāsavajra’s commentary was mistranslated in Tibetan, which led to an identification of Vilāsavajra with his uncle Agrabodhi (byang chub mchog). With the retrieval of several Indian manuscripts, it became clear that the two are different. They wrote five texts, all translated by Smṛtijñānakīrti in Eastern Tibet in the early 11th century, that make up the Gsang ldan Tradition (Tōhoku 2533, 2579, 2580, 2581, 2582). 46  Mtshan yang dag par brjod pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa mtshan gsang sngags kyi don du rnam par lta ba, in short Sngags don rnam gzigs, Tōhoku 2533, edited and partially translated in Tribe 1994. The text was translated by Smṛtiśrījñāna and revised by Vajrapāṇi and Klog skya Shes rab brtsegs. The sādhana that gave its name to the tradition is the ’Phags pa ’jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa’i sgrub pa’i thabs (Tōhoku 2579). The names come from the title given in the colophon: ’Phags pa mtshan yang dag par brjod pa’i gsang ba dang ldan pa’i sgrub thabs || slob dpon chen po dpal ldan byang chub mchog gis mdzad pa rdzogs so. The Sanskrit version, although sometimes reconstructed as *Guhyāpanna, is not attested. 47  This account is based on NKSB, 16: 68–72 and Bu ston’s Yogatantra, 134–135 and 176–180.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

153

passed on all the traditions to his son, Rngog Mdo sde, and the Rngog pa tradition of the Nāmasaṅgīti became famous, eventually reaching Bu ston and others. In the Deb ther sngon po, ’Gos lo singles out the Rngog pa transmission of the Gsang ldan tradition as the main one still alive at his time (1476).48 4

A Family Tracing Its Ancestry to the Tibetan Empire

After this short presentation of the practices most commonly associated with the Rngog, we can now turn to the history of that family. Before it became an important religious lineage in the eleventh century, the Rngog was a noble family that traced its roots to the pre-Imperial period of Lha tho tho ri Gnyan btsan, in the fifth century CE.49 There were many generations between then and the eleventh century, but in the present context we can only mention the most important ones. Rngog Dpal khrom is said to have accompanied Thon mi Saṃ bho ṭa to India and played an administrative role at the time of Srong btsan sgam po (r. 617–649/50). His grandson, Rngog Btsan gnya’, was a warrior who served Khri Dus srong (676–704). Rngog Btsan gnya’s grandson, Rngog Btsan gzigs snang ba, lived at the time of Khri Srong sde btsan (742–800) and became a disciple of Padmasambhava. These ancestors were common to Rngog Chos rdor, Rngog Legs pa’i shes rab (11th cent.) and his nephew Rngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109), who were the first two abbots of the Gsang phu institute of learning.50 Four generations before Chos rdor, the family branched: Legs pa’i shes rab’s ancestor, Yul sbyin, settled in a village on the northern shore of the Yar ’brog lake called Sgog, while Chos rdor’s great-great-grandfather, Dpal le, settled in ’Dam can. At some point in the intervening generations, Rngog Chos rdor’s forefathers settled in the Gzhung valley. There are several other masters with the name “Rngog” who lived during the first centuries of the second spread of the doctrine, and a short presentation may prove helpful in distinguishing them from the Rngog from Gzhung. One family in particular became famous for its Guhyasamāja transmission, known as the Rngog Tradition of Guhyasamāja. It should not be confused with the Mar Tradition of the same tantra, which was passed on by Mar pa and his disciple Mtshur ston dbang nge (and not through Rngog Chos rdor). The name of 48  Roerich 1949: 428; Deb ther sngon po, 434. 49  The pre-11th century-account of the Rngog family is in ST1, 3:5 to 6:4; for a complete account, see Ducher 2017b: 207–216, and especially p. 207 for a visual representation of the family line according to ST3. See above, p. ??, for the family line from Chos rdor onwards. 50  See Kramer 2007: 31–35 and his Tibetan sources, especially Deb ther sngon po, 391–392 (Roerich 1949: 324).

154

Ducher

this family is not completely certain:51 the first in the religious lineage, Rdog or Rngog Ye shes seng ge (11th cent.), received the Guhyasamājatantra from ’Gos Khug pa Lhas bstas. Then the transmission passed to his son, Rdog/Rngog Nyi ma seng ge (also known as Mu ni), and his grandson, Rdog/Rngog Āryadeva. This line is not related to Rngog Chos rdor; Ye shes seng ge immigrated from Rtsong kha in the eleventh century, and no mention is found in his family history, the Rdog rabs, of Chos rdor’s ancestors, such as Rngog Dpal khrom, etc. He may, however, be distantly related to Rngog/Rdog Byang chub ’byung gnas, the main disciple of Klu mes Shes rab tshul khrims,52 who took part in the reintroduction of the Vinaya in Central Tibet after the period of fragmentation. Klu mes founded the monastery of Yer pa Ba reng, near Lha sa; Rngog/Rdog Byang chub ’byung gnas took up the abbacy after him and welcomed Atiśa there. According to the Rdog rabs, when Atiśa inquired about his caste and clan, he replied that he was from a royal caste in India and belonged to the Rdog clan, as his ancestor was the king Dgra ngan’s minister, called Rdog.53 The same ancestry, in the same source, is provided for Rdog/Rngog Mu ni. 5

The Rngog Family from Gzhung

Chos rdor was born in the Lho ka region, in the Gzhung valley branching south of the Gtsang po river, which is now called Rnam rab, and is situated a few kilometers from the present Lhasa Gongkar Airport. His house was situated in Ri bo, and he later built a temple called Ri bo khyung lding.54 There and in Lho brag, Chos rdor received Mar pa’s empowerments, tantric commentaries, and key-instructions and thus became a holder – along with Mar pa’s 51  For more details, see Ducher 2017b, 216–221. Their family account is recorded in the Rdog rabs gsal ba’i me long, where the spelling rdog is used, and in Bu ston’s Religious History of Guhyasamāja (Gsang ’dus chos ’byung, 78–79), where it is written rngog. Sørensen (2007: 420–21) believes they should be called Rdog, and I am also of this opinion. My main reason is that, just as in the Rdog rabs, the spelling Rdog is used in ST1 (p. 14:7: brdog) and ST3 (p. 40:3: rdog) to refer to a Rdog Mun pa can, which may be identical with Rdog Mu ni. Mu dge bsam gtan (1914–1993, Gsung ’bum, 3: 11–12) also considers that the spelling Rdog is correct because there are still people with that name in Rnga ba and Dmu dge, his home region. Both spellings, Rngog and Rdog, coexist in Tibetan sources, and it is not possible to conclusively decide the matter. 52  Roerich 1949: 74. 53  Rdog rabs, 142–143. (Manuscript version, pp. 5–6). 54  For the etymology of the names of the Rngog seats Ri bo khyung lding and Spre’u zhing, see Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, 777 and 779.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

155

other disciples Mtshur ston and Mes ston – of Mar pa’s “exegetical lineage” (bshad brgyud), while Mi la ras pa received Mar pa’s “practice lineage” (bsgrub brgyud). Chos rdor passed these instructions on to his son, Rngog Mdo sde, thus initiating a family lineage that, according to Mar pa’s declaration, would be blessed by Nāropa for seven generations.55 5.1 Rngog Mdo sde (1078–1154) Rngog Mdo sde was in the first generation after Chos rdor, and a very important master of twelfth-century Tibet. After the grassroots efforts of eleventhcentury Tibetans to import into Tibet India’s latest transmissions, there came a time when lineages increasingly organized themselves as distinct and recognizable orders. Although Mdo sde did not meet Sgam po pa, he was his contemporary, and labored to establish the Rngog lineage as the legitimate line inheriting Mar pa’s tantric transmission, just as Sgam po pa was instrumental in defining the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud as the merging of the sūtra-based Bka’ gdams system stressing a gradual path (lam rim) and the tantra-based Bka’ brgyud system emphasizing Mahāmudrā.56 Mdo sde, and his family after him, became the legitimate holder of the Mar pa Bka’ brgyud tantric system by presenting himself as Mar pa’s “son,” both at a spiritual level (by receiving his teaching directly) and at a pseudo-biological level. As far as the latter is concerned, it is noteworthy that Rngog Mdo sde is named after Mar pa’s own son, Mar pa Mdo sde, who famously died without being able to retransmit his father’s teaching. It is certainly not insignificant that almost all of Mar pa’s biographies, starting with the one composed by Rngog Mdo sde, state:57 Your family lineage will disappear like a sky-flower But your religious lineage, with the continuity of a river, Will be uninterrupted.

55   S T1, 23: 4–5: khyad par du jo bo na ro pa’i gsung nas | khyod kyi bgryud pa bdun tshun chad du | byin gyi brlob pa la nga rang gis ’ong ba yin gsung. The Lho rong chos ’byung, 65, identifies Byang chub dpal as the seventh-generation master of the Rngog seat blessed by Mar pa (rje mar pas rngog gi gdan sa mi rabs bdun du byin gyis brlabs zhes pa’i bdun tshigs ni bla ma ’di yin). 56  See Scheuermann 2015. 57  Rje mar pa’i rnam thar. In ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo, vol. 5: 183: rigs rgyud nam mkha’i me tog yal | chos rgyud chu bo’i rgyun dang ldan | rgyun chad med par ’byung ba yin. For more details about this biography and its attribution to Rngog Mdo sde, see Ducher 2017a: 64–69.

156

Ducher

This interruption of Mar pa’s family lineage was used by the Rngogs to present themselves as Mar pa’s legitimate heirs.58 To achieve this at a concrete level, Mdo sde gathered all of Mar pa’s relics – which had been shared among his children – and enshrined them in Gzhung. At a narrative level, it was accomplished in the Rngog genealogies by describing first Mar pa’s ancestors and life-story, and then the Rngog’s ancestors and life-stories. This way, the Rngogs merged their own noble family line with Mar pa’s prestigious religious line, thus capturing the symbolic capital of both. This strategy remained successful in the following centuries. When ’Jam dbyangs Mkhyen brtse dbang po (1820– 1892) came to Gzhung in 1848, for instance, he had a vision of Mar pa and Rngog Chos rdor, received their blessing, and revived the Mar pa Bka’ brgyud oral transmission.59 His stay at the then-forlorn seat of the Rngogs further inspired him to encourage Kong sprul to compile the Treasury of Bka’ brgyud Mantras (Bka’ brgyud sngags mdzod), which was, as mentioned earlier, largely made up of the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud lines of transmission. Rngog Mdo sde was born when his father was fifty-five, and he therefore lost him while quite young, at twelve. The genealogies insist, however, that he met Mar pa and received the Hevajratantra empowerment from him, and that he received all the other cycles from his father, and again later from his father’s disciples. Mdo sde further established relationships with many important masters of the twelfth century, especially focusing on translators (lo tsā bas), who were a source of legitimacy at that time of revival of Indian Buddhism in Tibet. Mdo sde had many children, from two wives. He had a first son, Jo tshul (1103–1146), by a tantric consort in Gtsang. His other children were born from his main wife, Jo skyabs. Among them, the elder, Jo thog (1108–1144), composed several commentaries and was a great scholar. Even though Mdo sde was blessed with a long life, his tragedy was to lose all his children, from younger to elder. Despite the dangerous setback this represents for a family lineage, he managed to teach his three grandsons, and the line continued. The first two, Rgyal tsha Ra mo (1134–1170) and Rgyal tsha Rdo rje seng ge (1140–1207) were Jo thog’s sons and legitimate heirs of the Rngog line. Even though they continued to hold the seat and transmit Mar pa’s teaching, their own children did not live up to their forefather’s standards, and it was their cousin, Rngog Gtsang tsha

58  See Ducher 2016 for a description of the quick disappearance of Mar pa’s legacy in his own seat, Gro bo lung. In the decades after Mar pa’s death, his sons lost their house to another family, the Se bro, and their father’s relics to another spiritual lineage, the Rngogs. 59  Akester 2016: 266.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

157

Kun dga’ rdo rje, who is considered the second of the seven generations to be blessed by Nāropa. 5.2 Rngog Kun dga’ rdo rje (1145–1222) When Mdo sde died in 1154, Ra mo and Rdo rje seng ge took responsibility for the seat, Ri bo khyung lding. Kun dga’ rdo rje became a disciple of Ra mo, from whom he continuously received the teachings he heard from Mdo sde as a child. Then, for three years, he attended upon Mal nag pa, a hermit considered the master who had received the most Rngog transmissions, and later went to tour Khams. The Rngog teaching was already famous as far as the Tangut Kingdom,60 but no Rngog master had visited there, so Kun dga’ rdo rje attracted many disciples. When he came back to Central Tibet, he established his residence at a new place in the Gzhung valley, called Spre’u zhing.61 After his cousin Rdo rje seng ge died in 1207, Kun dga’ rdo rje shared the Rngog’s wealth with his cousins: they inherited the land and temple, and he received Mar pa’s relics and other religious items. From this point onwards, there were two branches of the Rngogs in Gzhung: the Gtsang tsha line (the name probably coming from Kun dga’ rdo rje’s mother’s origin in Gtsang) and the Rgyal tsha line. The Gtsang tshas established themselves in Spre’u zhing, and the Rgyal tshas remained in Ri bo khyung lding. In the fifteenth century, the two seats coexisted, and individuals of the two lines continued to transmit the Rngog maṇḍalas. In the Rngog’s historiographical documents, less detail is provided for the Rgyal tsha line than for the Gtsang tsha, and their denomination as the “lower seat” (gdan sa ’og ma) suggests that it was the Spre’u zhing branch, the “higher seat” (gdan sa gong ma), that quickly became most influential, Mar pa’s relics thus continuing to mark the locus of his actual lineage. 5.3 Gzi brjid grags pa (1190–1269) Gzi brjid grags pa was the first of the important Rngog masters to be ordained. He received his vows from Ba char ba, a disciple of Bya ’dul ’dzin pa Brtson ’grus ’bar (c. 1100–1174), founder of a learning institute in Zul phu Monastery. He heard and retransmitted the Rngog teachings, and enlarged the newly founded seat of Spre’u zhing, adding a monastery to what was until now only a residence. He and his brother Rgyal po dga’ (1193–1272) had

60  Hou 2017. 61  According to the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, 779, this could be translated at “Spre’u’s Field,” i.e., a field offered to Kun dga’ rdo rje by a land-holder of the region called Spre’u.

158

Ducher

long lives and were successful in passing on the teaching and land to the next generation. 5.4 Rin chen bzang po (1243–1319)62 Rin chen bzang po received all the transmissions accumulated by his Rngog ancestors from his uncle, the seat-holder Gzi brjid grags, and his father, Rgyal po dga’. He was ordained at Zul phu and became the abbot of Spre’u zhing when his uncle died. In the late 1270s, he went to Eastern Tibet, and his elder brother, Seng ge sgra, became the interim abbot. Rin chen bzang po attracted many students from all over Tibet, enlarged the seat, and commissioned a copy of the canon in silver and gold letters. He was considered an incarnation of Mar pa, and wrote a biography about the translator. Like most of his other works on the Vajrapañjaratantra, the Gsang ldan tradition of the Nāmasaṃgīti, and the Mahāmāyātantra, however, the biography is not available in the newly reproduced collections. 5.5 Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1283–1359) Although it is not stated that Rngog Chos kyi rgyal mtshan became a monk, he certainly did, as he studied at Zul phu, gave the novice vows to his nephew Don grub dpal, had no children, and ascended the seat of Spre’u zhing, which at the time had become a large monastery. He travelled as far as the city of Dar rtse mdo in Khams, where he met many masters and gained disciples, further enlarging the monastery with the funds he received. He authored a large commentary on the Hevajra root-tantra,63 as well as manuals on the Nāmasaṃgīti and gaṇacakras, today unavailable. 5.6 Don grub dpal (1331–1398)64 Don grub dpal received the novice ordination from his uncle, Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, and full ordination later at Zul phu. Despite being a monk, he married a woman called Dkar khrom, with whom he had a son, Byang chub dpal, who became the last important throne-holder of Spre’u zhing. Don grub dpal continued his family lineage, but not much is known about him, except the identity of his masters and disciples. 62  Although I follow the Lho rong chos ’byung’s dates in earlier cases, here the chronology makes more sense if the first son of Rgyal po dga’ (1193–1272), Seng ge sgra, is born in 1235 and Rin chen bzang po in 1243, as stated in the Deb ther sngon po. Both sources agree on the date of birth of the third child, Chos rdor, in 1246. 63   N KSB, vols. 12 and 13, NKCK, 5: 31–604. 64  The Deb ther sngon po’s dates are provisionally favoured over those of the Lho rong chos ’byung (1319–1386). The sources for Don grub dpal’s life are ST2, ST3, and later texts, but not ST1, which was composed in 1360, when he was still alive.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

159

5.7 Byang chub dpal (1360–1446) Rngog Byang chub dpal was considered the seventh lama of the Rngog seat blessed by Nāropa.65 He received all the Rngog cycles from his father, Don grub dpal, and a great-uncle, Sangs yon. Although he taught regularly at Spre’u zhing, his activity was not very successful during the first part of his life, probably for political reasons. After Tsong kha pa praised him highly for his scholarship, he attracted many disciples from various traditions, such as the author of the Deb ther sngon po, ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481), the ’Bras spungs abbot, ’Jam dbyangs chos rje Bkra shis dpal ldan (1379–1449) and the founder of the Sa skya monastery of Gong dkar, Kun dga’ rnam rgyal (1432–1496).66 In 1441, he was invited to the court of the Phag mo gru pa ruler, Grags pa ’byung gnas (1414–1445), to transmit the seven maṇḍalas. Among those present was Khrims khang Lo tsā ba Bsod nams rgya mtsho (1424–1482), who together with ’Gos Lo tsā ba retransmitted the Rngog cycles to the fourth Zhwa dmar, Chos grags ye shes (1453–1522), who labored greatly for the development of the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud transmission by composing sādhanas and commentaries and spreading it widely.67 Although Byang chub dpal had two children who took responsibility for Spre’u zhing after him, he handed over his lineage and such treasures as Nāropa’s six bone ornaments to the second ’Brug chen, Kun dga’ dpal ’byor (1428–1476).68 6

Spre’u zhing after Byang chub dpal

Byang chub dpal’s son, Bkra shis dpal ba, was installed as Spre’u zhing’s abbot during his father’s lifetime. His son, Byang chub dpal grub, was the abbot in 1476 and remained in the seat until at least 1500, the year Rgod tshang ras chen (1482–1559) received several transmissions from him.69 Another important 65  Main sources are Deb ther sngon po, 496–498 and Lho rong chos ’byung, 64–65. Both authors were direct disciples of Byang chub dpal. For more details see Ducher 2017b, chapter II.4 (pp. 329–345). 66  For the relationship between Kun dga’ rnam rgyal and Byang chub dpal, see Fermer 2009: 126–129; for a general introduction to Gong dkar chos sde and its art, see Jackson and Fermer 2016, as well as Akester 2016: 255–260. 67  For the transmission from Byang chub dpal to Khrims khang Lo tsā ba, see Ehrhard 2002: 38; for that from Khrims khang Lo tsā ba to the Fourth Zhwa dmar, Ehrhard 2002: 91. 68  Pad dkar gsung ’bum, 2: 610–611. The second ’Brug chen’s biography states that Kun dga’ dpal ’byor was Byang chub dpal’s doctrine holder (chos bdag po) and presided over Byang chub dpal’s funeral ceremonies, at the latter’s request. 69  Ehrhard 2010: 141 for the translation and p. 152 for the Tibetan version of Rgod tshang ras chen’s autobiography. For more details on the Rngogs after Byang chub dpal, see Ducher 2017b, chapter II.5 (pp. 346–362).

160

Ducher

master at the time of Byang chub dpal and in the following decades was his distant cousin, Rngog Bsod nams don grub of the Rgyal tsha branch, whose name occurs in the gsan yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama and in the biography of Gong dkar ba Kun dga’ rnam rgyal. Kun dga’ rnam rgyal relates that he received the Rngog maṇḍalas from Byang chub dpal but reading transmissions and explanations from Bsod nams don grub, who authored several texts in the NKCK and KGND.70 One of Bsod nams don grub’s sons, or nephews, was Rngog ston Bsod nams lhun po, who was Kun dga’ rnam rgyal’s disciple. He established a new seat, Thar pa gling, which may have been in the lower Gzhung valley.71 This was where Tshar chen – whose involvement with the practice of Dud sol ma was introduced above – met Bsod nams lhun po’s son, Rngog Bsod nams bstan ’dzin.72 This last-known Rngog scion of the Rgyal tsha branch gave the Rngog maṇḍalas to Tshar chen, and also taught the Rnying ma master Mnga’ ris Paṇ chen Padma dbang rgyal (1487–1542) in the late 1520s.73 We saw in the introduction that in the 1540s, Bsod nams bstan ’dzin had an enemy he could not subdue because they both propitiated Dud sol ma. Although this is speculative, it is possible that this obliquely refers to the last known lama of the Gtsang tsha branch, Blo gros dpal bzang, from whom Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507–1565) received, at about the same time, the seven maṇḍalas, Merging and Transference, as well as Dud sol ma and other teachings.74 The last member of the Gtsang tsha Rngog known to have lived in Spre’u zhing was Rngog ’Jam dbyangs ’od zer, who taught to Mgon po Bsod nams mchog ldan (1603–1659), a Sa skya lama based for many years in Gong dkar chos sde and one of the tutors of the Fifth Dalai Lama.75

70   D L5 thob yig, 1: 369a: dud sol ma’i phyi sgrub thun mong ba’i rjes gnang gi brgyud pa; Fermer 2009: 126–129. 71  In 2014, I went to a village called Thar pa gling, located on the western side of the mouth of the Rnam rab valley. Although no one there knew the history of the settlement, there was a Dud sol ma temple, and it is possible that this place was the original residence of “Thar pa gling pa Bsod nams bstan ’dzin.” 72  Tshar chen rnam thar, 557: gzhung rngog tshang ’og ma thar pa gling. 73  Bka’ ma mdo dbang gi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar, 304–335. The particular passage about Bsod nams bstan ’dzin is on p. 322. 74   KGND, 1: 31, 36, 40 and 41: In the lineages of the KGND, he is described as the master who gave the transmissions of Mahāmāyā, Nāmasamgīti, Vajramahākāla, and Dud sol ma to Kun dga’ grol mchog. These transmissions are also mentioned in the biography of Kun dga’ grol mchog (Kun dga’ grol mchog blo gsal rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, 2: 575). 75  Mgon po bsod nams mchog ldan rnam thar, 303.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

161

In the middle of the seventeenth century, probably after the death of Rngog ’Jam dbyangs ’od zer, Gong dkar chos sde took responsibility over the precincts. A retreat center affiliated with Gong dkar was built, and although Spre’u zhing and related temples were destroyed during the Dzungar invasion in 1718, Mar pa’s relics remained an object of pilgrimage until the beginning of the twentieth century.76 What was left – mainly two reliquaries, one with Mar pa’s relics and one with the remains of one of the Rngogs, as well as sacred texts and a statue of Vajradhara – was completely destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.77 In 1985, a small temple was built. Since 2012, another temple maintained by Gong dkar chos sde has replaced the old one. On the slope opposite the temple stand ruins commemorating the place where Rngog Chos rdor left a foot-print on a boulder and disappeared to Khecara. In the middle of this quiet and beautiful place grows a large walnut tree in which birds sing, evoking the memory that this forlorn place used to be the heartland of the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud transmission. 7 Conclusion The Rngog Bka’ brgyud pas, as a family and as a religious lineage, played an important role in the preservation and diffusion of Mar pa’s tantric cycles. Although the general representation associated with the Bka’ brgyud order is that of the yogi Mi la ras pa and his strong emphasis on meditation (especially related to the Cakrasaṃvaratantra and the Six Doctrines of Nāropa), one must remember that another central contribution of Mar pa to Tibetan Buddhism was to import a rich tantric commentarial tradition, centerd on Nāropa’s and Maitrīpa’s key instructions. Among the seven Rngog maṇḍalas and associated commentaries, some spread to other lineages and remain central in the Tibetan tantric traditions. The traditions of Catuṣpīṭha and Mahāmāyā, still available today, come from Mar pa through the Rngog, as is the Hevajra tradition followed in the Bka’ brgyud lineage. Although individual members of the family travelled far and wide, the Rngog tradition remained a small lineage 76  See for example the visits there of Bsod nams dbang phyug (1660–1731; Snellgrove 1967: 255), ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse dbang po (1820–1892; Akester 2016: 264–267), Kaḥ thog Si tu Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1880–1923/25; dBus gtsang gnas yig, 119–120) and the 39th Sa skya throne-holder, Drag shul Phrin las rin chen (1871–1935; Diaries of Drag shul Phrin las rin chen, 1: 696–697). 77  See Dgong dkar chos sde’i gnas yig, 93 for an account of the history of Spre’u zhing under Gong dkar chos sde’s supervision.

162

Ducher

that kept to the Gzhung valley and built its identity as the legitimate heir of Mar pa’s tantric legacy. Although the teachings received and taught over the centuries evolved with the surrounding society, the signature Rngog transmission remained the seven maṇḍalas and Dud sol ma. It is striking that this specificity was expressed by the phrase “Seven Maṇḍalas of the Rngogs” only when the Rngog family ceased to play any significant role in the religious landscape of Central Tibet. At that point, the religious lineage took over the family line, and Spre’u zhing remained as the symbolic trace of a glorious past. Acknowledgements This research was possible thanks to the conference grants provided by the EPHE, the CRCAO and the GisAsie. Thanks to the professors Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger Jackson for including me in the panel “Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions” at the XIVth IATS in Bergen on June 22, 2017 and encouraging me to publish my work in this volume. Bibliography

Sources for Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud History

Deb ther sngon po: ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal. Deb ther sngon po. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984. Lho rong chos ’byung: Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal. Lho rong chos ’byung. Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrung khang, 1994. Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston: Dpa’ bo 02 Gtsug lag phreng ba. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. 2 vols. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986. NKCK: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, ed. Rngog chos skor phyogs bsgrigs. 10 vols. Lha sa: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, 2007. NKSB: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, ed. Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum. 34 vols. Pe cin: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2011. Padma dkar po (1527–1592). Chos ’byung bstan pa’i padma rgyas pa’i nyin byed. In Kun mkhyen padma dkar po’i gsung ’bum, vol. 2, pp. 1–619. Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1973–74. ST1: Dpal gyi rdo rje. Bla ma rngog pa yab sras rim par byon pa’i rnam thar rin po che’i rgyan gyi phreng ba. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 22: 1–24. Zi ling: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010. (Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum, vol. 1: 1–34.)

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

163

ST2: Unknown author. Rje btsun mar rngog bka’ brgyud kyi mdzad rnam mdor bsdus. Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum, vol. 1: 69–90. ST3: Rngog Byang chub dpal. Rje mar pa nas brgyud pa’i rngog gzhung pa yab sras kyi bla ma’i rnam thar nor bu’i phreng ba. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 22: 25–50. (Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum, vol. 1: 35–68.)



Other Primary Sources

A ba dhū ti pa Rin chen rnam rgyal. Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa’i mdzad pa rmad du byung ba ngo mtshar bdud rtsi’i thigs pa. In Rgyal dbang kun dga’ dpal ’byor ba’i gsung ’bum, vol. 1: 7–67. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey (BDRC #W10954). Dbus gtsang gnas yig: Si tu Chos kyi rgya mtsho. Gangs ljongs dbus gtsang gnas skor lam yig nor bu zla shel gyi so do. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1999. DL5 Thob yig: Dalai bla ma 05 Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682). Zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig gangga’i chu rgyun. In Gsung ’bum, vol. 1–4. Gangtok: Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology, 1991–1995 (BDRC #W294). Dge ye Tshul khrims seng ge, Shiníchiro Miyake, Maho Iuchi, and Shoko Mekata. History of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism by dGe ye Tshul Khrims seng ge (= dGe ye Tshul khrims seng ges mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rin po che: A critical and facsimile edition of the Tibetan text with Summary and Index). Otani: SBCRI, 2007. Dgong dkar chos sde’i gnas yig: Skal bzang chos ’phel. Dkong dkar chos sde’i gnas yig. Gong dkar: Gong dkar chos sde dgon, date unknown. Drag shul ’phrin las rin chen. Rdo rje ’chang drag shul phrin las rin chen gyi rtogs brjod. 2 vols. Dehra Dun: Sakya Center, 1974 (BDRC #W27318). Gong dkar ba Kun dga’ rnam rgyal. Rdzong pa kun dga’ rnam rgyal gyi gsan yig. [Kathmandu?]: Rgyal yongs sa chen dpe skrun khang, [2005] (BDRC #W30192). Gsang ’dus chos ’byung: Bu ston rin chen grub. Gsang ba ’dus pa’i rgyud ’grel gyi bshad thabs kyi yan lag gsang ba’i sgo ’byed. In Bu ston rin chen grub dang sgra tshad pa rin chen rnam rgyal gyi gsung ’bum, vol. 9: 1–106. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1965–71 (BDRC #W22106). KGND: ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas. Bka’ brgyud sngags mdzod. Paro: Lama Ngodrub and Sherab Drimey, 1982 (BDRC #W20876). Kun dga’ grol mchog. Rnam thar zur ’debs mdzes rgyan rin po che’i lung yig. In Kun dga’ grol mchog blo gsal rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, vol. 2: 535–584. New Delhi: Tibet House, 1982 (BDRC #W4CZ15391). Mgon po Bsod nams mchog ldan rnam thar: Dalai bla ma 05 Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. Dus gsum rgyal ba’i mkhyen brtse nus pa’i rang gzugs dkyil ’khor rgya mtsho’i gtso bo khyab bdag rdo rje sems dpa’i ngo bo mgon po bsod nams mchog ldan bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar dad pa’i rlabs phreng. In Gsung ’bum, vol. 11: 246–387. Pe cin: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009.

164

Ducher

Pad dkar gsung ’bum: Padma dkar po. Chos ’byung bstan pa’i padma rgyas pa’i nyin byed. In Kun mkhyen padma dkar po’i gsung ’bum. Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1973–1974, vol. 2: 459–466. Rdo brag rig ’dzin padma ’phrin las. Bka’ ma mdo dbang gi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar [Account of Eminent Masters in the Transmission Lineage of the ’Dus pa mdo Tantra]. Leh: S.W. Tashigangpa, 1972: 304–335. Rdog rabs: Nam mkha’ bsod nams. Rdog rabs gsal ba’i me long. In Bod kyi gdung rabs dang rnam thar thung ngu khag drug. Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 2013: pp. 141–206 (dbu med version: BDRC # W2CZ7699). Rngog Mdo sde. Rje mar pa’i rnam thar. In ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo. A mgon rin po che (ed.). Lhasa: 2004. Vol 5, pp. 167.4–188.1 (BDRC # W00JW501203). SByD: ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas. Shes bya kun khyab mdzod. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982 (BDRC # W1PD95787). Tāranātha. Jo bo nā ro pa’i khyad chos bsre ’pho’i khrid rdo rje’i theg par brgod pa’i shing rta chen po. Vol. 22, pp. 7–264. In Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (eds.). Pe cin: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008. 45 vols. Tshar chen rnam thar: Dalai bla ma 05. Tshar chen rdo rje ’chang gi rnam thar bstan pa’i nyi ’od. In Lam ’bras slob bshad. fols. 201r–320r. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983–1985.



Secondary Sources

Akester, Matthew. 2016. Jamyang Kyhentsé Wangpo’s Guide to Central Tibet. Chicago: Serindia Publications. Callahan, Elizabeth M. 2001. Mahamudra: The Ocean of Definitive Meaning: The Ninth Gyalwang Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje. Seattle: Nitartha International. Davidson, Ronald. 1981. “The Litany of Names of Mañjuśrī: Text and Translation of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein. Edited by Michel Strickmann, 1–69. (Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol. XX). Bruxelles: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises. Ducher, Cécile. 2016. “Bka’ brgyud Treasure and rNying ma Revealer: The Sras mkhar ma of Mar pa Lo tsā ba.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37: 98–126. Ducher, Cécile. 2017a. Building a Tradition: The Lives of Mar-pa the Translator. München: Indus Verlag. Ducher, Cécile. 2017b. “A Lineage in Time: The Vicissitudes of the Rngog pa Bka’ brgyud from the 11th through 19th century.” Ph.D. thesis, École Pratique des Hautes Études. Ducher, Cécile. 2019. “The Treasury of Kagyü Mantra: A Nineteenth-Century Collection of Marpa’s Tantric Teachings.” In Reasons and Lives in Buddhist Traditions: Studies in Honor of Matthew Kapstein. Edited by D. Arnold, C. Ducher and P.J. Harter, 127–139. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

165

Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 2001 (2013). “Religious Geography and Literary Traditions: The Foundation of the Monastery of Brag-dkar bSam-gling.” In Buddhism in Tibet and the Himalayas: Texts and Traditions, 229–238. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications. Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 2002. Life and Travels of Lo-Chen Bsod-Nams Rgya-Mtsho. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute. Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 2010. “Editing and Publishing the Master’s Writings: The Early Years of rGod tshang ras chen (1482–1559).” In Edition, éditions: l’ecrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir. Edited by Anne Chayet et al., 129–161. (Collectanea Himalayica, 3). München: Indus Verlag. Fermer, Mathias. 2009. “The Life and Works of Gong dkar Rdo rje gdan pa Kun dga’ rnam rgyal (1432–1496).” M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. Hou, Haoran. 2017. “Notes on the Translation and Transmission of the Saṃpuṭa and Cakrasaṃvara Tantras in the Xixia Period (1038–1227).” In Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism. Edited by Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar, 355–376. Leiden: Brill. Jackson, David P., with contributions by Mathias Fermer. 2016. A Revolutionary Artist of Tibet: Khyentse Chenmo of Gongkar. New York: Rubin Museum of Art. Karmay, Samten G. 2014. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Chicago: Serindia Publications. Kemp, Casey. 2015. “Merging Ignorance and Luminosity in Early Bka’ brgyud Bsre ba Literature.” Zentralasiatische Studien 44: 35–50. Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé. 2007. The Treasury of Knowledge, Book 8, Part 4: Esoteric Instructions. Translated by Sarah Harding. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé. 2008. The Treasury of Knowledge, Book 8, Part 3: The Elements of Tantric Practice. Translated by Elio Guarisco and Ingrid McLeod. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Kramer, Ralf. 2007. The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of Rngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109). München: Indus Verlag. Lo Bue, Erberto. 1997. “The Role of Newar scholars in transmitting the Indian Buddhist heritage to Tibet (c. 750–c. 1200).” In Les habitants du toit du monde: Hommage à Alexander W. MacDonald. Edited by Samten Karmay and Sagant Philippe, 630–658. Nanterre: Société d’éthnologie. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2006. “Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and his Circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools.” In Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period 900–1400. Edited by Ronald M. Davidson and Christian K. Wedemeyer, 201–227. Leiden: Brill. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2016. “Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: ‘Chinese rDzogs chen’ or the Teachings of the Siddhas?” Zentralasiatische Studien 45: 309–340. Roerich, George, trans. 1949. The Blue Annals. [’Gos Lo tsā ba Ghon nu dpal.] Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

166

Ducher

Scheuermann, Rolf. 2015. “When Sūtra Meets Tantra – Sgam po pa’s Four Dharma Doctrine as an Example for his Synthesis of the Bka’ gdams- and Mahāmudrā-Systems.” Zentralasiatische Studien 44: 121–144. Snellgrove, David. 1967. Four Lamas of Dolpo: Autobiographies of Four Tibetan Lamas (15th–18th centuries). Oxford: Bruno Cassirer. Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2008. Hevajra and Lam ’bras literature of India and Tibet as seen through the eyes of A-mes-zhabs. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. 2008. “Antiquarian Enquiries into the Initiation Manuals of the Catuṣpīṭha.” Newsletter of the N[epal]-G[erman]M[anuscript] C[ataloguing] P[roject] 6: 2–12. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. 2012. “Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. 2015a. “Catuṣpīṭha.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1: 320–325. Leiden: Brill. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. 2015b. “Hevajratantra.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1: 334–340. Leiden: Brill. Tachikawa, Musashi, and Bsod nams rgya mtsho. 1989. The Ngor Mandalas of Tibet: Plates. (Bibliotheca codicum Asiaticorum, 2). Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies. Tachikawa, Musashi, and Bsod nams rgya mtsho. 1991. The Ngor Mandalas of Tibet: Listings of the Mandala Deities. (Bibliotheca codicum Asiaticorum, 4). Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies. Tribe, Anthony. 1994. The Names of Wisdom: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of Chapters 1–5 of Vilāsavajra’s Commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti, with Introduction and Textual Notes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford. van der Kuijp, Leonard. 2006. “On the Composition and Printings of the Deb gter sngon po by ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481).” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2: 1–46. Vira, Raghu, and Lokesh Chandra. 1967. A New Tibeto-Mongol Pantheon: Bla ma dang yi dam khag gi par ris phyogs bsgrigs. (Śata-Piṭaka Series, vol. 21 (13–15).) New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture (BDRC #W1KG18239). Walther, Marco. 2012. “Zwei historische Quellen zur Überlieferung der Rngog Bka’-brgyud-pa.” M.A. thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität. Walther, Marco. 2016. “Between Family and Transmission Lineage: Two Historical Works of the Rngog bka’ brgyud pa.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37: 515–533.

168

Ducher

gTsang tsha line

rNgog Chos rdor 1023–1090 + dPa’ mo chos mo

rGyal tsha line

+ Tshul skyid

rNgog mDo sde 1078–1154

+ Jo skyabs Thogs med grags (Jo thog) 1108–1144 + ’Phrang po lha

Jo tshul 1103–1146 + Dar mdzes

Kun dga’ rdo rje 1145–1222 + Zhig mo

Jo ’od 1110–1134 Ha lo

’Kho ge

Rin chen rgyal po 1181–1248

gZi brjid grags pa 1190–1269

rGyal po dga’ 1193–1272 + sTan ba skyid

Seng ge sgra 1235–1308 (ba) + lHas dkar

Rin chen bzang po 1243–1319 (ba)

Chos rdor 1246–1311 + Sri thar rgyan

Rin chen rgyal mtshan lug 56 (1259?–1314?)

Blo gros seng ge

bSod nams rin chen

Chos kyi rgyal mtshan 1283–1359

Sangs rgyas grags 1287–1345

Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan

rDo rje rgyal msthan

bSod nams bzang po

Don grub dpal 1331–1398 (ba) + dKar khrom

Don grub bzang po

Legend: xxxx

main master

xxxx

7 generations

xxxx:

only in st1

xxxx: + xxx:

only in st2

xxxx:

other sources

name of wife (st1)

Byang chub dpal 1360–1446 Rin chen rdo rje

bKra shis dpal grub Byang chub dpal grub Byang chub grags pa Blo gros dpal bzang

Figure 4.1 Name of masters after Byang chub dpal in dGa’ ston, 779 and Kun dga’ grol mchog rnam thar for gTsang tsha line; Tshar chen for rGyal tsha

169

A Neglected Bka ’ brgyud Lineage: the Rngog from Gzhung

sTon chung dbang mo 1121–1133

Jo bsod 1117–1133

rGyal tsha Ra mo 1134–1170 + Shi sha dur ma

Jo bDe ’od 1123–1133

rDo rje seng ge 1140–1207

lCam me + dPal ’bum 1154–1226

Jo shag phag 50

Jo bsod stag 69

Nam mkha’ dbang phyug byi 61 + ’Khos mchog

Dor rgyal

’Bum lcam

Sangs rgyas seng ge sprel 50 (1296?–1345?)

Seng ge ’bum 1303–1383 + Klu dpal

Legs pa dpal

Sangs rgyas yon tan sprul 64

Khrom rgyal ba + bDe g.yang

Sang rin + sKyid ’dzom

Rin chen dpal bzang po Ras pa

dBang phyug ’bum byi 27

Kun dga’ kyi 49 + dGa’ sham mo

Rin chen rgyal po sprel 61 + ’Dran rgyan Rin chen dpal

Grags pa rgyal ’brug 33

Kun dga’ bzang po

mGon po dPal ’byor pa

lHa dbang bzang po

?

Kun dga’ blo gros lug 69 + dPal ldan ’bum

Rin chen dbang phyug

bSod nams don grub ? bSod nams lhun po

bSod nams dpal dbyangs

Blo gros dpal bzang

dKon mchog bkra shis

rDo rje bkra shis

dPal ldan bzang po

Chapter 5

’Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig on the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa Jan-Ulrich Sobisch 1 Introduction Mahāmudrā – however conceived – and the Six Yogas of Nāropa are the central practices of the Bka’ brgyud pa lineage. There seems to be a general understanding that the two are closely connected, but precisely how that connection works has not yet been investigated. Sgam po Spyan snga Bkra shis rnam rgyal (1513–1596?) famously remarked that the accomplishing lineage (sgrub brgyud) down to Rje btsun (Mi la ras pa) chiefly practiced the pith instructions of Mantra and taught the instructions of Mahāmudrā “at the appropriate occasions [while teaching] Fierce Heat (gtum mo) and Luminosity (’od gsal), and so forth.”1 It is not clear, however, whether such a remark is meant to say that Mahāmudrā was previously only practiced in such contexts or whether it was also practiced prior to or independent of the Six Yogas. Another well-known passage is that found in Sgam po pa’s (1079–1153) personal pith instructions on Mahāmudrā to Phag mo gru pa (1100–1170). This text is particularly interesting because the recipient of these instructions was the principal teacher of ’Jig rten gsum mgon (1143–1217), whose teaching, the Dgongs gcig, is the focus of this investigation. Phag mo gru pa requested instructions based on the following question:2 “Do you like to instruct starting first with Fierce Heat or with Mahāmudrā?” To this, Sgam po pa replied: 1  Bkra shis rnam rgyal, fol. 108b: “In the practice lineage up to the great Rje btsun [Mi la ras pa], however, mainly Secret Mantra[naya] instructions were practiced, and the instruction on Mahāmudrā was taught at the appropriate occasions [while teaching] Fierce Heat, Luminosity, and so forth.” (’on kyang rje btsun chen po yan gyi sgrub brgyud la gsang sngags kyi man ngag rnams gtso bor bsgom zhing | gtum mo dang ’od gsal la sogs pa’i skabs ci rigs su phyag rgya chen po’i gdams pa ston par mdzad pa …). See also Namgyal 1986: 119. 2  Padma chos rgyal, pp. 22–23: ’o na sngon du gtum mo nas khrid pa dga’ ’am phyag rgya chen po nas khrid pa dga’ zhus pas | de gnyis gang zag gi rigs kyis ’byed de | na so gzhon pa rtsa dang khams bzang ba la gtum mo rang nas khrid cing bsgoms pas drod rtags myur du ’ong | de la phyag rgya chen po btab pas nyams rtogs myur du ’char gsung | na so rgas pas rlung mi chun pa’i rigs tshan cig la phyag rgya chen po’am lhan cig skyes sbyor btab pa dga’ ste | dang po nas

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_007

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

171

These two [possibilities] are differentiated by the individual’s type. For a youth with good inner channels and constitution I begin instruction with Fierce Heat itself, and the sign of warmth appears quickly through practice. Introducing them to Mahāmudrā, experience and realization arise quickly, it is said. I like to establish Mahāmudrā or *Sahajayoga (lhan cig skyes sbyor) [directly] in the type [of person] whose wind is not under control due to advanced age. It is said, however, that [when such people] are introduced to Mahāmudrā right from the beginning, they may – while [realization] does not arise in their mental continuum – turn to bad actions and become unteachable (dred pa). Here, Sgam po pa presents these two alternatives as dependent on the individual’s age, capacity, and constitution. According to an instruction of Mar pa transmitted in the collected works of ’Jig rten gsum mgon, the time for Fierce Heat practice is between the ages of thirteen and fifty. Before thirteen, one’s constitution is that of a small child (byis pa chung ngu’i khams yin), while after fifty, the two (outer) channels are dry every day (zhag re la rtsa gnyis skam pa yin).3 As Sgam po pa says, if a person is capable and young, Fierce Heat is practiced for the purpose of producing the “sign of warmth” (drod rtags), which is to prepare the ground for introducing Mahāmudrā for the sake of obtaining realization. The instruction of Mar pa points out:4 When this is practiced in the solitude of the mountains and so forth, warmth is energetically established. Here, one ought to practice the “Pith Instruction of the Wind Between the Two Spheres” and the “Instruction of the Four Seals.” Taking Fierce Heat as the point of reference, the practice of Fierce Heat is the karmamudrā, the bliss that arises on the basis of that is the dharmamudrā, not to go beyond that bliss is the samayamudrā, and the realization of the simultaneously and self-arisen gnosis is the mahāmudrā.

phyag rgya chen po btab pas rang rgyud la ma skyes par las la ngan du song nas dred pa yang ’ong gsung |. 3  ’Jig rten gsum mgon, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 12f. 4  ’Jig rten gsum mgon, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 13f.: ’di ri khrod la sogs pa dben pa’i gnas na bsgom pa’i dus su | drod btsan thabs su skye ba yin | ’di la rlung ga’u kha sbyor gyi gdams ngag ces kyang bya | phyag rgya bzhi’i khrid ces kyang bya | gtum mo lta bu la mtshon na | gtum mo sgom pa de las kyi phyag rgya | de la brten nas bde ba skye ba chos kyi phyag rgya | bde ba de las mi ’da’ ba dam tshig gi phyag rgya | rang byung lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes mngon du gyur pa de phyag rgya chen po yin |.

172

Sobisch

The problem of the relation among the experience of warmth in the practice of Fierce Heat, the bliss that arises on the basis of that, and the realization of the simultaneously and self-arisen gnosis, Mahāmudrā, is probably comparable to the problem discussed in the Dgongs gcig’s vajra-statement 5.4, where the focus is on the sample gnosis (dpe’i ye shes) and actual gnosis (don gyi ye shes) in the context of empowerment. According to Rig ’dzin Chos kyi grags pa’s (1559–1659) commentary on this point, “if the completely accurate actual [gnosis] does not arise in the mental continuum, [whatever one experiences] cannot be determined as being either sample or actual [gnosis].”5 The difficulty here lies in the experience of bliss at the time of the third empowerment, the prajñājñānābhiṣekha. The early commentaries quote Saraha: “Accomplishing great bliss at the time of sexual intercourse (kun tu ru) is like drinking mirage water.”6 In other words, in the context of the four empowerments, the experience of the bliss of the third empowerment needs to be understood through the guru’s pointing-out of the gnosis with the word empowerment, whereby sample and actual gnosis are united. Similarly (and as I understand the teachings of the Dgongs gcig), the experience of warmth in the context of Fierce Heat (karmamudrā) and the subsequent bliss (dharmamudrā) need the guru’s pointing-out instructions of Mahāmudrā so that the warmth of Fierce Heat and its bliss are united with the simultaneously and self-arisen gnosis of Mahāmudrā – otherwise the experience will only be misleading, like a mirage.7 When I concentrate in the following on the teaching of the relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas in the Dgongs gcig, the reader should keep in mind that it is clear from the commentaries that the instructions on the relation between the two practices are provided in the context of the Fivefold Path of Mahāmudrā, which is the chief practice of the ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud pas.8 Thus, when we read that Mahāmudrā is to be realized first, and the yogas are practiced afterwards to produce certain qualities subsequent to that realization, this does not mean that ’Jig rten gsum mgon completely dismisses the possibility that young and capable practitioners first produce “warmth” through Fierce Heat practice as the basis for an introduction to Mahāmudrā. 5  Rig ’dzin chos kyi grags pa, Dgongs gcig rnam bshad, p. 190: don phyin ci ma log pa zhig rgyud la ma skyes na | dpe don gnyis kar kha tshon gcod mi thub ste |. 6  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 155f.: kun tu ru’i dus su bde chen sgrub pa ni || ji ltar smig rgyu’i chu ni ’thung dang mtshungs ||. 7  The “not going beyond that bliss” being the samayamudrā is, as mentioned above, the remaining one of the four mudrās. I assume that this topic is connected with what ’Jig rten gsum mgon teaches as the essential point of freedom from desire, which will be briefly discussed below. 8  For remarks on the Fivefold Path, see Sobisch 2004, 2009, and 2011.

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

173

However, he and his commentators point out in several places and contexts of the Dgongs gcig that the experiences that arise through such practices as Illusory Body, Dream Yoga, Luminosity Yoga, and Fierce Heat, are unrefined, cankerous, and mundane, and need to be refined and integrated by the gnosis of Mahāmudrā. Moreover, as we will see, they also maintain that these yogas must be completely embedded within the Buddhist path. In the general introduction to vajra-statement 6.18 of Rdo rje shes rab’s 1267 commentary on ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig, where, as usual, the “general views” are mentioned first, we find a remark according to which some people claim that the Six Yogas, which belong to the path of means (thabs lam) and are a practice of the stage of perfection (rdzogs rim) “with signs” (mtshan bcas), are a sufficient basis for obtaining realization and can be abandoned once that realization is obtained:9 In general, to abandon the transmigration of the three realms, one needs realization (mngon rtogs). As a means for cultivating realization, the Exalted One taught the Mantra Vajrayāna. Its ultimate topics are empowerment and [the stages of] cultivation and completion. The stage of cultivation is the basis. The stage of completion has two aspects: with and without signs. “Without signs” is birthless Mahāmudrā. “With signs” is the path of means [practices] such as the Six Yogas of Nāropa. Therefore, since until realization has arisen one needs [this path] as the means for the arising of realization, it is called the “path of means.” However, once realization has arisen, [the path of means] is not necessary anymore. There are very many examples, such as the field when the harvest has been brought in, or the boat when the river has been crossed. These people therefore clearly hold that yogas such as Fierce Heat themselves are a necessary and sufficient means of producing realization. Unfortunately, the Rdo sher ma, as this text is known for short, does not identify the proponents of these views. The view, however, according to which practices “with signs” entail mental constructions, breathing exercises, and yogic postures, 9  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, pp. 328–329: de la spyir khams gsum gyi ’khor ba spong ba la mngon rtogs dgos | mngon rtogs skye bar byed pa’i thabs su bcom ldan ’das kyi gsang sngags rdo rje’i theg pa gsungs | de’i brjod bya mthar thug dbang dang bskyed rdzogs gnyis las | bskyed rim gzhir gyur pa yin | rdzogs rim la mtshan bcas mtshan med gnyis las | mtshan med skye med phyag rgya chen po yin | mtshan bcas nā ro’i chos drug la sogs pa thabs lam rnams yin pas | rtogs pa ma skyes kyi bar du rtogs pa skye ba’i thabs su dgos pas na thabs lam zhes bya ba yin la | rtogs pa skyes phyin chad dgos pa med de | dper na ston thog khyim du chud pa’i zhing ngam | chu rgal ba’i gru dang ’dra zer ba ni shin tu mang bar yod do |.

174

Sobisch

whereas the practice “without signs” is the formless practice of the ultimate nature of the mind, is very common.10 It is the second part of the above general statement that concerns ’Jig rten gsum mgon in particular. The claim here is that the path of means is a method to produce realization and that after the fruit is obtained that path can be abandoned. ’Jig rten gsum mgon, on the other hand, points out in vajra-statement 6.18 that “the possessor of realization (rtogs ldan)” – i.e., someone who has realized Mahāmudrā – “has a special need for the path of means,” meaning that the purpose of the yogas is to produce further qualities after one has obtained the realization of Mahāmudrā. We must, however, not overextend the intention of his statement, but carefully confine it to the context of the Fivefold Path of Mahāmudrā teachings. It has to be carefully differentiated from comments that have in mind a general sense. 2

The Role of Devotion in the “Fivefold Path”

In the ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud pa lineage that starts with ’Jig rten gsum mgon, Mahāmudrā is chiefly practiced in the form of the Fivefold Profound Path of Mahāmudrā (zab lam phyag chen lnga ldan). The most important aspect of that path for our present purposes is that one breaks through to the realization of Mahāmudrā by way of guru devotion, whose climax is to see one’s guru as the dharmakāya.11 This point is made in connection with a famous passage in the Hevajra Tantra (1.8.36) that speaks of a particular form of guru attendance (bla ma’i dus mtha’ bsten pa yis), which is explained by ’Jig rten mgon po as not referring to “making great offerings, performing many services, and attending [the guru] for a long time.” Instead, it is “seeing the guru as dharmakāya and the arising of certainty [concerning that],” and since beyond that “there is no occasion for regarding [the guru] as anything superior to that, this [way of seeing] is called ‘the final moment’ (dus kyi mtha’),” i.e., the breakthrough to Mahāmudrā.12 This realization of the dharmakāya-guru is brought about 10  See Kongtrul 2007 for statements according to which the path of means is the Six Yogas and the path of liberation (grol lam) is Mahāmudrā (p. 145), and “with signs” is the path of means” and “without signs” the path of liberation (p. 149). I owe this reference to Cécile Ducher. Moreover, according to Thrangu Rinpoche, you can have the path of liberation without the path of means, but the path of means cannot be had without the path of liberation (oral information to Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Oxford, Sept. 2002). 11  Dgongs gcig 6.6: “Devotion alone is certainly the means that makes realization arise” (rtogs pa skyed pa’i thabs mos gus kho nar nges); Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 277. 12  ’Jig rten gsum mgon, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 301: bla ma’i dus kyi mtha’ ni ’bul ba che ba dang | zhabs tog mang ba dang | bsten yun ring ba la zer ba min | bla ma chos kyi skur

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

175

by the cultivation of the resolve for awakening, the practice of one’s body as the deity, and the guru yoga of the four kāyas, i.e., the first three limbs of the Fivefold Path. The ensuing realization is described by Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa (1213–1287) in his commentary of the Fivefold Path:13 The guru, who is the dharmakāya, and the true nature of one’s mind are inseparable. Moreover, since the nature of all phenomena of saṁsāra and nirvāṇa is the same, to realize that everything that appears is inseparable from the guru, who is the dharmakāya, which is the unattached devotion in which dualizing into subject and object has ended – that is devotional Mahāmudrā. This is clearly a Mahāmudrā that is realized independent of and not necessarily accompanied by the path of means practices of the Six Yogas of Nāropa. 3

The Purpose of the Six Yogas

The question arises then: What is the purpose of the Six Yogas in this practice system? In vajra-statement 6.18 of the Dgongs gcig, ’Jig rten gsum mgon says that “the possessor of realization has a special need for the path of means.” The discussion of this point in the Rdo sher ma centers on the path of means practice of Fierce Heat. Such a practice, says Rdo rje shes rab, is necessary for the possessor of realization to produce certain qualities that are necessary for causing the benefit of others. Rdo rje shes rab says:14 The possessor of realization needs the qualities that can produce the meditative concentration (samādhi) of calm abiding and superior insight in the mental continuum of those who have merely seen or heard him after their mind of the three poisons has come to rest.

mthong zhing nges shes skyes pa de las lhag pa gzhan du mthong ba’i dus med pas dus kyi mtha’ de yin gsungs |. See Sobisch 2009: 229. 13  Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa, p. 412f.: bla ma chos kyi sku de dang rang gi sems nyid dbye ma med pa yin la | ’khor ’das kyi chos thams cad de’i rang bzhin ’di gcig pas | snang srid thams cad bla ma chos kyi sku ru dbyer med par rtogs pa yul yul can gyi gnyis ’dzin zad pa’i zhen med kyi mos gus ni mos gus phyag rgya chen po’o ||. See Sobisch 2009: 235. 14  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 329, but I prefer the reading of the Paris ms. (fol. 47v): rtogs ldan de gang gis mthong ba dang | thos pa tsam gyis kyang | de dag gi dug gsum gyi sems zhi nas | zhi gnas dang lhag mthong gi ting nge ’dzin rgyud la skyed nus pa’i yon tan dgos |.

176

Sobisch

That is to say, the realized yogi needs certain qualities to induce meditative concentration in others. Rdo rje shes rab explains how these qualities are produced:15 For accomplishing various marvellous supernatural displays (rdzu ’phrul) one needs Fierce Heat. Fierce Heat, i.e., the actual practice of dhyāna (Tib. bsam gtan), is the cause that brings forth the qualities. Thus, Fierce Heat, and so forth, are regarded as indirect causes for the pacification of the poisons and the arising of meditative concentration in the mental continuum of others, in that these yogas accomplish “various marvellous supernatural displays.” This appears to refer not only to miraculous displays such as the “ability to appear with one’s body in the midst of burning flames,” but also in a more general way, and as will also be mentioned below, to all kinds of abilities to control (1) life, (2) mind, (3) karma, (4) material needs, (5) birth, (6) inclination (7) aspiration, (8) supernatural displays, (9) gnosis, and (10) Dharma.16 In other words, the Six Yogas are to be practiced by the possessors of realization to accomplish supernatural displays and all kinds of abilities to bring forth the qualities that benefit the mental continuums of others. Without the Six Yogas, the possessor of realization has accomplished true reality, but the qualities that are necessary for benefiting others are still lacking. This practice of the yogas is called by Phag mo gru pa (1100–1170), ’Jig rten gsum mgon, and Rdo rje shes rab the “actual practice of dhyāna” (bsam gtan gyi dngos gzhi).17 In a more general view, the complete path of means needs to be practiced because “all the roots of the virtues of means” (thabs kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba) are combined in it. Here, in this more general perspective, “path of means” refers to all the “inconceivable gates of skill with regard to means.” These include the ten perfections – in particular the perfection of disciplined conduct – through which one obtains the ten kinds of control already mentioned above. As is mentioned in various parts of the Dgongs gcig, 15  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 329: rdzu ’phrul ya ma zung sna tshogs bsgrub pa la gtum mo dgos | gtum mo de yang yon tan bskyed par byed pa’i rgyu bsam gtan gyi dngos gzhi yin te |. 16  These are the “ten controls” (dbang rnam pa bcu) that will also be mentioned below. Yisūn (1985): tshe la dbang ba dang | sems la dbang ba | yo byad la dbang ba | las la dbang ba | skye ba la dbang ba | mos pa la dbang ba | smon lam la dbang ba | rdzu ’phrul la dbang ba | chos la dbang ba | ye shes la dbang ba bcas so ||. 17  Rdo rje shes rab quotes Phag mo gru pa’s Rin chen them skas, fol. 46v3: “As long as one has not obtained the actual practice of dhyāna, || one may realize true reality, but the qualities are lacking. || Thus, Fierce Heat is to be practiced! ||” (bsam gtan gyi dngos gzhi ma thob par || chos nyid rtogs kyang yon tan med || de bas gtum mo bsgom par bya ||).

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

177

disciplined conduct leads in the end to omniscience,18 yet that is not where disciplined conduct ends. Several factors cause the continuity of such conduct. There is, firstly, a certain insatiability concerning the accumulations; secondly, the emptiness that arises as cause and result,19 i.e., the realization of emptiness that understands all subtle causes and results and, therefore, continues the disciplined conduct and proceeds with it even more attentively (’dzem du ’gro);20 and, thirdly, the compassion that understands that one’s mother beings are tortured by suffering due to their delusion. From this arises the understanding that21 if the gnosis that arises together with the resolve of liberating [sentient beings] from suffering is not realized, [and thus] one engages in the vast benefit for others, then there are no other means of liberation from saṁsāra [for sentient beings]. In short, “since there is no end to all the roots of virtuous causes that cause the benefit of others, it is necessary to accomplish the above mentioned qualities” like the bodhisattvas, who display “an inconceivable array of qualities,” and like the gurus of the Bka’ brgyud pa lineage, who, like all the other masters who practiced the path of means, reveal limitless emanations like Tilopa and Nāropa, enter into a dead body like Mar pa, display marvellous powers like Mi la ras pa. This is, basically, what Rdo rje shes rab explains in his commentary on vajrastatement 6.18. To summarize, the Six Yogas are portrayed here in the context of the Fivefold Path as the continuation of skilful practices starting with the perfection of liberality. What all of these practices have in common is that they produce the qualities that are necessary to engage in benefiting others. 18  Dgongs gcig 3.3: “All of the precious conduct is the gnosis of omniscience”; Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 2, p. 215. 19  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 329: “By completely practicing all roots of good virtue in that way, one becomes omniscient like the bodhisattva Samantabhadra, yet, because of not being satisfied with the two accumulations, that good conduct, i.e., ‘continuous conduct,’ arises as emptiness, cause, and result.” (de ltar dkar phyogs kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba thams cad rdzogs par nyams su blangs pas | byang chub sems dpa’ kun tu bzang po bzhin du thams cad mkhyen par gyur kyang tshogs rnam par gnyis kyis chog mi shes pas bzang po’i spyod pa rgyun gyi spyod pa de stong nyid rgyu ’bras su ’byung bas |). 20  I have provided a preliminary description of the teaching of this vajra-statement (6.17) of ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s Dgongs gcig in Sobisch 2015/09. 21  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 330: sdug bsngal de las thar par byed pa sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes ma rtogs na ’khor ba las thar pa’i thabs gzhan med par shes nas gzhan don rgya chen po la ’jug ste |.

178

Sobisch

There are, however, further aspects to be discussed regarding the connection between the Six Yogas and Mahāmudrā. 4

The Yogas as a Practice in Common with Non-Buddhists

Vajra-statement 6.18 teaches in particular that those who have realized Mahāmudrā ought to practice the yogas to achieve the qualities necessary to benefit others. Mahāmudrā is in this system obtained through the practice of the Fivefold Path: (1) the resolve for awakening, (2) the practice of the body as the yi dam deity, (3) the practice of the four kāyas of the guru, (4) Mahāmudrā, and (5) dedication. Chos kyi grags pa says in his commentary on Dgongs gcig 5.15:22 The first – the practice of the resolve for awakening – liberates you from the Lower Vehicle and is a great means. [Then] make visible the primordially established deity of Mantra that arises from that resolve. Moreover, if you have not realized your mind itself as the guru, the peg of your devotion does not stick. Therefore, practice guru [yoga]! Within that state, settle yourself in equipoise in Mahāmudrā, where saṁsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable. Having made all such virtue the common [property] of all beings of the three realms [by merit transference], dedicate it to awakening. That the breakthrough to Mahāmudrā is achieved by means of guru devotion alone has been taught in vajra-statement 6.6. It is conspicuous that the Six Yogas do not figure in any particular way in the Fivefold Path of Mahāmudrā. Rather, the Fivefold Path and the realization of Mahāmudrā are a prerequisite of the Six Yogas. Chos kyi grags pa continues the above statement by saying that “leaving such paths of the profound, vital points aside, [saying: ‘I] have become skilled in channels and winds,’ one carelessly commits the first defeat (parājika),” indicating that one would thereby only break the vow of celibacy (Skt. abrahmacāryaṃ), which is the first of the five total defeats of an ordained person. The vital point that ’Jig rten gsum mgon teaches in the vajra-statements 22  Chos kyi grags pa, p. 211: dang po theg pa dman pa las grol zhing thabs chen po byang sems bsgom | byang sems de las skyes pa’i yi dam gyi lha gdod nas grub pa gsal btab | de yang rang sems bla mar ma rtogs na mos gus kyi rten phur mi tshugs pas bla ma bsgom | de’i ngang las ’khor ’das dbyer med phyag rgya chen po la mnyam par ’jog de lta’i dge ba thams cad khams gsum gyi sems can thams cad dang thun mong du byas nas byang chub tu bsngo ba […].

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

179

of the Dgongs gcig concerning the Six Yogas is that they are not profound practices unless they are thoroughly embedded in the Buddhist path, starting with (what others call) the “non-profound instructions,” such as renunciation, refuge, disciplined conduct, resolve for awakening, and so forth. A Buddhist position according to which the practice of the channels and winds is profound, such that one can safely abandon the “non-profound instructions,” can be found in the “general view” section at the beginning of the comments on vajrastatement 5.15. Rdo rje shes rab summarizes such a flawed position as follows:23 In general, the Exalted Buddha has taught the Mantra Vajrayāna, the ultimate of all vehicles. Within that he taught the pith instructions of the profound, namely the channels and winds. Therefore, it is not necessary to practice the non-profound pith instructions that were aspired to earlier. By accomplishing wind, the four pulses are gradually dissolved24 and thereby one proceeds from the first to the tenth bhūmi and realizes the result of the four bodies and the five gnoses. To refute this position, ’Jig rten gsum mgon maintained: “If one lacks the ‘nonprofound instructions,’ one will not obtain buddhahood through the profound [practices of] the channels and winds.” Rdo rje shes rab explains (p. 187) that just as a Cakravartin King, who possess the immeasurable wealth of a kingdom, still needs to nourish his body through (ordinary) food and beverages, the pith instructions of profound channels, winds, and drops, even if practiced for eons, are useless without the non-profound support of all the qualities of saṁsāra and nirvāṇa. Thus, to obtain liberation, one first develops a distaste for saṁsāra, takes refuge, practices disciplined conduct to obtain the ten powers of the Tathāgata, cultivates the resolve for awakening, and then, to overcome phenomenal existence, one must employ entirely all the vital points of tantric consecration, cultivation, and completion. Without these, states Rdo rje shes rab, it might be possible with great effort in the yogas to obtain

23  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 186f.; Paris fol. 155r f.: de la spyir sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das kyis theg pa thams cad kyi mthar thug gsang sngags rdo rje’i theg pa gsungs | de’i nang nas zab mo rtsa rlung gi gdams ngag rnams ston pas gong du smon pa mi zab pa’i gdams ngag de rnams bsgom mi dgos te | rlung bsgrubs pas ’gros bzhi rim par thim pas sa dang po nas sa bcu’i bar bgrod cing | ’bras bu sku bzhi dang ye shes lnga la sogs mngon du ’gyur […]. 24  The four pulses are channels, syllables/letters (yi ge), elemental nectars (khams bdud rtsi), and wind. The latter three pulsate in the channels and are gradually dissolved into the central channel; cf. Kongtrul 2007: 391 n. 25.

180

Sobisch

certain super-perceptions and supernatural displays, but these are only those Buddhists have in common with Non-Buddhists. Chos kyi grags pa states:25 Without [the “non-profound” practices] it may be possible that supernormal powers of any of the non-Buddhist [sects] and of [practices] common [to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists] arise by mastering only [the practices of] channels and winds. [However], it is not possible to achieve buddhahood! To achieve buddhahood, you must enter into the gate of the teachings. If you lack refuge, you do not join the ranks of the Buddhists. If you do not possess any of the Prātimokṣa vows, you do not belong to one of the four retinues of the Buddha. If you lack the twofold resolve [for awakening], you have not planted the root of the Mahāyāna path. If the meaning of empowerment has not arisen in your mental continuum, the maturation of your mental continuum is impossible. If you do not possess the stage of creation, which is primordially established, the clinging to ordinary appearances is not warded off, and ground, path, and result are grasped as three different [components]. If the stage of completion endowed with signs is lacking, one is side-tracked into nihilism. If the stage of completion without signs is lacking, one is side-tracked into [the belief in a] permanent [self]. For these reasons, no matter what kind of Dharma you practice, the complete preparation, main part, and conclusion, i.e., a correct progression of the path, is very important. Thus, the common super-perceptions and supernatural displays do not accomplish the qualities that are necessary to liberate other beings. These qualities are only cultivated through a Fierce Heat that is practiced on the firm basis of the Fivefold Path. Moreover, it has been mentioned above that the “inconceivable gates of skill with regard to means” include in particular the perfection of disciplined conduct. The reason for that is that the qualities that benefit others

25  Chos kyi grags pa, p. 210f.: med par rtsa rlung kho na la gnad du bsnun pas kyang mu stegs ci rigs dang thun mong gi rdzu ’phrul tsam ’ong srid | sangs rgyas par mi srid de | ’tshang rgya ba la bstan pa’i sgor ’jug dgos | skyabs ’gro med na nang pa’i gral du mi tshud | so thar sdom pa gang rung dang mi ldan na ston pa’i ’khor rnam bzhi’i grangs su mi ’gro | sems bskyed rnam gnyis med na theg pa chen po’i lam gyi rtsa ba’i mi tshugs | dbang don rgyud la ma skyes na rang rgyud min pa’i go mi chod | gdod nas yongs grub kyi bskyed rim dang mi ldan na tha mal gyi snang zhen mi bzlog cing gzhi lam ’bras gsum tha dad du ’dzin | mtshan ma dang bcas pa’i rdzogs rim med na chad par gol | mtshan med kyi rdzogs rim med na rtag par gol | don des na chos ci ’dra zhig byed kyang sbyor dngos rjes gsum tshang ba lam gyi bgros ma log pa zhig gal che ste |.

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

181

can only arise based on an absence of desire. Rdo rje shes rab, for instance, states:26 All the non-Buddhists, too, are practicing channels and winds; however, for the [uncommon] supernormal perceptions and supernatural displays to arise, it is necessary to be free from desire. Therefore, ’Jig rten gsum mgon says:27 The three-hundred-sixty methods of passionate union And the vital points of channels, winds, and drops are not profound. [Only] if they are pure within the sphere of Luminosity are they the Buddha’s teaching. [That] is taught by the Victor as the vital point of profound tantra. Elsewhere [such non-profound practices] are again and again taught with great effort, [Namely] in the sādhanas of non-Buddhists and their retinues. 5

Concluding Remarks

’Jig rten gsum mgon has pointed out that the six yogas are, in fact, practices that Buddhists have in common with Non-Buddhists. What renders these methods a special path for Buddhist yogis is that they are practiced with the support of the entire Buddhist path, starting from developing distaste for saṁsāra, on up to the realization of luminosity and Mahāmudrā. The comments by Rdo rje shes rab on vajra-statements 5.5, 6.6, and 6.18 suggest that the practice of the Six Yogas, although acknowledged as a central practice of the Bka’ brgyud pas, was not taught by ’Jig rten gsum mgon in the context of his Fivefold Path as a means of accomplishing Mahāmudrā. As I have argued elsewhere, the Fivefold Path of Mahāmudrā is a Mantra path where the realization of the dhamakāya for one’s own sake is obtained through a variety of practices that culminate in what ’Jig rten gsum mgon describes as the supreme form of guru devotion. The 26  Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 188: phyi rol mu stegs pa kun yang rtsa rlung bsgom | ’on kyang mngon shes dang rdzu ’phrul rnams ’ong ba la yang ’dod chags dang bral dgos. 27  Jig rten gsum mgon, vol. 3, fol. 125v, quoted by Rdo rje shes rab, vol. 3, p. 188: chags pa spyod pa’i sbyor thabs sum brgya drug cu dang || rtsa rlung thig le’i gnad rnams zab pa ma yin te || de dag ’od gsal dbyings su dag na thub pa’i chos || rgyal bas gsang sngags zab pa’i gnad du gsungs pa yin || gzhan du mu stegs ’khor ba’i sgrub thabs su || nan tan chen pos bka’ stsal yang yang gsung ||.

182

Sobisch

Six Yogas, on the other hand, are a continuation of the practices of the path of means that aim to establish the qualities, embodied as the kāyas of form, for the sake of others.28 In the specific sense stated in the context of the Fivefold Path, the realization of Mahāmudrā is produced through devotion, and after that, the yogas are to be practiced with the purpose of producing qualities for the sake of benefiting beings. However, as Sgam po pa has mentioned in his reply to Phag mo gru pa, this teaching does not exclude the general possibility that some people may produce realization by first practicing Fierce Heat – until the “sign of warmth” is produced – as a preparation for the introduction to Mahāmudrā. Another question is whether ’Jig rten mgon po taught a practice of the Six Yogas for the purpose of directly obtaining Mahāmudrā as a separate path apart from a complete Buddhist path such as that of the Fivefold Path Mahāmudrā. If we accept the above teachings of the Dgongs gcig as his authoritative view on the matter, however, such a practice would need another system of a complete Buddhist path like the Fivefold Path as its basis in order to avoid the contradiction that a practice that has commonalities with the practices of Non-Buddhists would achieve a result that is exclusively the result of Buddhist practice. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger Jackson for organizing another stimulating panel on Indian and Tibetan Mahāmudrā traditions at the ITAS conference in Bergen, 2016, and I am grateful for the considerable efforts they have made to edit and publish the present collection of essays. In particular, I would like to acknowledge their suggestions for my essay, which has benefited from their remarks.

28  Chos kyi grags pa says, p. 222 (Dgongs gcig 5.20): “Freedom from the arising and cessation of the mind is the dharmakāya, [its] arising in various [forms] is the sambhogakāya, and its unimpeded appearance is the nirmāṇakāya.” In his comments on Dgongs gcig 7.14, Rdo rje shes rab (vol. 3, p. 415) describes the nirmāṇakāya as the benefiting of sentient beings through the activities of the two inseparable bodies, i.e., the sambhogakāya and the dharmakāya. The illustration is Buddha Śākyamuni, whose dharmakāya aspect is that he is “separated from all proliferations of phenomena of saṁsāra and nirvāṇa and [has] spontaneously accomplished realization that possesses the four marks. His sambhogakāya aspect is the ornamentation of that dharmakāya with measureless qualities, [such as] the major and minor [marks]. His nirmāṇakāya aspect is the benefiting of sentient beings through various activities.” “Four marks” must refer to the four Mahāyānic aspects of purity, bliss, real Self, and permanence.

the Relation between Mahāmudrā and the Six Yogas of Nāropa

183

Bibliography

Primary Sources



Secondary Sources

Bkra shis rnam rgyal Sgam po spyan snga. Nges don phyag rgya chen po’i sgom rim gsal bar byed pa’i legs bshad zla ba’i ’od zer, BDRC W20749. Vol. 3, fols. 1–380. Rtsib ri spar ma, Kagyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1984. Chos kyi grags pa. Dam pa’i chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i rnam bshad nyi ma’i snang ba. Bka’ brgyud nang bstan mtho slob khang nas dpar ’grems zhus. Dehra Dun: Kagyu College, 2007. ’Jig rten gsum mgon. Collected Works, Khams gsum chos kyi rgyal po thub dbang ratna shrī’i bka’ ’bum nor bu’i bang mdzod, (Collected Works of ’Jig rten gsum mgon). H.H. Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang (Konchog Tenzin Kunzang Thinley Lhundup). Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute, 2001. Padma chos rgyal. Rje phag mo gru pa’i zhus lan. In Dkar rnying gi skyes chen du ma’i phyag rdzogs kyi gdams ngag gnad bsdus nyer mkho rin po che’i gter mdzod (rTsibs ri’i par ma). BDRC W20749. Vol. 5, pp. 9–69, Darjeeling: Kargyu sungrab nyamso khang, 1978–1985. Phag mo gru pa. Rdo rje rgyal po, Rin chen them skas kyi gdams ngag, Rin po che bai ḍūrya’i them skas zhes pa rin chen them skas kyi gdams ngag, BDRC W23891. Vol. 3, pp. 515–584, Kathmandu: Khenpo Shedup Tenzin and Lama Thinley Namgyal, 2003. Rdo rje shes rab, Dgongs pa gcig pa’i ’grel chen snang mdzad ye shes sgron me. Vārāṇasī: Bka’ brgyud nyam skyong tshogs pa, 2009. Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa. Lnga ldan bdud rtsi thigs pa. In The Collected Works of Yang dgon rGyal mtshan dpal. Vol. 1, pp. 409–414. Thimphu, Bhutan: Kunsang Topgey, 1976. Rig ’dzin chos kyi grags pa, Dgongs gcig rnam bshad, Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i rnam bshad nyi ma’i snang ba, Dehra Dun: bKa’ brgyud nang bstan mtho slob khang, 2007. Yisūn, Zhāng. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. 3 vols., Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985.

Kongtrul, Jamgon. 2007. The Treasure of Knowledge (Book 8, Part 4): Esoteric Instructions. Translated by Sarah Harding. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Namgyal, Tagpo Tashi. 1986. Mahāmudrā: The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation. Translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, Boston: Shambhala. Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2004. “Definition und Funktion des prātimokṣa und saṁvara der Bodhisattvas im tibetischen Buddhismus.” Hōrin: Comparative Studies in Japanese Culture 10. Edited by Takao Aoyama. Düsseldorf: House of Japanese Culture (EKŌ), S. 125–150. Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2009. “Some Aspects of Tantric Ritual Practice in Tibet.” Hōrin: Comparative Studies in Japanese Culture 15, Düsseldorf: House of Japanese Culture (EKŌ), S. 73–92.

184

Sobisch

Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2011. “Guru-Devotion in the Bka’ brgyud pa Tradition: The Single Means to Realization.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’ brgyud Tradition. Edited by Roger R. Jackson and Matthew T. Kapstein, 211–255. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: ITTBS, GmbH. Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. 2015/09. “What happens after realization?” dGongs1. https:// dGongs1.com/2015/09/06/what-happens-after-after-realisation/.

Chapter 6

The Definitive Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Phyag chen gsal sgron Casey A. Kemp 1 Introduction This paper examines Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje’s (b. 1027)1 explanation of the definitive meaning of mahāmudrā, or “great seal,”2 according to the early Tibetan Kālacakra tantric tradition.3 I am currently completing a full translation and study of Yu mo ba’s text, The Lamp Illuminating Mahāmudrā (Phyag rgya chen po gsal sgron),4 and give a preliminary overview of the content here. The second part of the paper devotes special attention to a particular quotation attributed to the Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra, the most definitive “canonical” source for Yu mo ba. This quote demonstrates that while Yu mo ba relies heavily in his text on Sanskrit Buddhist works to refute what he sees as wrong views pertaining to the notion of mahāmudrā, his translations often deviate considerably from available Sanskrit editions. This highlights Yu mo ba’s particular interpretation through his reading of primary sources on “the accomplishment of mahāmudrā taught according to the Vajrayāna.”5

1  For more on the life of Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje, see Hatchell 2014: 27–28, and Hatchell 2016. 2  In this context, mahāmudrā is translated by Yu mo ba as phyag rgya chen mo when referring to the great consort, whereas the mahāmudrā realization or direct realization of nonduality is phyag rgya chen po. For more on the significance of the meaning of mudrā as consort within Indian Tantra, see Gray 2012: 421. 3  Specifically, within the context of the completion phase six-branch yoga system of Kālacakra. For more on the six branch yogas, see Arnold 2009: 237–258. For an overview of the tradition and history of the Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra, see Orofino 1994: 11–24, and Wallace 2001. 4  The excerpts from the text presented in this essay are based on the dbu med edition printed in Gangtok (1983), which mistakenly credited a certain A wa dhū ti pa Btsun pa Bsod nams as the author. I also consulted the edited dbu can book edition of this work published by the Jo nang dpe skrun khang (2010). 5  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 17, fol. 8b1: rdo rje theg pa las phyag rgya chen po’i dngos grub ces gsungs pa la |.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_008

186

Kemp

In this context, mahāmudrā is (a) the consort of Kālacakra, Viśvamātā, the “universal mother,” who spontaneously appears before the yogin in the sky at the time of accomplishment of the highest wisdom empowerment (mahāprajñābhiṣeka),6 (b) Prajñāpāramitā, that is, the manifestation of the nonduality of emptiness and appearance of the mind’s luminosity, and (c) the one who engenders the supreme unchanging bliss (paramākṣarasukha). The realization or accomplishment of mahāmudrā is ultimately the direct realization of nonduality.7 Yu mo ba’s text on Mahāmudrā comes from his only surviving textual collection, The Four Cycles of Illuminating Lamps (Gsal sgron skor bzhi).8 This particular text does not detail the yogic process of uniting with the mahāmudrā consort; rather, Yu mo ba’s work focuses on establishing the correct interpretation of Mahāmudrā by addressing what he claims are increasing misunderstandings of the term. He draws from Indian sources to refute wrong views, asserts that the only means to realize Mahāmudrā is through the tantric path, describes Mahāmudrā as the spontaneous appearance of emptiness, and emphasizes that one must renounce worldly life and be guided on the path of cultivation by one who has realized mahāmudrā. Yu mo ba was later credited by Tāranātha as the founder of the tenet system of tantric gzhan stong9 (sngags kyi gzhan stong).10 While Yu mo ba does not explicitly use the term gzhan stong in his surviving works, there are doctrinal parallels, as reflected in his description of the ultimate meaning of Mahāmudrā.

6  For more on the nature of Viśvamātā according to Yu mo ba, see Hatchell 2014: 44–45. 7  See more on synonyms of mahāmudrā according to Yu mo ba in his Stong nyid gsal sgron, translated by Hatchell (2014: 196), and in his ’Od gsal gsal sgron. 8  The four works are each based on a central topic within Kālacakra completion-stage literature, namely: emptiness (stong nyid), unity (zung ’jug), luminosity (’od gsal ba), and Mahāmudrā (phyag rgya chen po). 9  Tantric gzhan stong can be understood as the teachings on ultimate reality as found in the six-yoga completion-phase literature of the Kālacakra tradition (see Sheehy 2007: 295–96 n. 84). 10  Tāranātha, Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho, vol. 2, 8b5: sngags kyi gzhan stong grub mtha’i srol ka phye |. Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737– 1802) considers Yu mo ba to have been the originator of the gzhan stong teachings. Yu mo ba’s understanding of the Kālacakra concept of “reflections of emptiness” thus found its way into Dol po pa’s work (see Stearns 1999: 44, and 200 n. 10). For more on Yu mo ba as the Tibetan source for the tantric gzhan stong lineage, see Sheehy 2007: 85, and Sheehy 2009.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

2

187

Overview of the Phyag chen gsal sgron

In his colophon, Yu mo ba states that the Phyag chen gsal sgron is considered to be a work that “establishes the doctrine of Mahāmudrā.”11 Yu mo ba establishes the doctrine through quoting authoritative literature, primarily from the Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra (the full root tantra, which does not survive in its entirety), the Laghukālacakra Tantra (the abridged Kālacakra Tantra) by Mañjuśrīyaśas, and the famous commentary by Puṇḍarīka, the Vimalaprabhā.12 In order to establish his position as the correct interpretation, he also includes further “canonical”13 sources from Indian Buddhist literature, a common practice for Tibetan Buddhist authors of his time. He quotes tantras such as the Hevajra and Vajrapañjara; tantric commentaries such as the Guhyasiddhi; treatises such as the Ratnagotravibhāga; works by Nāgārjuna such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā, Suhṛllekha, and Pañcakrama; and Saraha’s Dohakoṣagīti. The majority of the Phyag chen gsal sgron is made up of excerpts from these texts, which are also frequently referred to in his other Gsal sgron writings.14 Yu mo ba arranges them in this particular work with the apparent intention to refute certain misconceptions of Mahāmudrā, particularly the notion that it can be achieved without the cultivation of tantric practice. His first assertion is that within the context of the Kālacakra Tantra, there cannot be a direct causal link between the contrived karma- and jñāna-mudrās (physical and visualized consorts) and the uncontrived Mahāmudrā. To this end, Yu mo ba argues against a causal succession of the mudrās: In regards to the Mahāmudrā of definitive meaning, there are a few scholars who maintain that the bliss that arises from the luminous karmamudrā and the jñānamudrā is the dharmamudrā, and imprinting that [bliss] with the seal of emptiness is mahāmudrā. This is not the case.15 11  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 25, fol. 13a5–6: phyag rgya chen po gtan la dbab pa zhes bya ba. 12  For more on the significance of mahāmudrā as a manifestation of emptiness and luminosity in the Kālacakra Tantra and the Vimalaprabhā, see Wallace (2013) and Orofino (1994). 13  I.e., all sources can be found in the various Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur Tibetan collections, which, although formed several centuries after Yu mo ba’s time, still reflect the prominence these texts had in Tibetan Buddhist learning and discourse. 14  See for example the Stong nyid gsal sgron, which has been translated in full by Hatchell (2014: 153–199). 15  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 16, fol. 8b2–4: nges don gyi phyag rgya chen po ni | mkhas pa la la dag | ’od gsal ba’i las kyi phyag rgya dang ye shes kyi phyag rgya las skyes pa’i bde ba de ni

188

Kemp

It is not the case because the karma- and jñāna-mudrās are subject to conceptualization (hence are causal phenomena) while the mahāmudrā consort is not; thus, Yu mo ba believes, there cannot be a direct relationship. He goes on to quote the Guhyasiddhi to support this view: The karmamudrā involves the continuity of saṃsāra, And the jñānamudrā is similar. Having abandoned the manifold conceptualizations, One should practice mahāmudrā.16 The tantric path is what directly removes the defilements or conceptualization, allowing for the mahāmudrā consort to spontaneously manifest on her own (without being causal) and bestow empowerment, which leads to the realization of Mahāmudrā, that is, realizing nonduality, which is her nature as the union of emptiness and appearance. Yu mo ba quotes Nāgārjuna’s Pañcakrama: No being is independent [of a cause], As [they] do not17 arise independently. Their cause is the luminous [nature], The luminous [nature] that is empty of everything.18 His second refutation is against the various claims asserting the definitive meaning of Mahāmudrā that relate to a wrong view of emptiness (that is, as without appearance): There are also some who maintain that “mahāmudrā” is the Svātantrika Mādhyamika elimination of appearances, or the Prāsaṅgika [position of] chos kyi phyag rgya yin la | de la stong pa’i rgya btab pa ni phyag rgya chen po yin no zhes ’dod pa la | de ma yin te |. 16  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 16, fol. 8b4–5: gsang ba grub pa las | las kyi phyag rgya ’khor (in Jo nang dpe tshogs edition: khro) rgyun can || ye shes phyag rgya de bzhin te | rnam rtog mang po spangs byas la | phyag rgya chen po bsgom par bya ||. The Sanskrit (Padmavajra, p. 23, 3.34) reads: karmamudrāṃ śaṭhāṃ krūrāṃ jñānamudrāṃ tathaiva ca | vikalpabahulāṃ tyaktvā mahāmudrāṃ vibhāvayet ||. The first line of the Sanskrit edition differs considerably from the Tibetan: “The karmamudrā is cruel and deceitful….” 17  Tib. yin should be emended to min. The Sanskrit has the emphatic negation naiva. 18  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 20, fol. 10b4–5: de yang ’phags pa klu sgrub kyis | ’gro kun rang dbang med pa ste | rang dbang du ni ’byung ba yin || de’i rgyu ni ’od gsal ba | ’od gsal thams cad stong pa’o ||. The Sanskrit (Nāgārjuna, p. 33, 3.15) reads: asvatantraṃ jagat sarvaṃ svatantraṃ naiva jāyate | hetuḥ prabhāsvaraṃ tasya sarvaśūnyaṃ prabhāsvaram |.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

189

the Collection on Reasoning, or the vacuous emptiness of the Rdzogs chen pa, which comes down to a view of inanimate [emptiness], or the emptiness of annihilation. In that case, these [views] would be more profound than the Mantrayāna, because they would clearly reveal Mahāmudrā. Is that the case? It is not so.19 Clearly, by Yu mo ba’s time there was debate as to the nature of Mahāmudrā, how it could be directly experienced, and whether it is necessarily a tantric term. Yu mo ba intended to clarify what he saw as increasing distortions of the concept by presenting his own understanding according to the Kālacakra tradition, which from his perspective is the highest and most profound teaching of Buddhism. It is important to note that while followers of the Kālacakra tradition in both India and Tibet widely cited Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha literature, they regarded themselves as Mādhyamikas,20 as reflected, for example, in the fact that Yu mo ba relies heavily on the works of Nāgārjuna. Interestingly, he uses quotes from Nāgārjuna and others to assert that the correct understanding of emptiness leads one to the conclusion that cultivating emptiness as a method cannot lead to the fruit, but is simply that which is to be realized directly at the stage of the result.21 Yu mo ba states that “apart from the Vajrayāna, the path of Mahāmudrā is not clearly taught anywhere else.”22 He then goes on to refute claims that the dharmakāya is merely emptiness and that the rūpakāya simply arises through the power of aspirations with no true benefit.23 Here, he uses passages from the Ratnagotravibhāga to argue that the nature of the rūpakāya (the appearance aspect of buddhahood) is to bring about benefit to beings:

19  P hyag chen gsal sgron, p. 17, fol. 9a3–4: yang kha cig ni phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba dbu ma rang rgyud pa’i snang ba sel ba’am | rigs pa’i tshogs thal ’gyur ba’am | rdzogs chen pa’i stong pa phyal yug pa kya [rkyang] pa’i lta ba bem po’am | chad pa’i stong pa ’dod de/ de ltar | sngags kyi theg pa las de dag zab par ’gyur te | phyag rgya chen po gsal bar ston pas so || de ltar yin zhe na | ma yin te |. 20  Wallace 2013: 165. 21  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 18, fol. 9b1: yang stong nyid de goms pas sngon du gyur nyid de ’bras bu yin no zhe na | ma yin te |. 22  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 23, fol. 12a1: rdo rje theg pa las gzhan gang du yang phyag rgya chen po’i lam de gsal bar ma bstan zhes pa |. 23  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 18, fol. 9b2–3: yang stong pa nyid tsam chos sku la | gzugs sku smon lam gyi dbang tsam gyis ’byung ba yin gyis | don la rang don gzhan don phun sum tshogs pa yod pa ma yin no zhe na | de ma yin te |.

190

Kemp

The first body, [the dharmakāya,] includes the powers24 and so forth, the qualities of freedom. The second [body, the rūpakāya,] includes the marks of the great being,25 the qualities of maturation.26 Yu mo ba then goes on to describe what Mahāmudrā is like within the context of empowerment.27 The Mahāmudrā empowerment, which for him is what brings about nondual supreme bliss, will be discussed at length below, in the second part of this paper. He then emphasizes that “after [receiving] Mahāmudrā empowerment (phyag rgya chen po’i dbang), one cannot simply give instructions, but must cultivate Mahāmudrā.”28 He then describes what yogins see when they cultivate Mahāmudrā: The consort as Viśvamātā appears in the sky in front of the yogin, looking just like the “illusory seal” (phyag rgya sgyu ma) as the reflection of the mirror of the mind and radiating stainless light throughout the universe. Her outer and inner forms are inseparable, so she is free of any object; she is mere ­appearance.29 Yu mo ba states, “Also, because one’s own mind is completely free from imputed phenomena, [she] distinctly manifests directly to one’s own mind. Like the reflected image (pratisenā) in the mirror of a virgin and so forth, [she] appears to the yogin in the sky. Many such statements are taught.”30 The mahāmudrā consort is the true manifestation of emptiness and appearance, which is mind’s nature as luminosity (prabhāsvaratā), the unfabricated appearance devoid of impurities (kleśas) or conceptualization. Through tantric means, the luminosity of the mind naturally manifests as Viśvamātā 24  The ten supernormal powers and so forth are in this context associated with the dharmakāya aspect of buddhahood. 25  This is referring to thirty-two marks of a buddha, as a manifestation of the rūpakāya. 26  Ratnagotravibhāga (Takasaki 337; Johnston 91.12–13): visaṃyogaguṇair yuktaṃ vapur ādyaṃ balādibhiḥ | vaipākikair dvitīyaṃ tu mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇaiḥ ||. 27  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 18, fol. 9b6–7: ’o na phyag rgya chen po ji lta bu zhe na | dbang bskur ba’i gdams ngag thun mong ma yin pa la te |. 28  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 19, fol. 10a3: … [phyag rgya chen po’i] dbang bskur nas gdams ngag byin pa tsam gyis chog gam zhe na | sgom dgos te |. 29  Phyag chen gsal sgron, pp. 19–20, fol. 10a7–10b2: sgom pas ci mthong zhe na | phyag rgya sgyu ma’i rjes mthun nam mkha’ la yid kyi me long gi ni gzugs ’dra ba || ’jig rten gsum snang byed cing dri med glog ’dra ’od zer du ma ’phro bar byed | phyi nang lus la dbyer med yul dang bral te mkha’ la gnas shing snang ba tsam |. 30  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 21, fol. 11a4–5: yang rang gi sems kyi yongs su brtags pa’i chos dang bral bas | mngon sum du rang gi sems la so sor snang ba || gzhon nu ma’i me long la sogs pa la pra ti se na ltar rnal ‘byor pa rnams la nam mkha’ la so sor snang ba | zhes bya ba la sogs pa du ma gsungs pa dang |.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

191

(prajñā), who is the direct cause for awakening. To define Mahāmudrā, Yu mo ba quotes the Vimalaprabhā: Beyond the most subtle phenomena, Having the nature of a reflected image (pratisenā), Endowed with all the supreme aspects – I bow to her, Mahāmudrā. The mother who brings about the birth of all buddhas, Who is truly free from creation and destruction, [Her] conduct that of Samantabhadra – I bow to her, Viśvamātā.31 Yu mo ba uses this quote to describe how Mahāmudrā is like a magically appearing reflective image (pratisenā) of mind’s nature,32 and is thus the union of emptiness and appearance, endowed with all the characteristics of buddhahood, and therefore nondual and the direct cause for awakening, “the mother of all buddhas.” Since, just like Samantabhadra, she is not subject to creation and destruction (arising and ceasing, coming and going), she is in essence free from conditioning and impermanence and thus uncaused, not subject to saṃsāra, and primordial. This notion of primordial nonduality is a prevalent theme in Kālacakra literature, as reflected in the notion that Kālacakra himself is an ādibuddha, a primordial buddha.33 Kālacakra is ultimately considered inseparable from his consort, the nonduality of prajñā and upāya; thus, Viśvamātā is ultimately also an ādibuddha. Yu mo ba goes on to quote various sources, including the Guhyasiddhi, the Kālacakra literature, the Suhṛllekha, the Prajñāpāramitāstotra, and the Dohakoṣagīti, to point out

31  P hyag chen gsal sgron, p. 21, fol. 11a2–3: byang chub sems dpa’ ’jig rten mgon pos | phra rab rdul gyi chos nyid ’das | pra ti se na’i rang bzhin can | rnam pa kun gyi mchog dang ldan | phyag rgya chen mo de la ’dud | sangs rgyas kun gyi bskyed mdzad ma | skye dang ’jig pa rnam spangs nyid | kun tu bzang po’i spyod pa ste | sna tshogs yum ni de la ’dud |. The Sanskrit (Puṇḍarīka, p. 2, vv. 15–16) reads: paramāṇudharmatātītām pratisenāsvarūpiṇīm | sarvākāravaropetām mahāmudrāṃ praṇamya tām || jananīm sarvabuddhānām utpādakṣayavarjitām | caryām samantabhadrasya viśvamātām praṇamya tām ||. 32  Orofino (1994: 263) translates pratisenā as “imagine magica,” and refers to the Indian divinatory practice in which magical images (pratisenā) appear in a mirror before a virgin. Thus, in the case of Kālacakra literature the nature of Mahāmudrā is like a magical image of mind’s luminosity, appearing without a direct cause. 33  For more on the meaning of ādibuddha in Kālacakra literature, see Hammer 2009: 203–218.

192

Kemp

that all this is referring to the realization of the nature of one’s own mind as the source of buddhahood. Yu mo ba then outlines the necessary conditions and qualities of the teacher, teachings, and student needed by the yogin to successfully attain realization of Mahāmudrā through tantric means: “Then, as for one’s own condition, it is the experience one attains through practicing with diligence right after receiving the pith instructions.”34 Yu mo ba emphasizes the need for the student/ practitioner to abandon worldly life and practice the teachings diligently in order to succeed. Yu mo ba ends the text by stating his intention in writing the Phyag chen gsal sgron: Through teaching these and other [things], cultivating the [Mahāmudrā] path is revealed. Having understood the meaning of this, yogins, siddhas, and omniscient ones have clearly explained [it] in many ways with the intention to benefit others. Still, those who are inferior in terms of such instructions of the lineage and possess overt pride are guides for disciples who possess faith with wrong understanding, with doubt, and with no realization. Thinking that this can be prevented beforehand, I have established the doctrine of Mahāmudrā.35 3

Examining a Quote from the Sekoddeśa (i.e., the Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra)

While Yu mo ba relies heavily on Indian Buddhist literature to establish the correct view of Mahāmudrā, the excerpts above demonstrate that the translations of authoritative Sanskrit passages quoted by Yu mo ba do not always accord with available Sanskrit editions. There is one quotation from the Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra in Yu mo ba’s text that requires particular mention, as it notably differs from the available Sanskrit and Tibetan translations and reflects Yu mo ba’s emphasis on the mahāmudrā’s agency as the 34  P hyag chen gsal sgron, p. 23, fol. 12a5–6: de nas rang gi rkyen ni man ngag thob ma thag btson ’grus kyis bsgoms pas nyams su myong ste |. 35  Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 25, fol. 13a1–4: zhes pa la sogs pa gsungs pas | lam de bsgom par bstan to || ’di’i don rnal ’byor pa dang grub thob rnams dang thams cad mkhyen pa yis | thugs su chud nas gzhan la phan pa’i dgongs pas du mar gsal bar bshad kyang ni | brgyud pa’i gdams ngag gis dman | mkhas pa’i mngon pa’i nga rgyal dang ldan pa || ma rtogs the tshom log par rtogs pas dad ldan slob ma’i lam khrid pa | mngon bar bzlog pa srid snyam phyag rgya chen po’i gtan la dbab pa ’di ||.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

193

one who bestows unchanging bliss and thus the one who engenders enlightenment. Yu mo ba’s own particular reading of this well-known passage from Kālacakra tantric literature may either be a simple scribal error or Yu mo ba’s own particular rereading of the text in order to further support his argument. In any case, this passage is used to describe Mahāmudrā in terms of the special pith instructions of empowerment, accompanied by passages from the Hevajra Tantra and the Guhyasiddhi,36 and is an important passage for better understanding Yu mo ba’s sense of the definitive meaning of Mahāmudrā. The passage as quoted by Yu mo ba (lines 21a–22b) reads: dang po’i sangs rgyas las phyag rgya che la rjes chags pa rgyu mthun las skyes [text: dang37] bde ba gang gang phyir rgyu mthun nyid du ’gyur phyag rgya chen mos de dbang bskur skyob pa thams cad skyed mdzad ma skyes dgu’i bdag mor de shes bya.38 Translation: It is stated in the Ādibuddha [Kālacakra Tantra]: “Passion for the mahāmudrā

36  The entire section of the text describing how there is Mahāmudrā empowerment is found in Phyag chen gsal sgron: pp. 18–19, fols. 9b6–10a3: ’o na phyag rgya chen po ji lta bu zhe na | dbang bskur ba’i gdams ngag thun mong ma yin pa la te | de yang gsang ba grub pa las | dbang bskur ba ni bzang po mchog || dpal ldan ’dus pa’i rjes ’gro ba | phyag rgya chen po’i dbang bskur nas | lha rdzas me tog rab tu bsgrub || ces gsungs pa dang | dpal kyee rdo rje las | phyag rgya chen po’i dbang bskur ba | ji ltar shes pa’i bde chen no || de yi ’di ni byin rlabs yin | gzhan las dkyil ’khor ’byung ba med || ces pa dang | dang po’i sangs rgyas las … |. (“In that case, what is Mahāmudrā like? As a special pith instruction of empowerment, it is stated in the Guhyasiddhi: ‘As for the empowerment, which is the supreme good, following the Glorious Assembly, after the empowerment of Mahāmudrā, the flower of the divine substance is achieved.’ It is also said in the Hevajra [Tantra]: ‘The empowerment of Mahāmudrā is just like the great bliss of awareness. This is the blessing of that [empowerment]; the maṇḍala does not arise from anything else.’ And it is stated in the Ādibuddha [Kālacakra Tantra]….”) 37  rgyu mthun las dang bde ba gang here is unclear. Therefore, I have relied on the Jo nang dpe skrun khang (2010) dbu chen publication, which has emended this line to read rgyu mthun las skyes bde ba gang. I decided to emend the text here to agree with the 2010 edition because this also follows Rwa Chos rab’s translation (see below). 38  In Phyag chen gsal sgron, p. 19, fol. 10a2–3.

194

Kemp

Is that bliss which arises from the concordant cause [i.e., semblant bliss].39 Therefore, becoming one [who is in a state of] that very concordant cause, One is empowered by the mahāmudrā consort. She is the creator of all the protectors, And is considered Prajāpatī.”40 According to Yu mo ba’s reading, the passion or desire for the mahāmudrā consort is equated with the bliss that is generated as a result of the concordant cause (rgyu mthun, niṣyanda), that is, the semblant experience of bliss, which is a reflective image of the actual bliss that is aroused only through the union with or empowerment by the ultimate consort at the time of the fourth empowerment. That which is the semblance, outflow, or reflection of bliss generated by the practitioner, while still conditioned and contrived, is what leads the ultimate consort to empower the practitioner, engendering the unconditioned, uncontrived, and unchanging direct appearance of the consort, which is the union of appearance (bliss) and emptiness. The empowerment itself, though, is not directly brought about by the semblant bliss or any conditioned phenomenon, but conferred by the mahāmudrā consort herself once the mind is free of imputed or conditioned phenomena. Through empowerment, the yogin becomes Kālacakra, who is usually considered in the context to be the creator of all buddhas, but in Yu mo ba’s reading, this title and the title 39  rgyu mthun = niṣyanda (see Mahāvyutpatti, 373, 2272). This is a common misreading (or rereading) for niḥspanda. See Edgerton 1953: 615, and Böhtlingk and Roth 1875: 1396. Usually it refers to a result, outflow, or “concordant cause” in the sense of manifestation of the semblance of the true thing, like the reflection of a moon on water. (Tantric) Nāgārjuna gives a clear explanation of this tantric concept in his Caturmudrānvaya, where he is addressing the inferiority of the karmamudrā compared to the dharmamudrā (Mathes 2015: 121): “A similar flow (i.e., the same liquid) is an outflow. Just as a reflection of a face cast in a mirror is similar, [but] not the [real] face – it did not exist before, nor does it exist now – one only resembling it – and nevertheless in their delusion people are satisfied with the thought that they have seen their own face [rather than merely a reflection], so too masters of inferior intellect accomplish the wisdom that is based on a prajñā, and are satisfied thinking that they have experienced the [real] co-emergent. Being satisfied [with what they have found] they have not even heard of the dharmamudrā.” 40  While there are many possible renderings for this passage, this is a preliminary translation based on reading the larger context of Yu mo ba’s text along with other renderings as explored below. I would also like to thank David and Nancy Reigle for their insightful comments regarding the complexity of how Yu mo ba may have read or misread the passage, conveyed during the 2017 Tsadra Translation and Transmission conference in Boulder.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

195

of Prajāpati41 are attributed to the mahāmudrā Viśvamātā (as both are in the feminine form). In this context, the direct cause for the maṇḍala of buddhas and deities to manifest is said to be Mahāmudrā. This reading differs from the passage as found in the available Sanskrit edition. Although the Paramādibuddha itself does not survive in full in either Tibetan or Sanskrit, this particular excerpt is found in the Sekoddeśa, which is said to be a section of the tantra.42 There are two early translations of these verses from this text, both likely dating from the eleventh century, which represent the initial lines of transmission of the Kālacakra lineage into Tibet.43 One line of transmission is represented by the Kaśmirī master Somanātha and ’Bro Shes rab and the other by Samantaśrī and Rwa Chos rab (all of whom were active during c. eleventh century). Yu mo ba’s extract appears to follow the less common Rwa Chos rab rendering.44 To illustrate the necessity of a careful comparison of the textual witnesses, in verse 21b ’Bro Shes rab has g.yo med against Rwa Chos rab’s rgyu mthun las. In the Sanskrit, as seen below, we find niḥspandataḥ, which supports ’Bro’s g.yo med, although the latter must be taken as an adverbial modifier (which Rwa correctly rendered in his translation by adding las). G.yo med in the sense of niḥspandhataḥ is also supported by Nāropa’s commentary, and fits better the context of the fourth empowerment, in which bliss is “without vibration” (niḥspandataḥ), i.e., not the momentary bliss of the third empowerment (which depends on vibration). Rwa Chos rab, however, uses rgyu mthun (niṣyanda), which if understood not simply as “concordant cause,” or “outflow” – i.e., exemplifying bliss45 – but as that which results from the exemplifying bliss – namely the ultimate bliss – then Rwa and ’Bro do not differ 41  Prajāpati is the Vedic deity often regarded as the creator of all beings and phenomena. 42  See Orofino 1994: 11 and Sferra 2006. Mathes has also has given a detailed presentation on the variations of the readings of this passage at the 2017 Translation and Transmission Conference in Boulder. 43  See Orofino 1994 for a critical edition of the Tibetan translations set side-by-side. 44  The more common rendering is by ’Bro Shes rab, and the other translation, by Rwa Chos rab, is only found in the two Phug brag recensions of the Bka’ ’gyur. Rwa Chos rab’s translation thus was produced around the time of Yu mo ba, during the initial transmission of Kālacakra into Tibet in the eleventh century. There is only one folio of the original Sanskrit, but a number of verses are quoted in Raviśrījñāna’s Amṛtakānikāṭippanī. Based on that and the Sanskrit text of Nāropa’s Sekoddeśaṭīkā, Raniero Gnoli edited and restored the Indian original of all 174 verses of the Sekoddeśa, and published it as an appendix to Giacomella Orofino’s (1994) critical edition of the two Tibetan translations. 45  Orofino (1994: 39–43) correctly documents the “confusion between niḥspanda and niṣyanda.” We can also surmise in this context that Rwa Chos rab takes rgyu mthun (niṣyanda) in the sense of mi ’dzag and thus in the same way as g.yo med (niḥspanda).

196

Kemp

significantly in their reading of the Sanskrit, and Yu mo ba’s translation can thus be read in the similar vein. Rwa Chos rab’s translation reads: phyag rgya che la rjes chags pas rgyu ’thun46 las skyes bde ba gang gang phyir rgyu ’thun nyid du ’gyur phyag rgya chen mo sde47 dbang bskur skyobs pa thams cad skyed mdzad pa thams cad skyed mdzad mar shes bya.48 Translation: Because there is passion for the mahāmudrā, There is [unchanging] bliss that49 accords [with semblant bliss]. Therefore, becoming one who is [in a state of] that very according, One is empowered by the mahāmudrā consort. He is the creator of all the protectors, [And] she [too] is considered the creator of all [of them]. Note that the first three lines are read differently than in Yu mo ba’s rendering. Here, the passion for the mahāmudrā is clearly in the instrumental, thus differing slightly from Yu mo ba’s rendition, where the passion is the bliss itself rather than the cause for the bliss. However, given the number of misreadings or rereadings found in Yu mo ba’s text, it is possible that the absence of the instrumental is simply a scribal error. Lines 2 and 3 are translated slightly differently in order to accord more closely with ’Bro’s reading of the Sanskrit, as found below. Another significant difference to note is that Rwa Chos rab maintains the masculine for the phrase “creator of all protectors” (skyobs pa thams cad skyed mdzad pa), while giving the feminine for the second phrase “creator of all” (thams cad skyed mdzad ma). A potential interpretation is that both the yogin and the mahāmudrā consort, as Kālacakra and Viśvamātā, as a result of the yogin realizing the unchanging bliss (resulting from the drawing up and transformation of the drop through ceasing vibration), are both considered to be 46  Tib. rgyu ’thun should be taken in the sense of mi ’dzag/g.yo med. 47  If we emend this to read “chen mos de” as recommended by Mathes, then it clearly reads that the empowerment is conferred by the mahāmudrā herself. 48  Orofino 1994: 61. 49  Lit. “in terms of that, which …” i.e., taking las as a too technical translation of the abstract suffix -taḥ.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

197

creators of the universe or maṇḍala of buddhas and deities. This state is ultimately attained through their union. The final lines are read differently by Yu mo ba, who instead refers to the mahāmudrā as both the creator of all protectors and as Prajāpatī.50 Interestingly, the later Bka’ ’gyur editions of the passage accord with the translation transmitted from Somanātha and ’Bro Shes rab.51 Orofino notes that ’Bro Shes rab’s translation followed the Sanskrit literally (word-for-word), while Rwa Chos rab’s translation tended towards elegance and syntactic clarity in Tibetan.52 This may explain why Somanātha’s translation was the preferred rendering for the Bka’ ’gyur editions.53 Hatchell mentions that Yu mo ba tried to study directly with Somanātha, but was unable to do so, and could only study with his direct disciples. Thus, he is considered among the second generation of Kālacakra practitioners in Tibet.54 It is odd, though, that while Yu mo ba followed the Kālacakra lineage of Somanātha, he was clearly basing his reading on Samantaśrī and Rwa Chos rab’s translation. ’Bro Shes rab’s translation reads: phyag rgya chen po rjes chags las skyes pa g.yo med bde ba ni shes rab chen po’i dbang bskur ba gang las g.yo med rtogs pa de skye dgu’i bdag por rnam shes bya skyob pa thams cad skyed mdzad pa.55

50  This is also a generic title for a wife or consort, but can also allude to the Buddha’s stepmother, Mahāprajāpatī. See Edgerton (1953: 358). 51  Since Yu mo ba was active centuries before the formation of the Bka’ ’gyur collections, it is important to keep in mind that his rendering is likely drawn from a significantly earlier edition of the Sekoddeśa passage than what is found in the various Bka’ ’gyur editions. Nonetheless, the texts found in the Bka’ ’gyurs are more or less considered canonical and authoritative translations by Tibetans, and considering the preferred Tibetan translation method of word-for-word equivalency for canonical works, they are generally reliable sources for referencing translations of Sanskrit texts, especially when such texts are unavailable in their source language. These canonical sources help us to track the transmission of popular translations and helps when we need to compare readings of Sanskrit works to see whether there are variations to what Yu mo ba presented. While I did not check all Bka’ ’gyur editions, I checked the Sde dge and Lha sa, which both read the same. 52  See Orofino 1994: 39. 53  While there could still have been another Sanskrit text with niṣyanda instead of niḥspanda, Nāropa’s commentary also supports niḥspanda. 54  See Hatchell 2014: 28. 55  Orofino 1994: 60. This is read exactly the same in various Bka’ ’gyur editions; see for example, Lha sa Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 79, rgyud ka, fol. 20a6–7.

198

Kemp

Translation: From the passion of the mahāmudrā, That which is created is the bliss of nonvibration. Because he who is empowered by the great prajñā Realizes nonvibration, He is considered Prajāpati, The creator of all protectors. As mentioned above, ’Bro Shes rab’s passage describes the bliss that arises as a result of the passion for the mahāmudrā as being nonvibration or nonmovement (g.yo med; niḥspanda), as opposed to the vibration or pulsation occurring in the context of the third empowerment. Here, the experience of nonvibration may refer to nonmovement on outer, inner, and subtle levels: the outer physical nonmovement of the fourth moment, the inner nonpulsation of energy through the drops of the illusory body (sgyu lus), and finally the secret or subtle resultant nonmovement of thoughts that allows the mahāmudrā consort to spontaneously manifest as an empty appearance of mind’s luminous ultimate wisdom.56 In his Sekoddeśaṭīkā, Nāropa explains: “As for mahāmudrā, she is a reflection emerging from space. From passion for her – that is, meditation on her, a meditation that is carried on in its own sphere – arises bliss that lacks vibration. ‘Lacking vibration’ means that vibration extending outside, i.e., emission from the vajra jewel, is stopped.”57 While in Kaśmirī Śaivism spanda is considered the primordial flow of energy, which gives birth to phenomena (the nature of thoughts)58 and in some cases is equivalent to ultimate reality and Śiva himself, within the Kālacakra tradition, spanda only leads to the temporal bliss experienced with the karma- and jñāna-mudrās, and thus is still subject to conceptualization, and 56  See Wallace 2001: 188. 57   Sferra 2006: 106: mahāmudreti gaganodbhavabimbam | tasyāḥ svarasavāhibhāvanā­ khyānurāgāj jātaṃ niḥspandata iti niruddho vajramaṇer bāhyaspandaḥ srāvaḥ |. 58  For more on the significance of spanda within Śaivism, see Hartzell 1997. Hartzell highlights that there was an entire school of thought centering on the notion of spanda (energy/vibration) as ultimate reality itself (Śiva), with its own associated literature known as spanda śāstra (pp. 429–430). He theorizes that this Kālacakra passage in particular is a direct response to the Śaivite interpretation of spanda, essentially asserting that while the bliss derived from spanda is high, it is still related with thoughts and thus inferior to the highest, imperishable bliss, derived from the state of niḥspanda (p. 919). This sentiment is echoed in the final line of the Kālacakra passage, which states that one becomes Prajāpati, the creator of beings, who is related to the notion of spanda as the creator of all phenomena.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

199

inferior. It is only with the experience of niḥspanda that occurs at the time of the Mahāmudrā empowerment that ultimate, imperishable bliss arises.59 In ’Bro Shes rab’s reading, which differs from Yu mo ba’s, the yogin who receives the Mahāmudrā empowerment becomes “Prajāpati, the creator of all protectors,” that is, Kālacakra himself. For ’Bro Shes rab, Viśvamātā – the consort of Kālacakra who appears before the yogin – empowers him to become the creator of everything, Prajāpati, through nonemission. Finally, it is useful to evaluate the Sanskrit reading of the passage in order to clarify what was most likely originally found in the Sekoddeśa text. The Sekoddeśa passage (21a–22a) reads: mahāmudrānurāgād yaj jātaṃ niḥspandataḥ sukham mahāprajñābhṣiktaḥ sa yato niḥspandatām gataḥ (21) prajāpatiḥ sa vijñeyo janakaḥ sarvatāyinām.60 Translation: What has arisen from the passion for the mahāmudrā is the bliss of nonvibration; Since he who has been empowered by the great prajñā realizes the state of nonvibration. (21ab) He is known as Prajāpati, the creator of all the protectors.61 (22a) Here we clearly find niḥspanda (g.yo med) rather than niṣyanda (rgyu mthun).62 While Rwa Chos rab uses rgyu ’thun (or rgyu mthun) instead of g.yo med consistently throughout his entire translation, his understanding of niṣyanda in this context does not differ greatly from the meaning of niḥspanda.63 Following Rwa’s reading, it is thus likely that Yu mo ba’s use of “concordant cause” (rgyu mthun) is also understood in the same sense as “nonvibration” (g.yo med), but

59  See Wallace 2001: 203. 60  Found in Sferra 2006: 106. 61  I also referred to Hartzell’s English translation (1997: 821). He provides the larger context for this passage in terms of the process of the practice with the “great consort” and the subsequent appearing signs. 62  This nonmovement is likely a direct response to the Śaivite emphasis on movement (spanda) as the ultimate source of phenomena. This response is further highlighted by the fact that the yogin, that is, Kālacakra, who has been empowered by the mahāmudrā, is called Prajāpati, the creator of beings according to Śaivite mythology. 63  See note 45.

200

Kemp

this reading is lost without looking at the other text witnesses of the passage and considering their transmission. Here, too, the clear primary subject of this passage is the adept who is empowered and experiences becoming Kālacakra through realizing nonvibration. Alternatively, Yu mo ba potentially reads this passage differently in order to emphasize that the mahāmudrā is the source of enlightenment, as she is the source of realization (of the bliss of nonvibration).64 Being inseparable from the nature of the mind, the nondual pure appearance to the adept of the mahāmudrā leads the yogin to full awakening as Kālacakra, the primordial uncaused state of buddhahood, and thus is the source for the creation of the maṇḍala of buddhas and deities. 4

Concluding Remarks

For Yu mo ba, the mahāmudrā consort is what appears at the time of empowerment as the essence of pure appearance and emptiness. She is not generated through conceptualization, but instead, after the yogin ceases conceptualization through the bliss that arises from passion for the mahāmudrā (mahāmudrā-anurāgāt). At the time of the highest empowerment, the spontaneous (uncaused) appearance of Viśvamātā is revealed in the space before the yogin. Essentially, one does not conceptually fabricate the mahāmudrā consort, but cultivates through tantric practice the semblant bliss and a state of nonconceptualization in which she spontaneously manifests and in which all mental and physical vibration (spanda) has ceased. Cultivating this passion and lack of movement with the guidance of an accomplished teacher is necessary for complete awakening; thus, according to Yu mo ba, the tantric path is necessary. Yu mo ba’s attribution by the Jo nang pa as the founder of their tantric gzhan stong tenet system could potentially be echoed in how, in his understanding, the mahāmudrā lacks any direct causal connection with saṃsāric states and instead spontaneously appears on her own at the time of ­awakening. He denies any possibility of a direct causal connection between the different mudrās, and while Yu mo ba considers himself a Mādhyamika, he denies Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika views of emptiness in the course of explaining the definitive 64  While Yu mo ba likely knew the larger context of the passage of the source text, and it is still possible that Yu mo ba’s feminine renderings of both terms were merely scribal errors, the feminine forms fit with the other excerpts found in the passage of the Phyag chen gsal sgron (see note 36).

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

201

meaning of Mahāmudrā. Furthermore, he refutes the idea that the Rdzogs chen interpretation of emptiness is an accurate reflection of Mahāmudrā, claiming it to be a mere vacuous nothingness. Interestingly, many of the Indian sources Yu mo ba draws from beyond Kālacakra literature are some of the main ­“canonical” sources for the Mar pa Bka’ brgyud tradition of Mahāmudrā, including Saraha’s Dohakoṣagīti, the Ratnagotravibhāga, and the Guhyasiddhi. While it appears that he did not intend to explicitly refute a distinct interpretation of Mahāmudrā as espoused by the early Bka’ brgyud pa, he did not explicitly support their views of Mahāmudrā, which were likely known to him at the time.65 Still, the emphasis on equating the realization of Mahāmudrā with enlightenment is shared by both traditions. Yu mo ba, who seems in the above-mentioned Paramādibuddha passage to read mahāmudrā as Prajāpatī, the creator of all buddhas and deities, emphasizes mahāmudrā as the true source for awakening. For Yu mo ba, the mahāmudrā is also Prajñāpāramitā, ultimate emptiness that is endowed with the qualities of the rūpakāya. While she effectively removes the agency of the yogin to directly cause awakening, ultimately she is the spontaneous manifestation of the yogin’s pure, luminous mind.66 The definitive meaning of Mahāmudrā according to Yu mo ba is she who is completely unstained by kleśas or conceptualization, appearance and emptiness in union, nondual, unborn, unceasing, and uncaused, hence not subject to saṃsāra at all and so, too, the ultimate source of buddhahood. Acknowledgements This essay was originally presented at the fourteenth IATS seminar in Bergen for the panel “Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions” organized by Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger Jackson. I would like to extend my gratitude to Professor Mathes for assistance and advice for this paper, as well as to Roger Jackson for his review and comments.

65  Sgam po pa (1079–1153), who is credited with developing a distinct sūtra-Mahāmudrā doctrine, was active a generation after Yu mo ba, though Yu mo ba was likely a contemporary of other great Bka’ brgyud masters, such as Mi la ras pa (c. 1052–c. 1135 CE), who also taught on Mahāmudrā according to the Bka’ brgyud tradition coming from Saraha, Tilopa, Nāropa, Maitrīpa, and Mar pa. For more on the Mahāmudrā tradition of the Bka’ brgyud pa, see Mathes 2008. 66  See also Yu mo ba’s ’Od gsal gsal sgron for a detailed explanation of luminosity.

202

Kemp

Bibliography

Primary Sources



Secondary Sources

Johnston, E.H., ed. 1950. Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. Indexes by T. Chowdhury. Patna: Bihar Research Society. Orofino, Giacomella. 1994. Sekkodeśa: A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translations. Roma: Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente. Padmavajra. 1987. Guhyasiddhi of Padmavajra. In Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṃgraha. Edited by Samdhong Rinpoche and Vajravallabh Dwivedi, 5–62. (Rare Buddhist Text Series 1.) Sarnath, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Puṇḍarīka. 1987. Vimalaprabhātīkā. Critically edited and annotated with notes by Jagannatha Upadhyaya. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Sakaki, ed. 1916–25. Mahāvyutpatti, 2 vols. Kyoto Imperial University Series 3. Kyoto. Sekoddeśa; Dbang mdor bstan pa (D361). In Sde ge Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 77, rgyud ka, fols. 14a–21a; and Lha sa Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 79, rgyud ka, fols. 19a–28b. Sferra, Francesco. 2006. Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Nāropā. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit. Rome: Istituto Italiano Per L’Africa e L’Oriente. Nāgārjuna. 1994. Pañcakrama. Sanskrit and Tibetan texts critically edited with verse index and facsimile edition of the Sanskrit manuscripts by Katsumi Mimaki and Toru Tomabechi. Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco. Tāranātha. 1982–1987. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho. In Tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum, vol. 2, pp. 11–53. Leh: Jo mo nang khul rtag brtan phun tshogs gling gi par khang. Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje. 1983. ’Od gsal gsal sgron. In Gsal sgron skor bzhi, pp. 27–50. Gangtok: Sherab Gyaltsen and Lama Dawa. BDRC: W24001. Yu mo Mi bskyod rdo rje. 2010. Phyag rgya chen po gsal sgron. In Gsal sgron skor bzhi, pp. 15–25. Gangtok: Sherab Gyaltsen and Lama Dawa, 1983. BDRC: W24001. Also in Yu mo’i gsal sgron rnam bzhi, pp. 71–78. Pe cin: Jo nang dpe skrun khang.

Böhtlingk, Otto von and Rudolf Roth. 1853–1875. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 7 vols. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gray, David B. 2011 [2012]. “Imprints of the ‘Great Seal’ – On the expanding semantic range of the term mudrā in the eighth through eleventh century Indian Buddhist literature.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34.1–2: 421–481. Hammer, Urban. 2009. “The Concept of Ādibuddha in the Kālacakratantra.” In As Long As Space Endures: Essays on the Kālacakra Tantra in Honor of H.H. The Dalai Lama. Edited by Edward Arnold, 203–218. Ithaca: Snow Lion.

Meaning of Mahāmudrā according to the Kālacakra Tradition

203

Hartzell, James. 1997. “A Study of Vedic Precursors, Historical Evolution, Literatures, Cultures, Doctrines, and Practices of the 11th Century Kaśmirī Śaivite and Buddhist Unexcelled Tantric Yogas.” Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University. Hatchell, Christopher. 2014. Naked Seeing: The Great Perfection, the Wheel of Time, and Visionary Buddhism in Renaissance Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatchell, Christopher. 2016. “Materials on the Life of Yumo Mikyo Dorjé: Two Translations and a Discussion of Sources.” Tibetan Himalayan Library. www.thlib .org/encyclopedias/literary/pdf/hatchell-yumo-mikyo-dorje.pdf. Kapstein, Matthew. 2003. “The Indian Literary Identity in Tibet.” In Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Edited by Sheldon Pollock, 747–802. Berkeley: University of California Press. Khedrup Norsang Gyatso. 2004. Ornament of Stainless Light: An Exposition of the Kālacakra Tantra. Translated by Gareth Sparham. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2002. “’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Extensive Commentary on and Study of the Ratna-gotravibhāgavyākhyā.” In Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet. Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (PIATS), Leiden, 2000. Edited by Henk Blezer, Alex McKay, and Charles Ramble, 79–96. (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, vol. 2, bk. 2.) Leiden: Brill. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa’s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Verlag Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sheehy, Michael. 2007. “The Gzhan Stong Chen Mo: A Study Of Emptiness According to the Modern Tibetan Buddhist Jo Nang Scholar ’Dzam Thang Mkhan Po Ngag Dbang Blo Gros Grags Pa (1920–75).” Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Integral Studies. Sheehy, Michael. 2009. “A Lineage History of Vajrayoga and Tantric Zhentong from the Jonang Kālacakra Practice Tradition.” In As Long As Space Endures: Essays on the Kālacakra Tantra in Honor of H.H. The Dalai Lama. Edited by Edward Arnold, 219–236. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Stearns, Cyrus. 1999. The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. (SUNY series in Buddhist Studies.) Albany, NY: SUNY. Wallace, Vesna. 2001. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallace, Vesna. 2013. “Practical Applications of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra and Madhyamaka in the Kālacakra Tantric Tradition.” In A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. Edited by Steven Emmanuel, 164–179. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

Chapter 7

Mahāmudrā as the Key-Point of the Third Dharmacakra according to the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes Martina Draszczyk 1 Introduction The Fourth Zhwa dmar pa, Chos grags ye shes (1453–1524), is to be counted among the most brilliant authors and important representatives of the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud tradition. Along with being a scholar-monk, he also served as a central Tibetan ruler for approximately ten years. One can assume that his administrative responsibilities weighed upon him, reducing the time he could dedicate to his religious and literary activities. Nevertheless, he left behind an impressive collection of works on a great variety of subjects. It is somewhat surprising that despite his influential position during his lifetime, his extensive work1 has only recently received more attention within his own Karma Bka’ brgyud tradition and amongst contemporary scholars.2 Analyzing several points of his Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā3 might thus contribute to highlighting

1  There is no evidence that there existed wooden carved blocks of his Collected Works, the Zhwa dmar bzhi pa spyan snga chos kyi grags pa’i gsung ’bum, which might be the main reason for the general neglect of his writings. It was only in the year 2009 that upon the initiative of the Zhwa dmar pa’s monastery in Central Tibet, Yangs pa can, a complete manuscript version of his writings in thirteen divisions was reprinted in six volumes; it had survived in the Cultural Palace of Minorities in Beijing. These Collected Works cover a variety of topics, such as hymns to buddhas, bodhisattvas and special places; hagiographies of lamas; extensive expositions of philosophical and tantric topics; questions and answers; as well as miscellaneous advice and prayers. 2  To my knowledge, there are only three publications on Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes: Mathes 2009b, about his commentary on the Bodhicittavivaraṇa; Ehrhard 2002, on the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa and his biography of the translator Lo chen Bsod nams rgya mtsho; and Draszczyk 2016a, on his writing regarding the hidden meaning of luminosity. For detailed information about the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa’s life we can look forward to Mojzes’s current dissertation project at Bonn University, Germany: “The Fourth Zhwa-dmar-pa Incarnate: A Comprehensive Study of the Life and Works of Chos-grags ye-shes dpal bzangpo (1453–1524).” 3  Phyag rgya chen po drug bcu pa.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_009

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

205

some of his main ideas, in particular in the context of Dwags po Mahāmudrā and its reception in post-classical Tibetan Buddhism. 2 The Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā: an Overview This short text is found in vol. pa of the original Collected Works, in the “Cycle of Aspirations and Prayers,” and is also contained in vol. 6 (pp. 320–324), i.e., the final volume of the Collected Works of Chos grags ye shes, which was published in Tibet in 2009. In terms of literary style, the work consists of quatrains, though after verse sixteen the subject matter of the quatrains often continues from one to the next. In the first verses (1–5) the author presents his intent and main points. From the standpoint of Dwags po Mahāmudrā, he sets out to clear away mistaken views, to ascertain suchness, and to overcome objections. Accordingly, he first presents and rejects a number of mistaken views that are thought to obstruct the realization of reality (verses 7–13). In the twenty-four verses that follow (14–38), he describes the correct path leading to the ascertainment of suchness. In that regard, verses 14 to 16 provide a description of the spiritual teacher and the student involved in the process of actualizing reality. Verses 17 through 22 describe the four conditions that ripen the student so that she or he will be able to continue successfully on this path. Verses 23 through 34 describe the meditative phases – the generation of śamatha and vipaśyanā – ­culminating in the yogin’s capacity to accommodate whatever arises. Verse 35 describes the post-meditative phase. Verse 36 explains how this meditation can be combined with the tantric practice of inner heat (gtum mo) yoga. Verses 37 and 38 elucidate the final realization of the all-ground (kun gzhi), the fruition of Mahāmudrā meditation. In the following eighteen verses (39–57), the author refutes various objections against the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud exposition and practice of Mahāmudrā. Finally, in verse 58, he sums up the core Mahāmudrā practice of this school, coemergence grounded in the view of the inseparability of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Verses 59 and 60 form the conclusion, where Chos grags ye shes apologizes for any potential mistakes in his composition and dedicates the merit to the awakening of all sentient beings. 3

Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: What It Is

In the first thirteen verses, Chos grags ye shes sets the stage by proclaiming that it is the pith-instructions (man ngag, upadeśa) transmitted in the

206

Draszczyk

Dwags po Bka’ brgyud lineage that illuminate the path to awakening (verse 2). These upadeśas are to be seen against the background of the most supreme Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the sense of Unity (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa’i dbu ma; yuganaddhāpratiṣṭhānamadhyamaka), i.e., the non-abiding (rab tu mi gnas pa) in any extreme of superimposition or deprecation in terms of both phenomena and mind and its nature. In the eyes of Chos grags ye shes, the Yuganaddha-Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka provides the ideal philosophical basis for realizing the Mahāmudrā of nonconceptual direct yogic perception, which is beyond any particular view. The Madhyamaka of Apratiṣṭhāna or Nonabiding, a Madhyamaka tradition closely associated with the Mantrayāna, was followed by Maitrīpa (986–1063)4 and other interpreters of the Indian siddha tradition.5 The related Madhyamaka distinction in Māyopamādvayavāda and Apratiṣṭhānavāda was obviously well-known also among early Buddhist masters in Tibet. Accordingly, Sgam po pa (1079–1153), the Tibetan forefather of Dwags po Mahāmudrā traditions, distinguishes6 the Madhyamaka system into the Illusion-like (sgyu ma lta bu, *māyopama) and the Nonabiding (rab tu mi gnas pa, *apratiṣṭhāna), and the latter again into the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa) and of Nonabiding in the Sense of Cessation (rgyun

4  See Maitrīpa’s Tattvaratnāvalī in Mathes 2015: 59–94, in particular 71–74, where Maitrīpa explains that the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding pertains to the absence of superimposition and thus to the freedom from any denial and/or establishment of anything. 5  See Seyfort Ruegg 1981: 58–59 n. 174; and 2000: 34. The distinction into Māyopamādvayavāda, the tenet of non-duality in the sense that everything is like an illusion, and Apratiṣṭhānavāda, the tenet of non-abiding, is also found in the *Paramārtha­bodhi­citta­bhāvanākrama, ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa or Śūra, as well as in Candraharipāda’s Ratnamālā. Dpal brtsegs (9th cent.) made a similar distinction in his Lta ba’i rim pa’i man ngag. Later in Tibet, it was largely replaced by the division into Svātantrika- and Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka. See also Almogi 2009 and 2010. 6  Mgon go zla ’od gzhon nus mdzad pa’i tshogs chos legs mdzes ma, Gsb vol. 1, 336.1–3: “Madhyamaka comprises the ‘Illusion-like’ (Māyopama) and the ‘Nonabiding’ (Apratiṣṭhāna). From the [latter derive] the scriptural traditions of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa) and Nonabiding in the Sense of Cessation (rgyun chad rab tu mi gnas pa). Secret Mantra has many [subdivisions], such as the New (Gsar ma) and Old (Rnying ma), Outer and Inner, and Father tantras and Mother tantras. To summarize, there are two [paths]: the Path of Accumulation of the Perfections (Pāramitā) and the Path of Methods of Secret Mantra (Guhyamantra).” (dbu ma la sgyu ma lta bu dang rab tu mi gnas pa’o || de las zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa dang | rgyun chad rab tu mi gnas pa’i gzhung dang | gsang sngags la yang gsar ma dang | rnying ma | phyi ma dang nang pa | pha rgyud dang ma rgyud la sogs mang du yod kyang | bsdu na gnyis | pha rol tu phyin pa tshogs kyi lam dang | gsang sngags thabs kyi lam mo ||.)

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

207

chad rab tu mi gnas pa).7 Yet, Sgam po pa explicitly says that he currently does not teach it, because – considering Madhyamaka as the sūtric Path of Perfections – the associated practice takes a long time and its conduct is difficult to apply. He points out that he instead favors the Secret Mantra with its warmth of the teacher’s blessing.8 In regard to Secret Mantra, Sgam po pa con7  In the Dohākoṣahṛdayārthagītiṭīkā (DKHṬ) D 2268, 69b.2–7, Avadhūtipa distinguishes four strands of Apratiṣṭhāna: unity (zung ’jug), emptiness (stong nyid), equanimity (btang snyoms), and cessation (rgyun chad). They are presented as progressive stages of amanasikāra realization leading to the insight that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are likewise illusory manifestations: “In the Highest Yoga, what were termed ‘wisdoms’ in the Middle Yoga are illusion-like: [1] While the indivisibility of mindfulness and mental nonengagement is ‘Apratiṣṭhāna in the Sense of Unity’ (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa), [2] the absence of any mindfulness and mental nonengagement is ‘Apratiṣṭhāna in the Sense of Emptiness’ (stong nyid rab tu mi gnas pa). [3] Nonarising and nonobstruction is ‘Apratiṣṭhāna in the Sense of Equanimity.’ [4] And, since it is not intellectually knowable by anyone and inconceivable, it is ‘Apratiṣṭhāna in the Sense of Cessation’ (rgyun chad rab tu mi gnas pa). Moreover, since these apratiṣṭhāna [strands] are indivisibly united with amanasikāra, it is by virtue of their capacity to reconcile any kind of dualism that the three aspects of saṃsāra and three nirvāṇas [comprising subject, object, and act] are [deemed to be] magical emanations of [dualistic] mind and wisdom.” (rnal ’byor rab na re | rnal ’byor ’bring pos ye shes su ming du btags pa ni sgyu ma lta bu dran pa dang yid la ma byas pa dbyer mi phyed pa zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa tsam yin gyi | gang dran pa med cing yid la bya ba med pa de stong nyid rab tu mi gnas pa dang | skye ba med cing dgag tu med pa de btang snyoms rab tu mi gnas pa | gang gis blos mi rig pa bsam du med pas rgyun chad rab tu mi gnas pa’o || de yang rab tu mi gnas pa de dag yid la mi byed pa dang dbyer mi phyed pas | gang yang gnyis po’i sbyar ba’i nus pa des | ’khor ba rnam pa gsum dang mya ngan las ’das pa gsum ni sems dang ye shes kyi sprul pa’o ||.) See also Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 411. 8  Mgon go zla ’od gzhon nus mdzad pa’i tshogs chos legs mdzes ma, Gsb vol. 1, 336.3–338.1: “Since the first of these [i.e., the Path of Perfections] takes a long time and its conduct is difficult to practice, I do not currently teach it. [As for the Path of Secret Mantra] based on the warmth of the teacher’s blessing, perfect wisdom is recognized. One thus enters the gate of the Path of Methods of Secret Mantra, which makes one realize connate wisdom directly…. When the teacher’s blessing has entered [one], then all the supreme and ordinary accomplishments are realized without difficulty. For example, although a great treasure that eliminates the suffering due to poverty for seven generations is [hidden] in the house of a poor man, as long as the treasure is not revealed, the suffering due to poverty [continues]. The moment, however, it is discovered, [the man] is free from the suffering due to poverty. We are just like the poor man in this example. Although the treasure-like connate mind as such is innately present in the mind-streams of all sentient beings, as long as the teacher’s blessings have not entered [us] – which is like the treasure not being revealed – [we] don’t take it up and we don’t have a method to attain the two types of accomplishment. When the teacher’s blessing permeates [us] – just like opening the treasure – we recognize the connate wisdom and attain the two types of accomplishment without any difficulty.” (de la yang dang po ni dus yun ring du ’gor zhing | spyod pa nyams su blang dka’ bar ’dug pas da res de mi ston | bla ma’i byin rlabs kyi drod la brten nas yang dag pa’i ye shes ngos zin te | lhan cig skye pa’i ye shes mgnon sum du rtogs par byed pa’i gsang sngags thabs kyi lam gyi sgor zhugs nas … bla ma’i byin rlabs zhugs na mchog thun mong gi dngos grub thams cad tshegs med par ’grub ste | dper na mi dbul po’i khyim

208

Draszczyk

siders the full range of the Creation and Completion Stages, with their associated yogic practices, to be important for practitioners of inferior and middling capacities. Students of highest capacities, however, he directly introduced into the realization of mind’s uncontrived essence, which, from his perspective, is Mahāmudrā or the mind as such.9 He thereby offered them a meditative system beyond the delimitation of sūtric and tantric approaches while incorporating their essential elements of calm abiding and deep insight. The explicit synthesis of Dwags po Mahāmudrā and the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity seems to appear in writings of the Tibetan Bka’ brgyud tradition only in the fifteenth century.10 From that time on, it was taken up by leading Bka’ brgyud masters, not only in the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes but also in the writings of his student, the First Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456–1539), the First Sangs rgyas mnyan pa Bkra shis dpal ’byor (1457–1525), and the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507–1554). Obviously, they all relate back to Maitrīpa’s system of m ­ aking a connection between the originally purely tantric term na mi rabs bdun rgyud du dbul ba’i sdug bsngal sel bar byed par byed pa’i gter chen gcig yod yang | gter kha ma phyed kyi bar du dbul ba’i sdug bsngal dang bcas la | kha phyed tsa na dbul ba’i sdug bsngal dang bral lo || dpe de bzhin du mi dbul po dang ’dra ba’i ’o skol sems can thams cad kyi rgyud la | gter dang ’dra ba’i sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa de rang chas su yod kyang | gter kha ma phye pa dang ’dra ba’i bla ma’i byin rlabs ma zhugs na | de mi zin cing dngos grub rnam gnyis ‘grub pa’i thabs med | gter kha phye ba dang ’dra ba’i bla ma’i byin rlabs zhugs na | lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes ngos zin te | dngos grub rnam pa gnyis thob pa la tshegs med de |.) See also Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, Gsb vol. 1, 556.4–557.3. 9  Zhal gyi bdud rtsi thun mongs ma yin pa, Gsb vol. 2, 581.5–582.3: “The [tantric] system of the master Nāgārjuna maintains four mudrās: the karmamudrā, the dharmamudrā, the samayamudrā, and the mahāmudrā. From among those, those of inferior capacities, the passionate, meditate by relying on the karmamudrā. Those of middling capacities, the dispassionate, rely on the creation stages of the samayamudrā and meditate with signs. The dharmamudrā makes [the practitioner] realize thoughts as dharmakāya. In the case of those of highest capacities, mind as such, which is mahāmudrā, is made to be understood as the uncontrived essence. Moreover, having relinquished all thoughts, the wisdom that is free from an apprehended and an apprehender is unconditioned; it is the realization of mind’s essence that is not produced by causes and conditions.” (slob dpon klu sgrub kyi lugs kyis phyag rgya bzhi ’dod | las kyi phyag rgya | chos kyi phyag rgya | dam tshig gi phyag rgya | phyag rgya chen po dang bzhi’o | de la dbang po tha ma chags pa can | las kyis phyag rgya la brten nas bsgoms pa yin | ’bring chags bral dam tshig gi phyag rgya bskyed pa’i rim pa la brten nas mtshan bcas bsgom pa yin | chos kyi phyag rgya rnam rtog chos skur rtogs par byed pa yin | dbang po rab phyag rgya chen po’i sems nyid ma bcos pa’i ngo bor shes par byed pa yin te | de yang rnam par rtogs pa rnams spangs shing | gzung ba dang ’dzin pa rnams dang bral ba’i ye shes | ’dus ma byas pa ste rgyu dang rkyen gyis ma bskyed pa’i sems kyi ngo bo rtogs pa yin no |.) 10  Also, no explicit references to the Yuganaddha-Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka are found in the works of other early Dwags po Mahāmudrā teachers, such as Phag mo gru pa rdo rje rgyal po (1110–1170) or ’Jig rten mgon po rin chen dpal (1143–1217).

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

209

Mahāmudrā and the sūtric Madhyamaka tradition of non-abiding and nonmentation. In his Sekanirdeśa, for example, Maitrīpa says: Not to abide in anything is known as Mahāmudrā.11 A statement by Karma phrin las pa makes it clear that this continued to be an important framework for the practice of Mahāmudrā as assimilated in the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud tradition. He explicitly correlates the YuganaddhaApratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka with Mahāmudrā, stating: The previous masters of the glorious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud taught that because both the Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika [Madhyamaka] propound [only] the lack of intrinsic essences, the Five Dharmas of Maitreya go beyond both of these. The Mahāmudrā scriptures teach the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna) [in the Sense of] Unity (yuganaddha).12 And, Because the Niḥsvabhāvavāda Madhyamaka counteracts the beliefs in real entities of the lower philosophical systems and because it claims that reliance on the continuous process of mindfulness based on prior analysis is meditation, it is somewhat different [from Mahāmudrā].13 Seen in this light, the fourth and fifth verses in the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā become very clear. The Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity provides the background view for actualizing Mahāmudrā, which reveals the keypoint of the third dharmacakra. This can be understood neither by limiting one’s understanding to the various facets of the Yogācāra tenets nor by way of a “middling” Madhyamaka tenet, i.e., one that is devoid of pith-instructions of 11  Sekanirdeśa 29ab, 56.11: sarvasminn apratiṣṭhānaṃ mahāmudreti kīrtyate |. It is also interesting to keep in mind the commentary on this verse by Rāmapāla in his Sekanirdeśapañjikā, which reads: “ ‘In anything’ means in the dependently arisen skandhas, dhātus, āyatanas, and so forth. ‘Not to abide’ means not to reify, not to become mentally engaged (amanasikāra)” (trans. Mathes 2011: 117 and n. 92). 12  Dri lan snang gsal sgron me shes bya ba ra ti dgon pa’i gsims khang ba’i dris lan, KPsb, ca, 155.2–3: dpal ldan dwags po’i bka’ brgyud gong ma rnams || thal rang gnyis ka ngo bo nyid med du || smra phyir rgyal ba byams pa’i chos lnga po || de gnyis las ’das phyag rgya chen po’i gzhung || zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas dbu mar bzhed ||. 13  Dri lan snang gsal sgron me shes bya ba ra ti dgon pa’i gsims khang ba’i dris lan, KPsb, ca, 148.2–3: ngo bo nyid med smra ba’i dbu ma ni || grub mtha’ og ma’i dngos ’dzin bzlog pa’i phyir || rnam par dpyad nas dran pa’i rgyun bsten pa || sgom du bzhed phyir khyad par cung zad yod ||.

210

Draszczyk

a guru, which, as highlighted above, was crucial for Sgam po pa. Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes thus states: Those who take reality in terms of Sākāra and Nirākāra[vāda]14 And thereby [attempt to] untie the reality of the middle, Do not understand the most supreme Madhyamaka of Nonabiding [in the sense of] Unity. ||4|| Mahāmudrā, ornamented with the upadeśa of the spiritual teacher,15 Which shows the key-point of the last wheel [of dharma] Of Pāramitā[naya] in accordance with Mantra[naya]16 – This is what the noble ones of this tradition teach ||5||17 In verse thirty-four, Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes explicitly identifies Maitrīpa and his student Sahajavajra (11th cent.) as the main inspiration behind the practice of mental nonengagement, which in the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud tradition became a synonym for the practice of Mahāmudrā.18 14  The Sākāravāda teaches that sensory perception cognizes an “aspect” of the object and is thus endowed with phenomenal content. Nirākāravāda teaches that consciousness is ultimately “without aspect” (nirākāra). See, for example, McClintock 2014. 15  See also Sahajavajra’s commentary on Maitrīpa’s Tattvādaśaka (TD 2cd): “[Maitrīpa] said ‘Even the middle [path] (i.e., Madhyamaka) that is not adorned with the words of the guru, is only middling,’ because it [only] negates the particular features [of the sākāra and nirākāra doctrines that separate the latter from Madhyamaka], and what remains [becomes] a postulated object. As for the intention behind [presenting reality] here [as] yuganaddha-suchness, which is adorned with the pith-instructions of the right guru, namely Bhagavatī, it has been taught [in order to] captivate the minds of learned ones. This is because all phenomena are the unborn reality” (trans. Mathes 2006: 213). 16  See ’Gos Lo tsā ba 2003: vol. 2a, 847, also Roerich 1988: 725; see also Brunnhölzl 2004: 54. 17  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.7–10: rnam bcas rnam med nyid du yongs gzung nas | dbu ma’i de nyid dgrol bar byed pa dag || rab tu mi gnas zung du ’jug pa yi || dbu ma mchog ni shes par ma gyur to | (4) || bla ma’i man ngag gis brgyan phyag rgya che || sngags dang rjes ’brel pha rol phyin pa yi || ’khor lo phyi ma’i gnad rnams ston pa ni || brgyud pa ’di yi dam pa rnams bzhed do | (5) ||. 18  See for example also Mi bskyod rdo rje in his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad vol. 1, 111.7– 13: “When the wisdom arises – which fathoms that any objectively existing phenomena of the two truths are free from view, meditation, and what is to be realized – the wisdom that maintains this [understanding] liberates all cognitions of the main mind and mental factors, distinctions and mental engagements and so forth, [i.e.,] the dualistic clinging to all movements of cognitions and experiences that are of the manner of self-cognition and cognitions of other [things]. When [that happens], this is referred to as the view and meditation in the sense of the mental nonengagement of Mahāmudrā.” (bden gnyis kyi chos yul du grub pa ’gar yang lta ba dang sgom pa dang rtogs par bya ba dang bral ba khong du chub pa’i ye shes skyes pa na de yun du byed pa’i ye shes nyid kyis [text: kyi] gtso bo sems dang | sems byung ’du shes dang yid la byed pa sogs kyi rnam rig thams cad rang rig pa dang

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

211

From this perspective, Chos grags ye shes is insistent that the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity is superior to other Madhyamaka traditions: This Madhyamaka of Nonabiding [in the Sense of] Unity and The glorious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Coming from the noble Saraha, father and sons, is a method That is superior to the other Madhyamaka traditions. ||49||19 This kind of Madhyamaka-Mahāmudrā is to be understood along the lines of Maitrīpa’s definition of amanasikāra as nondual continuity, which unites emptiness and compassion.20 It pertains to a state of mind where, embedded in the realization that any outer or inner phenomena are insubstantial and unreal, one relinquishes clinging to knowing and objects of knowledge as separate. The wisdom that remains is not an object of thought or expression and it is for this reason, i.e., because there is nothing to analyze, that there is mental nonengagement. As Chos grags ye shes puts it: This, the [ultimate] mind of enlightenment, Which is nondual regarding all sentient beings, Is not an object of thought and expression. Due to that, it is called “mental nonengagement,” Because there is nothing to analyze; [34] [This is] explained by Maitrīpa and Sahajavajra.21

gzhan rig pa’i tshul gyi myong shes rtog rig gi rgyu ba thams cad kyi gzung ’dzin las grol ba na yid la mi byed phyag rgya chen po’i don la lta sgom du bya ba ste |.) 19  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 323.13–15: zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas dbu ma ni || rje btsun sa ra ha pa yab sras nas || dpal ldan dwags po’i bka’ brgyud ’di dag bzhed || de ni dbu ma gzhan las lhag pa’i tshul || (49). 20   See Mathes 2009a: 17–29 on the interpretation of mental nonengagement, i.e., amanasikāra, according to Maitrīpa. Amanasikāra is taken in the sense of an affirming negation, i.e., as correct mental engagement that is a direct experience of emptiness or of nonorigination, as implied by the privative a-, on the basis of having become mentally disengaged from holding on to dualistic appearances and characteristic signs, and thus being free from abiding in any extremes. Maitrīpa reads “nonarising” (anutpāda) into the privative a-, taking amanasikāra as a compound where the middle word was dropped (madhyapadalopī samāsaḥ). Moreover, alluding to the Hevajratantra, he interprets the a as luminosity and thus as the manner in which emptiness is realized directly. Manasikāra thus stands for cultivating nonconceptual wisdom and is equated with the originally tantric term svādhiṣṭhāna or “self-blessing.” All in all, Maitrīpa takes amanasikāra as nondual continuity that unites emptiness and compassion. 21  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 322.13–15: ’gro kun gnyis su med pa’i byang chub sems || de ni bsam dang brjod pa’i yul min pas || dpyad du med phyir yid la mi byed ces |

212

Draszczyk

In the tantric context, Mahāmudrā is associated with the fourth empowerment. Sgam po pa, however, as mentioned earlier, opened a possible pathway to Mahāmudrā that could, in certain cases, circumvent the complex system of tantric practices and their associated rituals. He did so especially for those of his students he considered capable of engaging in this direct approach because of previous familiarization. Although his works do not explicitly indicate the extent to which he himself followed Maitrīpa’s method of linking the tantras with the sūtras, it is clear that he valued the efficacy of pith-instructions on the definitive meaning, devotion, and blessing in the context of śamatha and vipaśyanā, and direct perception in making the goal the path. This is how natural awareness (tha mal gyi shes pa), that is, buddha nature or – in the tantric language of the Indian siddha tradition – *sahajajñāna, i.e., connate wisdom, is taken as the path.22 The Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje quotes Sgam po pa for example as follows: This Mahāmudrā of our Bka’ brgyud [tradition] is, first, that a fortunate disciple brings to culmination devotion to a qualified teacher [in the way that] Nāro stayed close with Tīlo and Mar pa with Nāro and Mila with Mar pa and ’Brom ston with the master Atiśa. This is referred to as making devotion the path. When devotion is made the path in this way, the [ensuing] power makes it possible that the blessing of the teacher enters. [A corresponding] perception arises, and when it has arisen in this way, the samādhis of calm abiding and deep insight arise. This is referred to as making blessing the path. Through the power of blessing having become the path, the mode of abiding of the true nature and the variety (34) || me tri pa dang lhan skyes rdo rjes bshad ||. See also the Tattvadaśaka (D 2236) and Tattvadaśakaṭīkā (D 2254). 22  Sgam po pa distinguished a third path, which incorporates specific Mahāmudrā instructions of direct cognition based in special upadeśas as to the sequence of śamatha and of vipaśyanā for realizing mind’s luminosity: “As to taking inference as [one’s] path, having examined all phenomena by arguments, [such as] being beyond one and many, one says that there is no other [ontological] possibility and posits that everything is empty. [This is the path of] inference. [The practice of] inner channels, energies, and drops, the recitation of mantras, and so forth, based on the stage consisting of the generation of the deity’s body is the path of blessing. As to taking direct perceptions for [one’s] path, the right guru teaches one’s connate mind-essence to be the dharmakāya in terms of luminosity. Having thus been given an accurate pith-instruction of definitive meaning, one takes – with regard to this connate mind (shes pa lhan cig skyes pa) that has been ascertained in oneself – the natural mind as the path, without being separated from any of the three: view, conduct, and meditation.” (Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, Gsb vol. 1, 556.4–557.3; trans. Mathes 2006: 202–203). See also D. Jackson 1994: 26.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

213

of appearances of all phenomena are seen directly. This is making direct perception the path. As for the path, there is nothing more than that to be done.23 Therefore, Mi bskyod rdo rje concludes: The life-force of this dharma should be upheld!24 In this context it might also be interesting to take a look at what Sgam po pa really means when he talks about devotion to a qualified teacher. In this regard, we find for example the following description: The object of prayer, appearing as the teacher, is [one’s own] mind. The one who directs the prayers is also one’s own mind. The praying is [one’s own] mind as well. Therefore, mind prays to mind. When the mind is thereby purified in the nature of the mind as such, the praying is effective and one receives the blessing of the teacher.25 The importance of a qualified teacher’s blessing is also emphasized in the teachings of Saraha,26 one of the most important and influential sources of Mahāmudrā teachings. In his People Dohā, Saraha points out that the teacher’s key-instructions trigger a vision of the genuine nature whereby the teacher’s 23  S ku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad vol. 1, 130.7–16: ’o skal gyi bka’ brgyud ’di’i phyag rgya chen po ’di la slob ma skal ldan gyis bla ma mtshan ldan la dang por mos gus tshad du skyol ba nā ros tee lo bsten pa dang | mar pas nā ro pa bsten pa dang | mi las mar pa bsten pa dang | ’brom gyis jo bo rje bsten pa ltar bsten pa de la mos pa lam byed bya ba yin | de ltar mos pa lam du song ba’i mthus bla ma’i byin brlabs ’jug tu rung ba’i blo skye zhing de ltar skye ba la zhi lhag gi ting nge ’dzin rtsol med du skye ba de byin brlabs lam byed yin | byin brlabs lam du song ba’i mthus chos thams cad kyi ji lta ba dang ji snyed pa’i gnas tshul mgnon sum du mthong ba de la mngon sum lam byed yin | lam gyis kyang de phan du bya ba byed rgyu med ces |. 24  Ibid., 130.17: chos ’di’i srog tu bzung bar bya’o |. 25  Mgon go zla ’od gzhon nus mdzad pa’i tshogs chos legs mdzas, Gsb vol. 1, 344.1–3: gsol ba gdab pa’i yul bla mar snang ba yang sems | gsol ba ’debs pa’i mkhan po yang rang gi sems | gsol ba ’debs pa yang sems | des na sems la sems kyis gsol ba btab pas | sems sems nyid kyi ngang du dag | gsol ba thebs shing bla ma’i byin rlabs zhugs pa yin no ||. 26  There is no certainty about Saraha’s dates. Modern historians place him around the 8th– 9th century CE, an estimate largely based on dating the historical appearance of some of the texts on which he commented. Traditional Tibetan sources place him in a range of several hundred years, anywhere from two generations after the life of the Buddha (as a disciple of the Buddha’s son Rāhula) to the second century (as Nāgārjuna’s guru). See Braitstein 2015.

214

Draszczyk

qualities enter the disciple’s heart without recourse to any mantra or tantra.27 It is probably in view of such explanations that one finds statements in later Tibetan sources that advocate two major strands of Mahāmudrā traditions from India. One of these is the tradition of Saraha and Maitrīpa that in Tibet was named “awareness-emptiness Mahāmudrā” (rig stong phyag chen) or “the tradition of amanasikāra” (yid la mi byed pa, “mental nonengagement”), a tradition that is not purely tantric and puts much emphasis on discerning insight and emptiness. The other is the tradition tracing back to Tilopa (988–1069) and Nāropa called the “bliss-emptiness Mahāmudrā” (bde stong phyag rgya chen po) which, as the name already indicates, emphasizes the aspect of tantric methods. Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol (b. 1608) explains that From among the two aspects of method and insight (thabs shes), Nāropa, together with his guru Tilopa, primarily emphasized the methods [i.e., the tantras]. Thus, they expounded Mahāmudrā as “the connate wisdom of bliss and emptiness” (bde stong lhan skyes kyi ye shes). Also, with respect to meditation practice, they focused on the path of [tantric] methods. [This] tradition was held by Mar pa, Mi la, Ras chung and others. Maitrīpa and his teacher Śavareśvara (ri khrod dbang phyug), together with the latter’s teacher Saraha primarily emphasized insight and emptiness (shes rab stong pa nyid), which is referred to as “Mahāmudrā of awareness and emptiness” (rig stong phyag rgya chen po) or amanasikāra, that is, “mental nonengagement.” This tradition of expounding Mahāmudrā as ultimate wisdom (don gyi ye shes) of merely abiding in [this] uncontrived state that was transmitted from Mar [pa] to Mi [la], was made to flourish by the incomparable Sgam po pa.28 27  Dohākośagīti D 2224, vol. 51, 144.2–3: “The genuine nature cannot be described by words, yet may be seen by means of the instructions of the master.” (gnyug ma’i rang bzhin tshig gis mi brjod kyang || slob dpon man ngag mig gis mthong bar ’gyur ||); and 144.3–4: “When the genuine mind has been purified, the qualities of the spiritual teacher will enter your heart. Having [achieved] realization in this way, [I] Saraha sing this song; [I] have not seen a single mantra or tantra.” (gnyug ma’i yid ni gang tshe sbyangs gyur pa || de tshe bla ma’i yon tan snying la ’jug par ’gyur || ’di ltar rtogs nas mda’ bsnun klu len te || sngags dang rgyud rnams gcig kyang ma mthong ngo ||.) 28  Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam phyag rgya chen po’i gnad don gyi dri ba lan du phul ba skal bzang dga’ byed bdud rtsi’i ’dod ’jo, 84.3–85.2: nā ro pa dang de nyid kyi bla ma til || pa dang bcas pa ni | thabs shes gnyis las thabs gtso bor mdzad de | bde stong lhan skyes kyi ye shes la phyag rgya chen por bzhed cing | nyams len kyang thabs lam la gnad du bsnun par mdzad pa’i phyag srol mar pa mi la ras chung sogs kyis ’dzin pa dang | mai tri pa dang de’i bla ma ri khrod dbang phyug | de’i bla ma sa ra ha dang bcas pas ni shes rab stong pa nyid gtso bor mdzad de | rig stong phyag rgya chen po’am | a ma na si kā ra ste | yid la mi byed pa

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

215

Chos grags ye shes does refer to a preliminary training in the yoga of inner heat (verse 36), which naturally involves the Creation and the Completion Stages of tantric practice. In his words, some noble ones consider this to be a catalyst to the disclosure of self-awareness or to abiding in the uncontrived state of mind itself. However, he clearly does not want to restrict the term Mahāmudrā to this tantric context alone, in particular not to the practice of employing a female consort (karmamudrā). In this regard, he states [Some] may [claim] that without relying on karmamudrās connate Mahāmudrā will not be realized. Yet know that the “bliss from sexual intercourse” is what the unfortunate discuss, while the Buddha (40) never taught that to be the unwavering bliss. The master Indrabhūti has clearly refuted this….29 Commenting on exactly this issue and also referring to Indrabhūti as a source, the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje explains that triggering joy by relying on a karmamudrā is not entirely forbidden. Still, he warns that the blissful sensation associated with sexuality is the all-pervading suffering of conditioned existence (khyab pa ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal) and therefore not the great bliss of nirvāṇa.30 He quotes Indrabhūti as follows: As for the statement of unfortunate people who say “the very bliss that occurs through the two [sexual] organs is precisely that [great bliss, i.e., buddha nature]” – the supreme victor did not say that this is the great bliss.31 ces bya ba ma bcos sor ’dzag kha na’i don gyi ye shes la phyag rgya chen por bzhed pa’i phyag srol mar mi nas brgyud de mnyam med sgam po pas spel bar mdzad la ||. See also Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 362–363 n. 1055. 29  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 322.23–25: las kyi phyag rgya dag la ma brten par || lhan skyes phyag rgya chen po mi rtogs lo || dbang po gnyis sbyor bde ba de nyid ces || skal ngan smra mod de ni sangs rgyas kyis | (40) || nam du’ang ’gyur med bde bar ma gsungs shes || slob dpon indra bhu tis gsal bar bkag ||. 30  Dgongs gcig gi gsung bzhi bcu pa’i ’grel pa, 227.3–5: “It is said that even though something like a karmamudrā that triggers the manifestation of great bliss that exists in one’s mindstream is not entirely forbidden, the sensation of the [sexual] organs that are karmic results are the all-pervading suffering of conditioned existence and therefore not the great bliss of nirvāṇa.” (bde chen rgyud la yod pa mngon du ’dren ched kyi las rgya lta bu gtan bkag pa min kyang rnam smin gyi dbang po’i tshor bde ni khyab pa ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal yin pas myang ’das kyi bde chen ma yin no zhes |.) 31  Dgongs gcig gi gsung bzhi bcu pa’i ’grel pa, 227.4–5: indra bhu ti | dbang po gnyis skyes bde de nyid || de nyid yin zhes skye ngan smra’i || de ni bde ba che yin zhes || rgyal ba mchog gis ma gsungs so || zhes….

216

Draszczyk

It might be interesting to recall that Sgam po pa recommends the practice with a karmamudrā for practitioners of inferior capacity who have desires, and the practice of the Creation and Completion stages involving samayamudrā for middling practitioners who have no desires. Both of these are meant to lead to the realization of thoughts – that is, any adventitious phenomenon – as dharmakāya. For those of highest capacity, however, he re­ commends Mahāmudrā, the direct perception of mind’s true nature, i.e., abiding in the innate, uncontrived state.32 Chos grags ye shes in turn points out: That which is the mudrā of unity, By unifying the whole of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa With the dimension of a single nature, Is well described by the term Mahāmudrā. (58)33 The term Mahāmudrā is thus related to the realization of the inseparability of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, implying a view regarding the true reality of Mahāmudrā like that of Sahajavajra. Let us briefly return to the importance of a teacher for the view and meditation in Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā system, keeping in mind Sgam po pa’s above-quoted description of what this actually pertains to. Chos grags ye shes discusses this twice. It first appears in verses 14–15: As for knowing the view of reality, It is not by mere study of many scriptures, It is not by meditating on upadeśas that lack profound key points, It is also not by rational analysis and scrutiny, (14) But by the arising of latent tendencies from previous lives And by possessing an unwavering devotion to the spiritual friend who Hails from the transmission line of realized spiritual teachers. This way [you come] to realize the genuine view. (15)34

32  See note 9. 33  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 324.4–5: zung du ’jug pa’i phyag rgya gang yin ’di || ’khor dang mya ngan ’das pa ji snyed pa || rang bzhin gcig pa’i ngang du sbyor byed pas || phyag rgya chen po zhes ni rab tu brjod | (58) ||. 34  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 321.3–6: de kho na nyid lta ba shes pa ni || gzhung lugs mang du thos pa tsam gyis min || zab gnad bral ba’i man ngag sgom pas min || rigs pas dpyad dang btsal ba yis kyang min | (14) || skye bo sngon nas bag chags brtas pa dang || rtogs ldan bla ma brgyud pa las ’ongs pa’i || dge ba’i bshes la mos gus ’gyur med ldan || de ’dra des ni yang dag lta ba rtogs | (15) ||.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

217

Chos grags ye shes takes this up again in the context of the various prerequisites for the nonconceptual practice of Mahāmudrā or amanasikāra. First, the causal condition is said to be the ascertainment of the causality of karmic causes and their effects. The predominant condition, however, is a spiritual teacher, who in addition to being endowed with knowing and caring has the capacity to bestow blessing upon the student. Along with this, the object condition must be developed: generating the right view, a view that supersedes the Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda views.35 Moreover, as an inner attitude, the immediate condition is to be cultivated, which is freedom from hope and fear: By virtue of a wise spiritual teacher, a fortunate student Should follow the dharma and subsequently integrate it, Because it is not through faith alone that the instructions are embraced. Moreover, through meditation, the direct path ||16|| Of experiences and realization arises in the mind-stream. Consequently, the elements of the stages of meditation should be made Understood in brief and elucidated to the student, pointing them out as a mere direction. In that regard, there are the preliminaries, the main and the concluding part. ||17|| In the first place, what is known as the causal condition is explained. Just as fruits [arise] without disorder [from their respective] seeds, So think carefully about good and bad karma. Thereafter, the remedies should be fully developed. ||18|| Relying on a spiritual teacher who is endowed with knowing, caring and capacities – A spiritual teacher who is himself endowed with realization, Gives the path to others and is able to bestow blessing – Is maintained to be the predominant condition. ||19|| Non-Buddhists, propounders of permanence and extinction,

35  In the context of Madhyamaka, the distinctions in Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda can only pertain to conventional knowledge and its objects, accepted only insofar as no analysis is applied regarding their actual nature. The basic Madhyamaka premise is that any outer and inner phenomenon is without a self-nature, insubstantial, and unreal. Thus, ultimately there is no ground or foundation to be identified, allowing for the freedom from any superimposition, which brings us to the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding as the view excelling all others. Even though this is not explicitly stated in the verse translated below, it is most likely that the Zhwa dmar pa intended to indicate this. See also McClintock 2014: 329–331.

218

Draszczyk

As well as those who speak of minute particles and the interaction of objects and mind,36 The [propounders] of self-awareness and self-luminosity, Of real and false aspects,37 in particular the systems Of the Madhyamaka [view] with aspects38 and without aspects,39 ||20|| After having understood these, ascertaining a view Excelling these, is the object condition.40 On this basis, the main practice is said to consist in the training in meditation, a direct path of experiences and realization grounded in calm abiding and deep insight and aiming at the realization of coemergence which, as noted earlier, is understood in the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud tradition to be equivalent to nondual wisdom and natural awareness (tha mal gyi shes pa).41 Tantric practices do not appear to be imperative. Thus, Chos grags ye shes states: Moreover, someone who desires to realize coemergence,42 [should understand that] All these phenomena [do not come about from] another creator, 36  Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika tenets. 37  Sātyakāravādins and Ālīkākāravādins within the Yogācāra tenet-system. 38  Sākāravāda Madhyamaka, the Sautrāntika Svātantrika Madhyamaka. 39  Nirākāravāda Madhyamaka. 40  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 321.6–16: mkhas pa’i bla mas skal ldan slob ma ni || chos kyi rjes su ’brang slad sbyar bya ste || dad pa kho nas gdams pa bzung mi bya || de yang sgom pas nyams dang rtogs pa yi | (16) || mngon sum lam ni rgyud la skye ’gyur bas|| sgom rim tshogs rim tshogs bshad mdor byas bsnyad bya zhing || slob ma la bshad phyogs tsam mtshon par bshad || de la’ang sngon du ’gro ba dngos dang rjes | (17) || thog mar rgyu yi rkyen zhes gang gsungs pa || sa bon dag las ma ’chol ’bras bu ltar || dge sdig las ni zhib mor bsam byas nas || gnyen po dag ni kun nas rgyas par bgyi | (18) || dge ba’i bzhes gnyen rang nyid rtogs par ldan || gzhan la lam sbyin byin gyis rlob par nus || mkhyen dang brtse dang nus par ldan pa yi || bla ma bsten pa bdag po’i rkyen du ’dod | (19) || phyi rol rtag dang chad par smra rnams dang || rdul phran nyid dang yul shes thug phrad smra || rang rig rang gsal bden dang rnam pa brdzun || khyad par dbu ma rnam bcas rnam med lugs | (20) || de dag shes nas de las phul byung ba’i || lta ba gtan la ’bebs gang dmigs pa’i rkyen ||. 41  See also Sgam po pa in Gnas lugs gnyis kyi man ngag dang go cha gnyis kyi man ngag, Gsb vol. 3, 493.5–494.1 who quotes Mi la re pa saying: rtogs pa nyams myong dang ldan pa’i bla ma rje btsun gyi zhal nas | sa ha dza’i ye shes ni | da lta tha mal gyi shes pa yod pa ’di nyid yin gsung |. “My noble teacher, who is endowed with experiences and realization, said that *sahajajñāna is precisely that which exists as present natural awareness.” 42  Regarding “coemergence” (lhan skyes; sahaja), Sgam po pa explains that “taking direct perceptions for [one’s] path, the right guru teaches one’s connate mind-essence to be the dharmakāya in terms of luminosity … one takes, with regard to this ‘connate mind’ (shes pa lhan cig skyes pa) that has been ascertained in oneself, the natural mind (gnyug

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

219

[But are] appearances from one’s own mind, which is empty by nature as well. The meaning of this was also asserted by the master Nāgārjuna and others (24) Who were aware of the reality of Madhyamaka.43 First, śamatha is to be trained in (verse 23) to the extent that the corresponding experiences of serenity and stability arise and the actual state of calm abiding is mastered by way of the associated physical and mental pliancy. Settled in śamatha, the adept cultivates vipaśyanā, which may lead to the realization of coemergence. This realization is, according to Chos grags ye shes, the coemergence of emptiness and clarity, which is equated with a buddha’s twofold wisdom, i.e., knowing things as they are and in their complexity.44 One first ascertains that phenomena do not exist apart from the perceiving mind, and then that mind itself is empty (verse 24). This sequence is outlined in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra.45 Finally, one discovers that mind’s emptiness is spontaneity, the unity of luminosity and emptiness, or as Chos grags ye shes describes the nature of the luminosity of Mahāmudrā: ma’i shes pa) as the path.” See above n. 22. Moreover, Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes defines it as the coemergence of emptiness and clarity, as he explains in his Eye-Opener for the Instructions of the Oral Transmission’s Vajra Bridge: “The Dwags po Bka’ brgyud accords with the Madhyamaka of Unity. Therefore, what is referred to as coemergence (sahaja) is the natural state of any phenomenon, it is the coemergence of empti[ness] and clarity. It pertains to the wisdom of buddhahood, which is twofold, [knowing] things as they are and in all their complexity. The first is about the realization that all phenomena are emptiness by nature, the second about the aspect of realization of the affirming emptiness of all phenomena.” Snyan brgyud rdo rje zam pa’i khrid yig skal bzang mig ’byed, in Gdams ngag mdzod, vol. 1, 432.2: dwags po’i bka’ brgyud pa zung ’jug gi dbu ma dang mthun pas | lhan cig skyes pa zhes pa chos gang dang gang gi gshis | stong pa dang gsal ba lhan cig skyes pa yin no || sangs rgyas kyi ye shes la ji lta ba dang | ji snyed pa gnyis | dang po chos thams cad rang bzhin stong nyid rtogs pa la bya | gnyis pa chos thams cad kyi stong nyid ma yin dgag rtogs pa’i cha la zer |. 43  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 321.20–22: de nas lhan cig skyes gang rtogs ’dod pas || chos ’di thams cad byed po gzhan med de || rang gi sems snang de yang rang bzhin stong || zhes bya’i don ’di slob dpon klu sgrub sogs | (24) || dbu ma’i de nyid rig pa dag kyang bzhed ||. 44  See note 42. 45  See Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, MSA, VI.8, 25.18–21: “After [the bodhisattva] has intellectually understood that there is nothing but mind, he also realizes that the mind is nonexistent. Thus, a wise person who realizes the nonexistence of duality (i.e., a perceived and perceiver) abides in the dharmadhātu which is without [duality].” (nāstīti cittāt param etya buddhyā cittasya nāstitvam upaiti tasmāt | dvayasya nāstitvam upetya dhīmān saṃtiṣṭhate ’tadgatidharmadhātau ||.) Regarding this approach in meditation see also Kunsang 2001: 66–67.

220

Draszczyk

The ground of all the illusory appearances of the manifold saṃsāra, is uncontrived, naturally abiding; this, primordially, [26] is the nature of the luminosity of Mahāmudrā.46 Realization of self-aware wisdom is then said to be cultivated by meditation that lets be whatever arises: Perform meditation that settles upon whatever arises. [31] Familiarizing this brings about the realization of self-aware wisdom.47 This succession of vipaśyanā practice was presented frequently, for example by Sgam po pa in his Teaching to the Assembly, Called Excellent Qualities,48 by Rang byung rdo rje in his Mahāmudrā Wishing Prayer (verses 9–13), and in the commentary on the latter by Si tu Chos kyi ’byung gnas (1700–1774).49 In a similar vein, Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813–1899) instructed, in the context of gzhan stong meditation teachings, that the meditator should abide evenly in non-conceptual spontaneous great luminosity (mi rtog par lhun gyis grub pa’i ’od gsal chen po), in the nature of self-aware and luminous wisdom empty of an apprehended and an apprehender. Without any [incorrect] mentation, the meditator is free from holding on to characteristics of proliferations such as existence and non-existence, being and non-being, etc.50 According to Kong sprul, this leads to the realization of the “one taste” of the apprehended and the apprehender, the indistinguishability of mind and appearances, just as waves in water are seen to be nothing but water. This instruction touches the very core of Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: the inseparability of appearances 46  P hyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 321.24–322.1: sna tshogs ’khor ba’i ’khrul snang kun gyi gzhis || ma bcos rang babs gnas ’di thog ma nas | (26) ||’od gsal phyag rgya chen po’i rang bzhin no ||. 47  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 322.8–9: gang shar ’jog sgom bya bar mkhas rnams gsung | (31) || de goms rang rig ye shes rtogs par ’gyur ||. 48  Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, Gsb vol. 1, 505–576. See for example also Sgam po pa in his Snying po’i ngo sprod don dam gter mdzod, trans. Gyatrul Rinpoche 2004: 113–114. 49  See trans. Roberts, 2011: 209–220. 50  Shes bya kun khyab, vol. 3, 157.11–17: “The gzhan stong propounders abide in the nature of nonconceptual spontaneous great luminosity. Thereby they evenly abide in the nature of self-aware, self-luminous wisdom which is empty of both apprehended and apprehender and do so by way of mental nonengagement and without clinging to any characteristics of proliferations such as existence and nonexistent, being and nonbeing.” (gzhan stong pa rnams ni … rnam par mi rtog par lhun gyis grub pa’i ’od gsal chen po’i ngang du gnas pa ste | de’ang gzung ’dzin gnyis kyis stong pa’i ye shes rang rig rang gsal de nyid kyi ngang la mnyam par ’jog cing | de’ang yod med yin min sogs spros pa’i mtshan ma gang du’ang mi ’dzin zhing yid la mi byed pa’i sgo nas so |.)

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

221

and emptiness or of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.51 This process reveals mind’s true nature, the primordially pure dharmakāya that Chos grags ye shes equates with *sugatagarbha. This true nature, spontaneity, which does not fall into any extreme Is one’s own mind, the primordially pure dharmakāya, Unchanging in its continuity as cause, path, and result. (29) This is *sugatagarbha. When its equality free from refuting and establishing is ascertained, Due to there being no chance for the arising of even a fraction of an extreme view, It is the most supreme of the views of the equal flavor of existence and peace. (30)52 Since according to Chos grags ye shes mind’s true nature is natural luminosity, free from obscurations or adventitious stains, no actual change is involved and nothing is truly removed. That nature as such has never been tainted by anything, just as the element of space is never tainted by anything that happens in it. Thus, in his Hidden Meaning of Luminosity he explains: Mind is natural luminosity. This luminosity – like the element of space that is a phenomenon that does not undergo change, such that it expands in some cases and diminishes in others – also does not undergo change that would constitute a flaw.53 It is from this perspective that the first śloka in the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā is to be understood – the term Mahāmudrā signifies the primordial nature of the inseparability of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa:

51  G  zhan stong lta khrid, 745.1–2: “Appearances and the mind are not differentiated from each other just like waves in water are nothing but water.” (sems snang dbye ba med pa chu rlabs chu las gzhan tu med pa ltar | gzung ’dzin ro mnyam du go ba bskyed … |.) 52  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 322.4–7: lhun grub phyogs su ma lhung gnas lugs ’dis || rang sems ye nas rnam dag chos kyi sku || rgyu lam ’bras bur rgyun chags ’gyur ba med [29] || ’di ni bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po ste || dgag sgrub dang bral mnyam nyid ’di nges na || mthar lta cha tsam skye ba’i skabs med pas || srid zhi ro mnyam lta ba’i mchog yin no | (30) ||. 53  ’Od gsal gyi sbas don, 208.13–19: sems ni rang bzhin gyi ’od gsal ba’o | ’od gsal gang yin pa de ni | nam mkha’i khams chos ’ga’ zhig gis ’phel ba dang | ’ga’ zhig gis ’brid pa’i rnam par ’gyur ba med pa bzhin du | ’di yang skyon gyi rnam par ’gyur ba med de |.

222

Draszczyk

To that, where there is nothing to add and that does not diminish, which is the nature of all, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, being free from concepts, appearing as all things, to Mahāmudrā I wholeheartedly prostrate. (1)54 This śloka echoes the famous quote from the Ratnagotravibhāga, Abhisama­ yālaṃkāra, and a number of other Mahāyāna treatises: There is nothing to be removed from it and nothing to be added. The real should be seen as real, and seeing the real, you become liberated.55 It is in this sense – that there is nothing to be removed and nothing to be added – that Chos grags ye shes speaks about the ‘key-point of the last wheel’ (verse 5). By way of establishing all adventitious stains to be empty in and of themselves, mind’s true nature – which is not separate from its qualities – is actualized through yogic direct perception as luminosity free from fabrications. Chos grags ye shes explicitly defines this as an affirming negation. “This nonaffirming negation is totally inappropriate” – I do not raise such categorical objection, Yet [those who] wish to realize the actuality of this, Mahāmudrā, an affirming negation, Should give up [the notion of it] being [a nonaffirming negation]. ||12||56 Accordingly, when discussing the third wheel of dharma in his General Presentation of the Sūtras, Chos grags ye shes elucidates: Thus, the very nature of the unity of arising and nonarising is to be understood as suchness, and not just as “nonarising,” as it is taught in detail 54  P hyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.3–5: gang la snon dang ’bri med par || ’khor dang myang ’das kun rang bzhin || rtog bral dngos po ma lus ’char || phyag rgya che la rab tu ’dud | (1) ||. 55   R GV, I.154: nāpaneyam ataḥ kiṃcid upaneyaṃ na kiṃcana | draṣṭavyaṃ bhūtato bhūtaṃ bhūtadarśī vimucyate ||. Trans. Mathes 2008: 8. See also Abhisamayālaṃkāra V.21 (with a slight variation in b. prakṣeptavyaṃ na kiṃcana) Takasaki 1966: 300 n. 53. 56  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.21–321.1: med dgag ’di ni kun du mi rung zhes || gcig tu bdag ni smod par mi byed kyang || phyag rgya chen po ma yin dgag ’di’i don || rtogs par ’dod pas spang bar bya ba nyid | (12) ||.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

223

in the scriptures that say “associated with nonarising is the arising; this is well-known.” In this way, the “reality of unity” (zung ’jug pa’i de kho na nyid) is not the reality that is found through reasoning, but the reality that is found through direct perception without analysis. Of these two, the latter is viewed as better. That is also the intent of the Uttaratantra.57 The view that the Uttaratantra, i.e., the Ratnagotravibhāga, is a foundational scripture for Dwags po Mahāmudrā can be traced to the origins of the l­ ineage. Sgam po pa himself is reported to have said that it is the basic treatise for Mahāmudrā.58 Looking back at early Dwags po Bka’ brgyud masters of the first and second generation after Sgam po pa, the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje, says The glorious Phag mo gru pa (1110–1170) said “Our dharma carries the meaning of the Uttaratantra,” and ’Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217) as well said “The ascertainment of the [buddha] element in the Uttaratantra is our Mahāmudrā.”59

57  M  do sde spyi’i rnam bzhag pa, 152.16–20: skye ba dang skye ba med pa zung du ‘jug pa de nyid de kho na nyid du rtogs par bya yi | skye ba med tsam ni ma yin te | skye ba med pa’i sbyor ba yis| skye ba ‘di ni rab tu bsgrags | shes pa’i gsung rab las so || zhes sogs rgyas par bshad pa de ltar zung du ‘jug pa’i de kho na nyid ni | rigs pas rnyed pa’i de kho na nyid ma yin kyang | ma dpyad pa’i mngon sum gyis rnyed pa’i de kho na nyid yin la | de gnyis kyi phyi ma mchog tu bzhed de | rgyud bla ma’i dgongs pa yang yin. Note that within Tibetan Buddhism, the Ratnagotravibhāga is usually referred to as Uttaratantra (Rgyud bla ma). 58   For example, in Deb ther sngon po, 632.6–633.4: “Regarding the Uttaratantra, Rje Sgam po pa said: ‘The [important] treatise on these Mahāmudrā-instructions is the Mahāyānottaratantra-śāstra composed by the Bhagavān Maitreya.’ ” (’o skol gyi phyag rgya chen po ’di’i gzhung ni bcom ldan ’das byams pas mdzad pa’i theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos ’di yin zhes gsung shing |.) See also Roerich 1979: 734. Even though this is regularly quoted, the statement cannot be found in the extant Collected Works of Sgam po pa. However, Mi bskyod rdo rje, for example, states in one of his commentaries, the Dgongs gcig ’bras bu’i tshoms (V.1, 213.14): “According to teachings [recorded] by Lord Phag [mo] gru [pa] and ’Jig rten mgon po, [Sgam po pa] said that ‘the scripture of my Mahāmudrā is the Mahāyānottaratantra.’ ” rje phag gru dang ’jig rten mgon po’i gsung gis kho bo’i phyag rgya chen po’i gzhung ’di theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma yin zhes gsungs pa dang. 59  Dgongs gcig gi gsung bzhi bcu pa’i ’grel pa, 234.5–6: dpal phag mo gru pa’i zhal nas nga’i chos ’di rgyud bla ma’i don yin gsung ba dang | ’jig rten mgon po nas kyang | rgyud bla mar khams gtan la phab pa ste nged rang gi phyag rgya chen po yin zhes gsungs so |.

224 4

Draszczyk

Pointing Out Mistaken Views

Among the mistaken views Chos grags ye shes addresses, the first seems to allude to Heshang Mahāyāna60 who was (correctly or incorrectly) accused of rejecting the accumulation of virtue and the overcoming of non-virtue, hence neglecting conventional reality. Chos grags ye shes warns of the intolerable karmic results that can accrue from such an attitude: Some followers of emptiness proclaim: “Since there exists Neither good nor bad, don’t accept or reject,” Thereby holding mistakenly the meaning of the view, A cause for intolerable karmic ripening. (7)61 Another mistaken view concerns the notion that emptiness without the means of the perfections can lead to the realization of the dharmakāya. Thus, according to Chos grags ye shes, development on the path is not possible in the absence of the other pāramitās. Also those who say: “emptiness alone is the most supreme Among the paths to defeat the hosts of kleśas; Thus realizing it without relying on other methods gives rise to the dharmakāya,” Fall short of seeing the true nature as well. (8)62 The third mistake concerns the *Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikas and their statements concerning freedom from any thesis. In this regard, Chos grags ye shes warns of the danger of conceptually grasping freedom from proliferation ­instead of actually being free from proliferations, and thereby disguising the lack of certainty in one’s view.

60  On a brief presentation of the so-called Heshang and his presumed view see for example Bretfeld 2004: 26ff. 61  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.12–14: la las stong pa nyid pas dge dang sdig || gang yang yod pa min phyir blang dor du || mi bya zhes rab sgrog pas lta ba’i don || log par gzung gyur rnam smin mi bzad rgyu | (7) ||. 62  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.14–15: nyon mongs tshogs ’joms lam gyi mchog gyur pa || stong nyid kho nar gsungs pas thabs gzhan la || ltos min de rtogs chos sku ’byung ngo zhes || zer ba dag kyang gnas lugs mthong las nyams | (8) ||.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

225

Also proclaiming such deceitful words as: “[We] don’t maintain any standpoint, are free from all extremes”63 – With regard to the ineffable, this is a deluded path or there is no certainty in [their] own view, Nor through this are [they] able to see the ultimate. (9)64 The fourth mistaken view is the Jo nang view. From the perspective of Chos grags ye shes, it confuses dualistic clinging with *sugatagarbha, thus reifying the absolute and annihilating the relative. More specifically, he criticizes the view that posits ultimate reality, i.e., buddha nature, as permanent and stable and entirely distinct from conventional reality, which is maintained to be fictitious. According to Chos grags ye shes, mind is established as impermanent and thus as emptiness.65 He accuses the Jo nang pas of inadvertently identifying dualistic clinging with nonconceptual emptiness as a state with defining characteristics.66 63  This is a criticism of the debate system of the Prāsaṅgika Mādhyamikas. 64  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.15–17: gang du’ang khas len med pa mtha’ bral zhes || g.yo tshig ltar sgrog ’di yang brjod bral la || ’khrul lam yang na rang lta nges med pas || ’dis kyang don dam mthong bar mi nus so | (9) ||. 65  See also Zhwa dmar pa chos grags ye shes, Byang chub sems ’grel gyi rnam par bshad pa, 97.10–98.3: “Once mind is established as being impermanent, and given that impermanence and emptiness have the same meaning, how could it be inconsistent to call all phenomena, which are only [one’s] mind, emptiness? [This is also] because [Mind Only and emptiness] are the same in terms of not apprehending anything as having an own-being. The illustrious perfect buddhas have taken mind, the intellect, and consciousness to be impermanent in the sense of consisting of moments, and since this is a tenet shared by all of us, they (that is, the mind and so forth) [can] be taken to be impermanent. This being the case, why should the mind then not be taken to be emptiness? Even ‘Perception Only’ is taught to be empty only” (trans. Mathes 2009: 4). (mdor na sangs rgyas rnams kyis ni | sems ni mi rtag nyid bzhed na | de dag sems ni stong nyid du | ci yi phyir na bzhed mi ’gyur | … sems ni mi rtag pa nyid yin par grub na | mi rtag pa dang stong pa nyid don gcig pas || sems tsam gyi chos thams cad stong pa nyid du brjod pa ji ltar ’gal te | thams cad kyang rang bzhin mi dmigs par mtshungs pas so | don mdor bsdu na | yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das rnams kyis ni | sems yid rnam shes rnams ni skad cig ma’i mi rtag pa nyid du bzhed par | bdag cag thams cad kyis ’dod pa ’thun na de dag mi rtag par bzhed pas sems ni stong pa nyid du rgyu ci’i phyir na bzhed par mi ’gyur te| rnam rig tsam de yang stong pa kho nar ston par ’gyur ro |.) 66  See also Zhwa dmar pa chos grags ye shes, Byang chub sems ’grel gyi rnam par bshad pa, 669.5–9: “You followers of Mind Only [take as] an entity what is called ‘perfect [nature]’ [or] ‘self-awareness,’ because you claim [this entity] to be, in view of its existence, the defining characteristic of the ultimate. This is to cling to the extreme of [taking] the non-conceptual [state] to be something possessing mental fabrications. Where a fabricated concept has appeared, how can there be a realization of the ultimate, [that is,] non-conceptual emptiness, when such a non-conceptual [state] is freedom from mental fabrication, [that is,] emptiness.” (trans. Mathes 2009: 9). (sems tsam pa khyed kyis yongs

226

Draszczyk

For some, similar to non-Buddhist propounders of eternalism, The aspect of the ultimate is permanent and enduring, Proclaiming everything else as fictitious. Confusing dualistic clinging as *sugatagarbha is but a source of laughter. (10)67 The fifth mistaken view is a conceptual limitation born of intellectual assumptions and analytical meditation according to which emptiness, the lack of an own-being, remains just an object of inferential knowledge. With this approach, being limited to a nonaffirming negation, one will remain in the circle of merely remembering concepts all over again instead of cultivating the path of direct perception of mind’s luminous nature free from elaborations. Tediously, intellectual assumptions are strung together, Ascertaining the meaning of essencelessness which is free from one and many. Thus, lingering on the memory of essencelessness is taught; This does not lead beyond a nonaffirming negation, either. (11)68 The sixth mistaken view again calls attention to the questionable role of nonaffirming negation. Mahāmudrā is not accessible to such negation but only to the non-conceptual direct perception of mind. The fact remains that a nonaffirming negation that takes emptiness as an object is nothing but a conceptual construct about emptiness. “This nonaffirming negation is totally inappropriate” – I do not raise such categorical objection, Yet [those who] wish to realize the actuality of this, Mahāmudrā, an affirming negation, Should give up [the notion of it] being [a nonaffirming negation]. (12)69 grub dang so so rang gi rig pa zhes brjod pa de nyid dngos po zhes bya ste | yod pas don dam pa’i mtshan nyid du ’dod pas so || de ni rnam par mi rtog pa spros pa dang bcas pa’i mthar ’dzin pa yin la | de ’dra’i rnam rtog med pa spros bral stong pa nyid yin pa’i tshe | gang du spros pa’i rnam rtog snang bar gyur pa der ni don dam pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i stong nyid rtogs pa ga la yod |.) 67  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.17–19: phyi rol rtag par smra ba la la ltar || don dam cha gang rtag dang brtan pa ste || cig shos brdzun par smra ba’i gnyis ’dzin du || bde gshegs snying por ’khrul pa bzhad gad gnas | (10) ||. 68  Phyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 320.19–20: yid dpyod phreng bar sprel ba’i ngal ba yis || gcig dang du ma bral ba’i bdag med don || gtan la phab nas bden med dran rgyun bstan || ’di yang med dgag nyid las ma ’das so | (11) ||. 69  See note 56.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

5

227

Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: What It Is Not

Chos grags ye shes also discusses the well-known issues concerning “present day Mahāmudrā” brought up by Sa skya Paṇḍita in his Distinguishing the Three Vows.70 I have discussed this topic in a recent essay.71 For the present purposes, the relevant stanzas in Chos grags ye shes’ analysis (42–54) read as follows: Some say that present day Mahāmudrā And Heshang’s claim are known to be similar in meaning.72 Friends, [as for] Heshang’s assertion that “Any kind of thinking, good or bad, is to be negated” – (42) Do you [really think] that present day Mahāmudrā Is equivalent to that in its views? Hey, did you seriously give thought to the opponent’s claim? If one negates the not-conceptualizing-anything (43) [Described] in the Madhyamakopadeśa of Atiśa73 and the songs of mahāsiddhas such as Saraha [it is stated]: “not conceptualizing anything, not grasping at anything Is the relinquishment of attention and all mental engagement” – (44) [So] how is it possible for you to repudiate these? [Some] may [claim] that [the Mahāmudrā teaching] “know that appearances are mind” [is just] Cittamātra and that [Mind-only] is not asserted from the Madhyamaka onwards. Yet, are you proclaiming loudly that the king of tantras, The sūtras that teach the Madhyamaka, (45) And Nāgārjuna’s teachings, such as the Cittavajrastava, Teach the mind-only [view]? What other scriptural authorities and arguments are there? (46) 70  In terms of Dwags po Mahāmudrā-related issues, criticism is mainly found in Sdom gsum rab dbye III.124, 160–167, 171–181, 211–212, 347–349, 396, 445–447, 497, 506. See also the English rendering of the verses in Rhoton 2002. 71  Draszczyk 2016b. 72  Sdom gsum rab dbye III.175: “… changed the name of his [i.e., the Chinese master’s tradition] secretly to Great Seal (mahāmudrā). The present-day Great Seal is virtually [the same as] the Chinese religious system.” (Trans. Rhoton 2002, 119.) (… de yi ming ’dogs gsang nas ni || phyag rgya chen por ming bsgyur nas || da lta’i phyag rgya chen po ni || phal cher rgya nag chos lugs yin ||). See Rhoton 2002: 304 (Tib.). 73  Madhyamakopadeśa D 3929: “… the mind doesn’t conceptualize anything and doesn’t cling to anything; all attention and mental engagement have been left behind.” (… shes pa cir yang mi rtog cir yang mi ‘dzin | dran pa dang yid la byed pa thams cad spangs te….) See also Brunnhölzl 2004: 56.

228

Draszczyk

Some proclaim, “Regardless how well one meditates on this, It is nothing more than Madhyamaka meditation.”74 [In this case], it is reasonable to analyze what you mean When you speak about “Madhyamaka meditation”: (47) As for the two – emptiness analyzed through inferential reasoning And the direct view of natural luminosity – Through meditating [i.e., the latter], the experiences75 will be seen infallibly. In particular, wise men with integrity also say that (48) This Madhyamaka of Nonabiding [in the Sense of] Unity, The glorious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Coming from the noble Saraha, father and sons, Is a method that is superior to other Madhyamaka traditions. (49) You too appear to respectfully endorse The teachings of Maitrīpa and the tradition of Nāropa. [So] also regarding the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of the sequence of the four mudrās,76 It would be reasonable [for you to first] think properly and then speak.77 (50) 74  S dom gsum rab dbye III.162: “Even if that meditation is excellent, it is no more than a Madhyamaka meditation. The latter meditation, while very good it itself, is nevertheless extremely difficult to accomplish” (trans. Rhoton 2002: 117). (gal te de ni bsgom legs kyang || dbu ma’i bsgom las lhag pa med || dbu ma’i bsgom de bzang mod kyi || ’on kyang ’grub pa shin tu dka’ ||.) See Rhoton 2002: 303 (Tib.). 75  Thus, the difference between these two Madhyamaka approaches will be validated by direct perception. 76  Sdom gsum rab dbye III.176–177: “The Great Seal that Nāro and Maitrīpa espoused is held to consist precisely of the seals of Action, Dharma, and Pledge, and of the Great Seal as expounded in tantras of the Mantra system” (trans. Rhoton 2002: 119). (na ro dang ni me tri ba’i || phyag rgya chen po gang yin pa (176) de ni las dang chos dang ni || dam tshig dang ni phyag rgya che|| gsang sngags rgyud nas ji skad du || gsungs pa de nyid khong bzhed do ||). See Rhoton 2002: 304 (Tib.). 77  Even though, the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa does not specify what he means exactly, one can assume that he refers to the requirement of proper mental nonengagement as the innermost core of the practice of Dwags po Mahāmudrā when also applying tantric methods through the various steps of the mudrās. In this regard, the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje states in his Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta 12.2–3: “It is instructed that even if great experiences of the tantric wisdom of the inseparability of bliss and emptiness has arisen, still, as a remedy to clear out the hidden and destructive tendencies of elaborations

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

229

“The [non-tantric] great seal meditation of the ignorant, it is taught, Mostly becomes a cause of animal birth or leads to rebirth In the formless realm, or to falling into the Śrāvakas’ cessation.”78 This pointless display of words (51) Is not suitable for those of great learning. This talk of a single cause for the absorption of cessation – Which is difficult to accomplish even for Śrāvaka Arhats – The four dhyānas, and rebirth in the animal [realm]: (52) Not only does it contravene Great scriptural traditions and the noble ones’ teachings But it only debases oneself. Thus, although there are many sources of perplexities, (53) It is not possible to fool anyone in the ranks of the intelligent. Yet, just as [in the story of] the rabbit and the splash,79 this very view and meditation [of mental nonengagement] are praised as highly required. This is because through this, just as [through] the self-sufficient white medicine, all obscurations are totally dispelled.” (gsang sngags kyi bde stong dbyer med kyi ye shes sogs kyi nyams myong chos bzang bzang po skyes pa la’ang da dung spros pa’i bag nyal dang gnas ngan len yod pa sel byed kyi gnyen por lta sgom ’di nyid cher dgos par bsngags te | ’di dper na sman dkar po chig thub dang ’dra bar sgrib pa thams cad rmeg nas bsal bar byed pa’i phyir | zhes gdams pa yin no ||.) 78  Sdom gsum rab dbye III.161: “The Great Seal meditation of the ignorant, it is taught, usually becomes a cause of animal birth. If not that, then they are born in the realm lacking even fine matter (arūpadhātu), or else they fall into the Disciples’ cessation” (trans. Rhoton 2002: 117). (blun po phyag rgya che bsgom pa || phal cher dud ’gro’i rgyu ru gsungs || min na gzugs med khams su skye || yang na nyan thos ’gog par ltung ||.) See Rhoton 2002: 303 (Tib.). 79  “The rabbit and the splash” refers to the following story. A rabbit once slept next to a pond. When a fruit from a nearby tree fell into the pond, the splashing water awoke the rabbit and terrified him. Things seemed to him to be crashing all around. He jumped up and started to run. When he passed by a fox, the fox asked him why he was running away, so the rabbit told him he should run too, as things were crashing all around. The fox started running. They passed by other animals, such as a monkey, a wild pig, a buffalo, an elephant, etc., and all of them starting running, too. Finally, an old lion saw them. Hearing that things were crashing all around, he asked where the noise had come from. The other animals did not have an answer; only the rabbit said that he had heard or seen it. The lion then suggested that they investigate the matter, whereupon the animals returned to the pond. The moment they reached the pond, another fruit fell into the water, making the same splashing noise and the lion advised the other animals to not be afraid and to first investigate what was going on. See for example Smon lam tshig mdzod chen mo, entry on ri bong cal.

230

Draszczyk

When an unfortunate person bereft of understanding has embarked on a deviant path, If the compassion of the Victorious One cannot do anything (54) Then what [good] can my many words do?80 6 Conclusion The Dwags po Mahāmudrā presented by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes in his Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā epitomizes the third and final wheel of the Buddha’s teachings. In this text, the author explicates the Madhyamaka of Nonabiding in the Sense of Unity as the philosophical underpinning of Dwags po Mahāmudrā. However, he emphasizes that Mahāmudrā is not reducible to the ordinary Madhyamaka view, which remains confined to deductively formulated concepts, and lacks the power to eradicate a person’s deeply rooted tendencies toward delusion. 80  P hyag chen drug bcu pa, CYsb vol. 6, 323.1–24: kha cig da lta’i phyag rgya chen po dang || hwa shang ’dod pa don la mtshungs shes zer || grogs dang khyod ni hwa shang ’dod pa gang || dge sdig gang du’ang bsam pa ’gog pa ’di | (42) || yin zes smra mod da lta’i phyag chen pas || de dang mtshungs pa’i khas blangs gang yin pa’i || phyogs snga’i ’dod pa thugs la byon nam kwa’i || gal te cir yang mi rtog pa ’gog na | (43) || cir yang mi rtog cir yang mi ’dzin par || dran dang yid byed thams cad spong ngo zhes || a ti sha yi dbu ma’i man ngag dang || sa ra ha sogs grub chen rnams kyi glu | (44) || khyed cag rnams kyis dgag par ga la nus || snang ba sems shes smra ba sems tsam ste || de skad dbu ma yan chad mi ’dod lo || rgyud rgyal dbu ma ston pa’i mdo sde dang | (45) || sems kyi rdo rje’i bstod pa la sogs par || klu sgrub kyis bshad sems tsam smras so zhes || khyed cag skad gsang mthon pos sgrogs byed dam || gzhan du lung dang rig pa ci zhig yod | (46) || la las ’di ni ji ltar sgom legs kyang || dbu ma’i sgoms las lhag pa med ces sgrog || khyed kyis dbu ma’i sgom zhes gsungs pa yi || dgongs don de ni gang yin dpyad par rigs | (47) || rjes dpag rigs pas dpyad pa’i stong nyid dang || rang bzhin ’od gsal mngon sum lta ba gnyis || bsgoms pas nyams su myong rnams tshad mas mthong || khyad par gzu bo’i mkhas pa dag kyang gsung | (48) || zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas dbu ma ni || rje btsun sa ra ha pa yab sras nas || dpal ldan dwags po’i bka’ brgyud ’di dag bzhed || de ni dbu ma gzhan las lhag pa’i tshul | (49) || mai trī pas bshad de dang nā ro pa’i || gzhung ’di khyed kyang gus pas len par snang || phyag rgya bzhi po’i go rims mthun mi mthun || de yang rnal du mdzod la bshad par rigs | (50) || blun po’i phyag rgya che bsgom phal cher ni || dud ’gro’i rgyur gsungs yang na gzugs med skye || yang na nyan thos ’gog par lhung zhes pa’i || gyi na ’di ltar rab tu bkod pa ni | (51) || mkhas pa chen po dag la mi ’os so || nyan thos dgra bcom pas kyang sgrub dka’ ba’i || ’gog pa’i snyom ’jug bsam gtan bzhi po dag || dud ’gror skye dang rgyu gcig gtam ’di ni | (52) || gzhung lugs che dang ’phags pa dag gi gsung || de dag rnams la rgol bar ma zad kyi || rang nyid la yang co ’dri byed par zad || de bas ’di mtshungs dogs gnas mang mod kyang | (53) || blo ldan tshogs ni sus kyang bslu mi nus || ri bong cal ltar rtog dang bral ba yi || skye bo skal ngan lam gol zhugs gyur na || rgyal ba’i thugs rjes de la bgyir med na | (54) || bdag gi smra ba mang pos ci byar yod ||.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

231

When he touches on the self-empty and other-empty disputes, which had divided Tibetan philosophers into the two camps – of those teaching emptiness from an apophatic, negating perspective and those teaching it from a cataphatic, affirming perspective – Chos grags ye shes is equally critical of the Dge lugs pas’ rang stong position as well as the Jo nang pas’ gzhan stong position, though without naming his opponents. Interestingly, he states that he does not consider nonaffirming emptiness as “totally inappropriate,” but does specify that Mahāmudrā is best understood in the sense of an affirming negation. Grounded in a view that transcends imputing existence or nonexistence to phenomena, the student is able to delve into the profound meaning of mind’s true nature by means of the pith-instructions of a spiritual teacher. For Chos grags ye shes, this process builds on the understanding that there is nothing to abide in and no ground that would establish any outer or inner phenomenon – an insight that allows one to refrain from any superimposition. The meditation-based direct experience of emptiness or nonorigination reveals the dharmakāya’s luminosity, i.e., the coemergence of emptiness and clarity. This, he defines as the wisdom of buddhahood that knows things as they are and in all their complexity. For Chos grags ye shes, it is but the natural mind (gnyug ma’i shes pa) or natural awareness (tha mal gyi shes pa), a terminology integral to writings of the Dwags po Mahāmudrā tradition. With respect to meditation methods, the view of Chos grags ye shes regarding Dwags po Mahāmudrā is that it does not privilege tantric over sūtric methods. In this regard, he rejects a variety of criticisms against Dwags po Mahāmudrā, several of which can be traced to Sa skya Paṇḍita. Chos grags ye shes addresses the tantric practices that Sgam po pa recommended for practitioners of inferior and middling capacities, but gives primacy to the essential practices of calm abiding and deep insight. In either case, the upadeśa-based guidance of an authentic teacher is regarded as indispensable. Chos grags ye shes distills the essence of this teaching and practice-system by drawing attention to the primordially pure dharmakāya, which remains unchanging throughout the phases of ground, path, and fruition. It is buddha nature, “the equal flavor of existence and peace,” an equality that is “free from refuting and establishing.” In this context, the author does not delve into controversies over buddha nature and its qualities. He does, however, maintain that this Mahāmudrā tradition “teaches the key point of the last wheel [of dharma]” and tacitly endorses the view that buddha nature is inseparable from enlightened qualities. Although Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes has attracted little attention in contemporary Tibetan studies, even within his own school, his Collected Works reveal a thinker of notable originality and erudition. It my hope, therefore,

232

Draszczyk

that this essay will inspire a more systematic study of his voluminous Collected Works and his writings on Mahāmudrā in particular. Acknowledgements This research was made possible due to the generous funding by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) of the project entitled “Buddha Nature Reconsidered” (FWF Project number P28003–G24) supervised by Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and hosted by the Department of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. I am very indebted to the Fourteenth Zhwa dmar pa Mi pham chos kyi blo gros (1951–2014) who generously welcomed all my questions when I first translated the Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā in the year 2013. Also, I gratefully acknowledge improvements to my English by David Higgins and Roger Jackson. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Byang chub sems ’grel gyi rnam par bshad pa. Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). In CYsb vol. 4, 651–688. CYsb: Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). Thams cad mkhyen pa zhwa dmar bzhi pa spyan snga chos kyi grags pa’i gsung ’bum bzhugs so. 6 vols. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009. D: Derge edition of Bstan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Taipei Edition. Taipei, Taiwan: SMC Publishing, 1992. Dgongs gcig gi gsung bzhi bcu pa’i ’grel pa. bskyod rdo rje (the Eighth Karma pa). In Bri khung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod las | karma [pa] mi bskyod rdo rje’i dgongs gcig ’grel chen pod ja pa. In ’Brig gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo, vol. 83, 3–294. Lhasa: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ‘jug khang, 2004. Dri lan snang gsal sgron me shes bya ba ra ti dgon pa’i gsims khang ba’i dris lan. Karma phrin las pa. In KPsb vol. ca, 145–161. Dohākośagīti. Saraha, D 2224, vol. 51, 140–153. Dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhu lan. Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen. In Gsb vol. 2, 103–288. Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje. Full title: Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung dwags brgyud drub pa’i shing rta. Reprod. From a dPal spungs edition of Zhwa dmar Chos kyi blo gros. Sikkim: Rumtek Monastery, 1974.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

233

Gnas lugs gnyis kyi man ngag dang go cha gnyis kyi man ngag. Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen. In Gsb vol. 3, 403–502. Gsb: Sgam po pa. Dwags po’i bka’ ’bum. Khams gsum chos kyi rgyal po mnyam med sgam po pa ’gro mgon bsod nams rin chen mchog gi gsung ’bum yid bzhin nor bu. 4 vols. Kathmandu: Khenpo S. Tenzin and Lama T. Namgyal, 2000. Gzhan stong lta khrid. Kong sprul Yon tan rgya mtsho. Full title: Gzhan stong dbu ma chen po’i lta khri rdo rje zla ba dri ma med pa’i od zer. In ’Jam mgon Kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas kyi gsung ’bum rgya chen bka’ mdzod. The expanded edition of the writings of ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (13 vols.). Vol. 5 (ca): 735–765. Reproduced from the dPal spungs xylographs from Eastern Tibet. Delhi: Shechen Publication, 2002. KPsb: Karma phrin las pa Phyogs las rnam rgyal (the First Karma phrin las pa). Chos rjes karma phrin las pa’i gsung ’bum las rdo rje mgur kyi ’phreng ba rnams. In: The Songs of Esoteric Practice (Mgur) and Replies to Doctrinal Questions (Dris-lan) of Karma-’phrin-las-pa. (Reproduced from Prints of the 1539 Rin-chen-ri-bo Blocks.) New Delhi: Ngawang Topgay, 1975. Madhyamakopadeśa. Atiśa. D 3929, vol. 212, 190–191. Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag. Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). Full title: Mdo sde spyi’i rnam par bzhag pa gsung rab rin po che mchog tu gsal bar byed pa’i snang ba. In CYsb vol. 3, 113–373. Mgon go zla ’od gzhon nus mdzad pa’i tshogs chos legs mdzes ma. In Gsb vol. 1, 333–504. MKsb: Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (the Eighth Karma pa). Dpal rgyal ba karma pa sku ’phreng brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum. 26 vols. Edited by Karma Bde legs. Lhasa: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ‘jug khang, 2004. MSA: Maitreya (ascribed). Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. Edited by S. Bagchi. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 13. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute, 1970. Msb: Mar pa chos kyi blo gros. Gsung ’bum Chos kyi blo gros. In Lho brag mar pa lo tswa’i gsung ’bum. 7 vols. tswa’i gsung ’bum. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skun khang, 2011. ’Od gsal gyi sbas don Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). Full title: ’Od gsal gyi sbas don mtha’ dag gsal bar byed pa rgyud sde’i snying po kun las btus pa. In CYsb vol. 6, 205–233. P: Peking edition of Bstan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Peking Edition. Tokyo/Kyoto: Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute, 1957. Phyag rgya chen po drug bcu pa. Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). In CYsb vol. 6, 320–324. RGV: Maitreya (ascribed). Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. [Includes the Ratnagotravibhāga-vyākhyā]. Edited by Edward H. Johnston. Patna: Bihar Research Society, 1950.

234

Draszczyk

Sdom gsum rab dbye. Sa skya Paṇ ḍi ta. Sdom gsum rab dbye. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions Among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems. Translated by Jared Douglas Rhoton. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Sekanirdeśa Maitrīpa. D 2252, rgyud, wi 141b2–143a5. Sekanirdeśapañjikā. Rāmapāla. D 2253, rgyud, wi 143a5–160b7. Shes bya kun khyab. Kong sprul Yon tan rgya mtsho. Full title: Theg pa’i sgo kun las bdus pa gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod bslab pa gsum leg par ston pa’i bstan bcos shes bya kun khyab. 3 vols. Beijing: Mi rigs spe skrun khang, 1982. Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad. Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (the Eighth Karma pa). Full title: Sku gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e wam phyag rgya. 3 vols. Varanasi: Vajra Vidya Institute Library, 2013. [Also in MKsb, vols. 21–22.] Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam phyag rgya chen po’i gnad don gyi dri ba lan du phul ba skal bzang dga’ byed bdud rtsi’i ’dod ’jo. In Rtsib ri spar ma. Edited by Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol. Dkar rnying gi skyes chen du ma’i phyag rdzogs kyi gdams ngag gnad bsdus nyer mkho rin po che’i gter mdzod, vol. 26. Darjeeling: Kargyu sungrab nyamso khang, arranged by La dwags khrid dpon ‘khrul zig padma chos rgyal, 1978–1985. Snyan brgyud rdo rje zam pa’i khrid yig skal bzang mig ’byed. Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa). In Rdzogs pa chen po klong sde’i snyan brgyud rin po che rdo rje zab pa’i sgom khrid kyi lag len. In Gdams ngag mdzod (18 vols.), vol. 1, 417–439. Delhi: Shechen Publication, 1999. Snying po’i ngo sprod don dam gter mdzod. Sgam po pa. In Gsb vol. 3, 157–196. Tattvadaśaka. Maitrīpa. Tattvadaśaka. D 2236, rgyud, wi 112b7–113ª6. Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. Sahajavajra. Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. D 2254, rgyud, wi 160b7–177a7. Thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba’i bstan bcos. Sa skya Paṇ ḍi ta. Thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba’i bstan bcos. In: Sa skya gong ma rnam lnga’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma las sa paṇ kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi gsung pod dang po. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe snying zhib ’jug khang nas bsgrigs. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007. Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs. Sgam po pa. In Gsb vol. 1, 505–575. Yid la mi byed pa’i zur khra. Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (the Eighth Karma pa). Yid la mi byed pa’i zur khra. In MKsb vol. 15, 1095–1100. Zhal gyi bdud rtsi thun mongs ma yin pa. Sgam po pa. In Gsb vol. 2, 575–644.



Secondary Sources

Almogi, Orna. 2009. Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis ( jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

Mahāmudrā AS the Key‐Point of THE Third Dharmacakra

235

Almogi, Orna. 2010. “Māyopamādvayavāda versus Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭānavāda: A Late Indian Subclassifica­tion of Madhyamaka and its Reception in Tibet.” Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 14: 135–212. Braitstein, Lara. 2015. The Adamantine Songs by Saraha. Study, Translation, Critical Edition. New York: AIBS (American Institute of Buddhist Studies). Brunnhölzl, Karl. 2004. The Center of the Sunlit Sky. Madhyamaka in the Kagyü Tradition. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Draszczyk, Martina. 2016a. “A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos Grags ye shes on the Hidden Meaning of Luminosity.” ZAS, Zentralasiatische Studien 44 (2015): 99–120. Draszczyk, Martina. 2016b. “Some Dwags po Mahāmudrā Responses to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Critique at ‘Present-Day Mahāmudrā.’ ” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39: 375–402. Erhard, Franz-Karl. 2002. “The Fourth Zhwa-dmar-pa and his Biography of the Great Translator.” In Lumbini International Research Institute, Monograph Series 3. Lumbini, Nepal: Lumbini International Research Institute. Gyatrul Rinpoche Sherpa, Trungram. 2004. Gampopa, the Monk and the Yogi: His Life and Teachings. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Higgins, David and Draszczyk, Martina. 2016. Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way Post-Classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-nature. 2 vols. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. Heft 90.1–2.) Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien. Jackson, David. 1994. Enlightenment by a Single Means. Tibetan Controversies on the “Self-Sufficient White Remedy” (Dkar po chig thub). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jackson, Roger R. and Mathew T. Kapstein, eds. 2011. Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: ITTBS, GmbH. Kunsang, Erich Pema, trans. 2001. Clarifying the Natural State. Hongkong: Rangjung Yeshe Books. Lindtner, Christian, trans. Undated. Bodhicittavivaraṇa. http://www.bodhicitta.net/ Bodhicittaviverana.htm. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2006. “Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and His Circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools.” In Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Practice: Studies in its Formative Period 900–1400. Edited by Ronald M. Davidson and Christian K. Wedemeyer, 201–227. (Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, Oxford 2006, vol. 10/4.) Leiden: Brill. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within, Gö Lotsawa’s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

236

Draszczyk

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2009a. “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (‘A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged’).” Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 13: 5–32. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2009b. “The Role of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa in the Mahāmudrā Tradition of the Dwags po bka’ brgyud.” In: Journal of International Association of Tibetan Studies 5: 1–31. http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5695. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2011. “The Collection of ‘Indian Mahāmudrā Works’ (phyag chen rgya gzhung) Compiled by the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. Edited by Roger R. Jackson and Matthew T. Kapstein, 89–127. (PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Köningswinter 2006.) Andiast, Switzerland: ITTBS, GmbH. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka. Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. McClintock, Sara. 2014. “Kamalaśīla on the Nature of Phenomenal Content (ākāra) in Cognition: A Close Reading of TSP ad TS 3626 and Related Passages.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 42.2–3: 327–337. Prasad, H.S., ed. 1997. The Uttaratantra of Maitreya, Containing Introduction, E.H. Johnston’s Sanskrit Text and E. Obermiller’s English Translation. (Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series No. 79.) Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Rhoton, Jaed Douglas, trans. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes. Essential Distinctions Among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems. Albany: State University of New York Press. Roberts, Peter Alan, trans. 2011. Mahamudra and Related Instructions, Core Teachings of the Kagyü Schools. (The Library of Tibetan Classics.) Boston: Wisdom Publications. Roerich, George N., trans. 1988. The Blue Annals. Reprint of the second edition. (First edition, Calcutta 1949). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1981. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. (A History of Indian Literature, ed. by J. Gonda, vol. 7, fasc. I). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 2000. Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 50, part 1). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien. Smith, E. Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts. History and Language of the Himalayan Plateau. (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism). Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Chapter 8

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains (lhag ma, avaśiṣṭa) David Higgins 1 Introduction What, if anything, remains upon ascertaining emptiness (Pāli: suññatā, Skt.: śūnyatā) – the lack of intrinsic essence of all phenomena – and what is this remainder like? The problem of the remainder (Skt.: avaśiṣṭa; Tib.: lhag ma) has preoccupied Buddhist thinkers from the time of the Pāli canon down to the present day.1 There are also a number of longstanding subjects of disputation that may be viewed as extensions of the remainder problem, including the following: (1) whether phenomena are best deemed to be empty of own [nature] (rang stong) or empty of other (i.e., extraneous factors) (gzhan stong), (2) whether a buddha can be said to have knowledge ( jñāna),2 (3) what happens during states of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), particularly the cessation of mind (cittanirodha),3 and (4) whether goal-realization is best described by negative determinations (rnam bcad), positive determinations (yongs gcod), or no determinations or theses (dam bca’, pratijñā) at all.4 Each of these topics has generated considerable discussion and controversy amongst Buddhist scholars past and present, their varying responses in each case hinging on insights or speculations about what is “left over” upon realizing emptiness. If answering this question has traditionally exposed a scholar’s primary religio-philosophical affiliations, it has also revealed his or her deepest ontological and soteriological commitments regarding the nature and scope of goal-realization. It is for this reason hardly surprising that the subject of the remainder has long been a touchstone for inter-sectarian dialogue and debate on some of the central issues of Buddhist thought and practice. 1  Several contemporary treatments are taken up in this essay. 2  See Almogi 2009 for a comparative study of this issue with a focus on the contributions of Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (11th cent.). 3  For an illuminating study of cessation of mind (cittanirodha) theories in Indian Buddhism, with particular attention to Abhidharma and Yogācāra meditative systems, see Griffiths 1991. 4  See the third chapter of Higgins and Draszczyk 2016, on Mi bskyod rdo rje, where these points are examined in light of traditional Indian Buddhist views on the remainder.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_010

238

Higgins

In Indian Mahāyāna circles, competing accounts of the remainder fueled Madhyamaka (Middle Way) and Cittamātra (Mind Only) disagreements over the status of the ultimate. Such disputes continued in Tibet and began to intensify during the fourteenth century with the polemically heated inter-sectarian debates that erupted between proponents of Empty of Own-nature (rang stong) or Empty of Other (gzhan stong) schools of Buddhist thought. Although scholars of all Tibetan schools joined the fray in one way or another, the opposing positions came to be associated, often in caricatural fashion, with the Dge lugs and Jo nang schools, respectively.5 The viewpoints of these schools could hardly be more divergent. For the Jo nang pa, what remains is truly established buddha nature empty of the extraneous (gzhan stong) adventitious stains; for the Dge lugs pa what remains is emptiness of what is truly established, the emptiness of own [nature] (rang stong). Looking back on such developments, we note that a number of post-classical thinkers deployed the idea of the remainder to distinguish, and attempt to reconcile, these affirmative (cataphatic) and negative (apophatic) strains of Buddhist thought.6 The remainder is a recurrent theme in the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje’s (1507–1554) philosophical writings, where he treats it not as an established Buddhist principle but rather as a hotly debated philosophical problem, eliciting widely differing views and therefore demanding careful and nuanced consideration. Because the conflicting Buddhist interpretations of the remainder reflect a tension at the heart of the views of the ultimate advocated by Mi bskyod rdo rje and his Karma Bka’ brgyud tradition, it was not a problem he could simply ignore. The tension arises over the apparent discrepancy between positive and negative ways of relating to, and characterizing, the ultimate, each of which finds expression in one or another of the exoteric and esoteric Buddhist systems of exegesis (bshad lugs) and praxis (sgrub lugs) advocated by the Eighth Karma pa. Because he regarded all these systems to be authoritative and indispensable avenues for realizing the Buddhist goal of awakening, he considered their contrasting affirmative and negative modes of thought and discourse to be complementary rather than contradictory. On this basis, he was insistent that the tension between them signaled the need to strike a viable balance between these two approaches rather than privilege one to the exclusion of the other. We have elsewhere noted that Mi bskyod rdo rje’s persistent attempts to negotiate a balance between affirmative and negative currents of Buddhist 5  For an account of the Jo nang gzhan stong position and some of its Dge lugs criticisms, see Seyfort Ruegg 1963. 6  Some of these are taken up in Higgins and Draszczyk 2016.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

239

thought attest to his mastery not only of dialogical thinking, characterized by the consideration and careful weighing of multiple points of view, but also dialectical thinking, which emphasizes the coordination and reconciliation of opposing perspectives.7 On the one hand, his allegiance to affirmative Mahāmudrā, Tathāgata­garbha, and Vajrayāna paradigms led him to acknowledge some kind of remainder, a ground or continuum of experience that endures when the conceptual structures erected upon it have collapsed. A case in point is his account of the “ground of the clearing process” (sbyang gzhi), equivalent to buddha nature, the tantric causal continuum (rgyu rgyud), and ground Mahāmudrā (gzhi phyag rgya chen po), which he defines as that which will remain (lhag ma) when what has obscured it has been purified away.8 On the other hand, the belief in some residual cognitive or ontological entity was taken by Mi bskyod rdo rje to be an untenable postulate of the Cittamātra tradition that had been rejected root and branch not only by the Consequentialist (Prāsaṅgika) Madhyamaka tradition of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti but also by the Non-foundationalist (Apratiṣṭhāna) Madhyamaka9 tradition espoused by many late Indian Buddhist tāntrikas, such as Maitrīpa and his circle. In Maitrīpa’s tradition, emptiness is luminosity, but this is in no way to be regarded as a real entity, be it material or mental.10 The Karma pa’s own affiliations with this tradition and the equally anti-essentialist Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka tradition consequently led him to deny this remainder any ontological status whatsoever. What remains is completely beyond discursive constructs (spros 7  See Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 241. We there identify this dialectical mode of thought (especially in regard to the reconciliation of affirmative and negative modes of thought and discourse) as a hallmark of post-classical Bka’ brgyud exegesis. On the difference between dialogical and dialectical thinking, see Sternberg, Jarvin, and Reznitskaya 2008: 47. 8  See Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 266. 9  Maitrīpa and his disciple Rāmapāla take apratiṣṭhāna in the sense of non-abiding. In the Sekanirdeśapañjikā on verse 29ab (“Non-abiding in anything is proclaimed to be the Great Seal”; sarvasminn apratiṣṭhānaṃ mahāmudreti kīrtyate) we thus find (English translation of the root text and commentary by Isaacson and Sferra 2014: 311): “ ‘In anything’ means ‘in dependently arisen skandhas, dhātus, āyatanas and so on, which are all dependently originated. ‘Non-abiding’ [means] not becoming mentally engaged, [i.e.,] absence of superimposition.” (sarvasminn iti pratītyasamutpannaskandhadhātvāyatanādau | apratiṣṭhānam amanasikāro ’nāropaḥ [Isaacson and Sferra 2014: 192.3–6]). To translate apratiṣṭhāna as “without foundation” is also permissible. From the object side, everything is without a foundation; from the subject side, i.e., when glossed as amanasikāra, apratiṣṭhāna is best taken in its primary sense of “non-abiding.” For example, Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po defines rab tu mi gnas pa in the sense that all phenomena lack any ontic or epistemic foundation. See Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 33–34, and Mathes in this volume. 10  See Mathes 2015: 317–318.

240

Higgins

bral). It is clear that for the Karma pa, this remainder is not something but neither is it nothing whatsoever (ci yang med pa). It is beyond imputations of existence and nonexistence, beyond the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. In this essay, I will look at how Mi bskyod rdo rje conceived of this remainder and how he used it to reconcile the affirmative and negative strains of Buddhist thought and praxis. Specifically, I will look at how he sought to accommodate within his non-foundationalist Madhyamaka philosophical orientation an affirmative account of what remains. As an advocate of the Apratiṣṭhāna Madhyamaka view, Mi bskyod rdo rje took its synthesis of Mantrayāna and Madhyamaka as a prototype for his own efforts to unite the affirmative Mahāmudrā dohā discourses of Saraha and the tantras with the negative Madhyamaka discourses of Nāgārjuna and his successors, in order to make room for a view of the remainder that avoids the eternalist and nihilist extremes of existence and nonexistence. In the final analysis, he proposes that this discernable yet strangely elusive continuum is best described as a “groundless ground,” an enduring mode of being and awareness that is available to first-hand experience yet irreducible to postulates of existence and nonexistence and the related views of eternalism and nihilism. As a prelude to considering Mi bskyod rdo rje’s conciliatory approach to the remainder problem, it may be worthwhile to sketch in broad strokes the doctrinal background of the problem in India and Tibet. 2

Origins of the Remainder

The idea of the remainder has traditionally been traced to one of the earliest recorded discourses on emptiness attributed to the historical Buddha, the Cūḷasuññatasutta (abbreviated as CS) of the Majjhimanikāya (no. 121) of the Pāli Canon. More specifically, it may be traced to a famous refrain that the Buddha repeats eight times to Ānanda in the course of delineating progressive stages in the meditation on emptiness, ranging from the material to the immaterial spheres: It is perceived that when something does not exist there, then “that [place] is empty of that [thing].” Further it is comprehended of what remains there that “that exists in that [place]” as a real existent.11 11   A N, Majjhimanikāya, sutta no. 121 et passim: iti yaṃ hi kho tattha na hoti, tena taṃ suññaṃ samanupassati, yaṃ pana tattha avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti, taṃ santaṃ idam atthīti pajānāti |. Tib. D (Dpe sdur ma ed.) vol. 71, 662.15–18: … gang la gang med pa de des stong ngo zhes bya bar

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

241

This locus classicus for the idea of the remainder has lent itself to widely varying interpretations by Buddhist scholars through the ages, not least of all because of difficulties in working out the referents of its numerous pronouns. As one of the few Pāli suttas to be translated into Tibetan and included in the Bka’ ’gyur, it also represents, in the words of Lobsang Dargay, “one of the extremely rare cases where the same sūtra is part of Theravāda tradition as well as of the Tibetan Mahāyāna heritage.”12 The passage has attracted the notice of a number of contemporary scholars of Buddhism including D. Seyfort Ruegg, G.M. Nagao, S. Yamaguchi, H. Urban and P. Griffiths, L. Dargay, K.-D. Mathes, and Bhikkhu Anālayo.13 Taken collectively, their research pointedly reveals the extent to which the passage was excerpted from its original context and tailored to fit the aims and presuppositions of different, and at times divergent, scholastic lines of interpretation. According to the Cūḷasuññatasutta itself, the progressively deepening stages of meditation on emptiness, from material to immaterial spheres, leads finally to the “supreme emptiness,” a state that is empty of reifications and contaminations (Pāli āsavas) but not empty of the six “sense fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded in the body itself.”14 According to Bhikkhu Anālayo, “[w] hat remains, after this supreme accomplishment in emptiness, is simply the continuity of life, exemplified by the body and the senses together with the life faculty.”15 In short, in the absence of the contaminations, there still remains a basic sentience that operates through the six modes of cognition and their respective domains. This basic psychophysical mode of existence is said to survive the Arhat’s realization of supreme emptiness as a kind of disturbance or angst (daratha) that is presumably only relinquished with the final liberation of buddhahood.

yang dag par rjes su mthong yang | de la lhag ma gang yod pa de de la yod do zhes bya bar yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du rab tu shes te | [kun dga’ bo stong pa nyid la ’jug pa ’di ni yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin te phyin ci ma log pa yin no |]. See Mathes 2012. 12  Dargay 1990: 82. In Tibetan canonical versions, the sūtra is entitled Great Discourse on Emptiness (Mdo chen po stong pa nyid ces bya ba; Śūnyatānāmamahāsūtra). P 956, 274b2– 278a7; D 290, 253b2–253b2. Passages from Pāli, Chinese, and Tibetan editions of the text are compared in Schmithausen 1981: 232–239. See also Skilling 1997: 335–363, where he traces (338) the Tibetan version(s) to the Madhyamāgama of the Mūlasarvāstivāda. Tibetan and Pāli texts are critically compared in Skilling 1994: 146–181. 13  Yamaguchi 1941; Seyfort Ruegg 1969: 319ff.; Nagao 1991: 51–60 (reprint of 1978 essay); Dargay 1990; Urban and Griffiths 1994; Mathes 2009, 2012; and Anālayo 2012. 14  Cūḷasuññata (CS) as quoted by Nagao 1991: 52. 15  Anālayo 2012: 345.

242 3

Higgins

Madhyamaka and Cittamātra Interpretations

Let us now consider some influential examples of how the formulation was later appropriated by Mahāyāna scholars and redeployed to support their differing theories regarding the existence or nonexistence of any residual factor after the realization of emptiness. In general, Yogācāra-Cittamātra thinkers used the Pāli passage to support the view that something does remain following meditation on emptiness, though their accounts of what this something is and how it is best characterized were far from homogeneous. They variously interpreted the remainder in language reminiscent of the above-cited CS passage, but with very different philosophical aims and assumptions. To summarize, (1) In the Bodhisattvabhūmi (BBh)16 what remains is an unfathomable locus (āśraya) for the postulation (prajñapti) of “forms” (rūpa), which are empty constructs. (2) In the Madhyāntavibhāga (MAV 1.1–2 and commentary)17 the remainder is unreal imaginings (abhūtaparikalpa), which persist following the realization of emptiness. In other words, abhūtaparikalpa remains in the emptiness of duality, but when this emptiness is realized by nirvikalpajñāna, paratantra stops being abhūtaparikalpa, being thenceforth empty of subject and object. (3) In the Abhidharmasamuccaya (AS),18 what remains is the selflessness of the eighteen psychophysical elements (dhātus), which are empty of I and mineness. Finally, (4), in the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV)19 it is the buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha), which is empty of adventitious stains (āgantukamala). Against the background of these Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha ideas of the remainder, we can better understand the target of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s remark that … since even the clinging to the experience of some mere clarity and mere awareness as emptiness is like the birth and subsequent death of a child in a dream, one should not cling to the awareness and clarity as an intrinsic essence and as a mode of being. This is how the so-called 16  See Nagao 1991: 55 and 240 n. 21. 17  See Griffiths and Urban 1994: 19: “A strong case can be made, then, for the conclusion that phenomenally rich mental images – designated by vijñapti, pratibhāsa, nimitta, or abhūtaparikalpa – do remain in emptiness but that these cannot have been subject to the constructive activity denoted by vikalpa.” The idea of a nondual unreal imaginings (these normally predicated on the dualism of subject and object) that survive the realization of emptiness is, of course, problematic and especially vulnerable to the anti-foundationalist critiques of Maitrīpa et al. 18   A S, 40. See Nagao 1991: 55–56, Seyfort Ruegg 1969: 321–322. 19   R GV I.157–158. See Nagao 1991: 58–60.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

243

“ultimate truth,” “the perfect nature,” which is left over as a remainder (lhag ma; avaśiṣṭa) – namely, the wisdom empty of the duality of subject and object [maintained by the] Alīkākāravāda Cittamātra – is ascertained as being beyond discursive elaborations.20 The closing comment that “what remains” is beyond discursive elaborations was interpreted by Mi bskyod rdo rje along broadly Madhyamaka lines. This tradition took seriously the dictum “everything is empty” (sarvaṃ śūnyam), concluding that no intrinsic essences or real entities can withstand critical assessment or survive the ascertainment of emptiness and dependent arising. Candrakīrti twice refers to a specific formulation of the remainder thesis that is advanced in certain Yogācāra works, and deems it to be a misguided conception of emptiness. The construal in question has the logical form “the y of which x is empty is nonexistent, whereas the x that is empty of y is existent.”21 According to Madhyamaka thinkers, this logic of emptiness was invoked by realists of different stripes to vindicate the existence of one aspect of reality to the exclusion of another. In his auto-commentary to Madhyamakāvatāra VI.47, Candrakīrti cites the Yogācāra construal of the remainder thesis as a mistaken interpretation of emptiness invoked by the school’s adherents to support the mental realist position that the relative (paratantra) nature is the cause of the imagined (parikalpita) nature and is therefore what remains in its absence as something substantially existent.22 In his Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa (PSP), Candrakīrti similarly criticizes the Yogācāra use of the remainder thesis as rational and scriptural proof for their position that the dependent (paratantra) exists whereas the imagined (parikal­ pita) does not exist.23 Here, he argues that a more correct and metaphysically 20  M  a hā mu drā’i man ngag lnga bcu pa, MKsb vol. 19, 630.2–4: rig tsam gsal tsam zhig stong nyid du myong bar zhen pa yang rmi’i lam du bu skyes nas shi ba dang ’dra ba yin pas rig gsal la ngo bo dang gnas tshul du mi ’dzin pa’o | ’di ni sems tsam rnam rdzun pa’i gzung ’dzin gnyis stong gi ye shes lhag mar lus pa’i yongs grub don† dam pa’i bden pa zhes bya ba de spros bral du gtan la dbab pa yin no |.  †text: do. 21  See for example Asaṅga, Yogācārabhūmi, Tattvārthapaṭala: yena hi śūnyaṁ tadasadbhāvāt, yac ca śūnyaṁ tadsadbhāvāc chūnyatā yujyeta |. (“The y of which x is empty does not truly exist, but the x which is empty [of y] truly exists. Emptiness makes sense in this way.”) As cited in Salvini 2015: 68. Translation my own. 22  See La Valleé Poussin 1912: 139. The remainder formulation is quoted at 139.11–14. 23  See Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa, Lindtner 1979 ed.: 115.15–16: brtags pa’i ngo† bo med pa dang‡ | gzhan gyi dbang ni yod pa nyid | sgro ’dogs pa dang skur ’debs pa’i | mtha’ la rtog pa brlag par ’gyur |.  † PSP Derge ed.: dngos; ‡ PSP Derge ed.: ste.

244

Higgins

austere conclusion is reached by reasoning that all phenomena arise dependently through mutual interactions (phan tshun bltos nas ’byung ba) – citing the example of a mirror image – and hence nothing can be established as having an independent intrinsic essence. This, he says, applies not only to things perceived but also the mental factors that perceive them. Hence, the person who imputes reality to phenomena, whether material or mental, is ­mistaken.24 Candrakīrti contends that those who cite the remainder formulation as rational or scriptural proof for the existence of some substantially real essence (rdzas su bden pa’i ngo bo nyid)25 can be refuted on their own grounds. Stated  I was unable to locate this passage in LAS, though it is ascribed to this sūtra in Abhayākaragupta’s Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāvṛttimarmakaumudī, D 3805, 210b5. 24   P SP, Lindtner 1979 ed.: 115.18–27: “Moreover, to the extent that the great elements arise in mutual dependence, none are established as having an intrinsic essence. Likewise, since mental factors are also present on the basis of mutual influence, none are established as having an intrinsic essence. These are [both] like mirror reflections, nothing more. The same [conclusions] should be applied to their defining characteristics. In this regard, all phenomena are without entitative existence and it is erroneous for anyone to superimpose real existence on them. Entities exist by virtue of something else, and to grasp phenomena as otherwise is like trying to grasp the water in a mirage.” (gzhan yang ji ltar ’byung ba chen po rnams phan tshun bltos nas ’byung ba nyid kyis rang gi ngo bor grub pa ni med pa de bzhin du sems las ’byung ba rnams kyang phan tshul gyi stobs la brten nas grub pa nyid kyis rang gi ngo bor grub pa med pa nyid de gzugs brnyan lta bu nyid las mi ’da’o || de bzhin du de dag gi mtshan nyid rnams la yang sbyar bar bya’o || de lta bas na chos thams cad dngos po med pa yin la | gang gis dngos po bden par sgro ’dogs pa de ni phyin ci log yin te | dngos po ni gzhan du gnas la | chos ni gzhan du gzung ba nyid kyis smig rgyu la chur ’dzin pa lta bu’o ||.) 25  Candrakīrti presents the opponent’s mental realist position as follows. Pañcaskandha­ prakaraṇa, Lindtner 1979 ed.: 115.32–116.13: “For these [realists], in establishing that things have real intrinsic essences, they employ proofs by means of scripture or reasoning. In this regard, some cite as scriptural authority the passage ‘Therefore, Ānanda, when something does not exist somewhere, then that [place] is empty of that [thing].’ And what remains there is existent. It is understood in this statement to be truly existent. This is described as an unmistaken understanding of emptiness. Accordingly, [they say,] some mendicants and Brahmins do not accept emptiness of something but also do not accept that which is empty of something [else]. An emptiness of this sort is held to be flawed. Why is that? Since that of which something is empty is nonexistent, whereas that which is empty of something is existent, the term ‘emptiness’ makes sense. If everything is nonexistent, then it would be empty of each and every thing. It would therefore not make sense for that to be empty. In this regard, [one] would hold a flaw[ed conception of emptiness]. How then should one properly grasp emptiness? ‘It is perceived that when something does not exist there, then “that [place] is empty of that [thing].” Further it is comprehended that what remains exists as a real existent.’ ” (de dag gis rdzas† bden pa’i ngo bo nyid du rab tu sgrub pa na lung gis sam | rigs pas sgrub par byed do || de la re zhig lung ni ’di yin te | de lta bas na kun dga’ bo gang na gang med pa de ni des stong pa nyid yin la | lhag ma gang yin pa de ni yod pa nyid do || zhes shes pa ni yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du shes pa’o ||

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

245

concisely, in accepting the nonexistence of the imagined nature (parikalpita) and nominal (prājñāpti) entities in general, the Yogācāra should eo ipso reject any superimpositions of true existence (bden par yod pa), including the imputed true existence of paratantra. This fits with the view of Candrakīrti and his tradition that all phenomena across the board are comprehensively empty, that no essences or real entities are left standing when critical reasoning has concluded its analytical process of elimination. In short, Candrakīrti rejects a principle of emptiness that allows some truly existent substance (rdzas pa bden par yod pa) to survive the discernment of emptiness. This raises the question whether the emptiness Candrakīrti criticizes with reference to the remainder formulation is the same as the “emptiness of one from the other” (itaretaraśūnyatā; gcig gis gcig stong pa nyid) that is counted in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (LAS) as the seventh of seven types of emptiness and dismissed as an inferior view that should be abandoned. As Mathes has shown, the itaretaraśūnyatā criticized in LAS26 is a relative view of emptiness, which establishes only the absence of certain things in a certain place without denying the existence of either. Thus, the LAS passage gives as an example of itaretaraśūnyatā the nonexistence of certain animals (i.e., elephants, cows, and goats) in a certain place (i.e., the mansion of the mother jackal) without negating the existence either of these animals (which presumably live elsewhere, away from the mansion) or of what remains (the mansion and its monks).27 In other words, the LAS rejects this inferior itaretaraśūnyatā precisely because its own Yogācāra “remainder account” of emptiness does posit the nonexistence of what x is empty of and the existence of x. This is clear from its acknowledgement of the existence of paratantra and nonexistence of parikal­ pita. Moreover, in its introduction to the passage with the sevenfold emptiness, the LAS restricts emptiness to parikalpita.28 In short, the view of emptiness zhes de skad brjod pa ni phyin ci ma log par‡ stong pa nyid rtogs pa’o || zhes bya ba dang | de bzhin du dge sbyong dang bram ze kha cig gang stong pa de yang mi ’dod la | gang gis stong pa de yang mi ’dod pa de lta bu’i rnam pa’i stong pa nyid nyes par bzung ba yin no || de ci’i phyir zhe na | gang gis stong pa de ni med pa nyid yin la | gang stong pa de ni yod pa nyid yin pas stong pa nyid ces rigs so | thams cad med na gang gang gis stong par ’gyur | de nyid des stong par ni rigs pa ma yin no || de lta bas na nyes par bzung bar ’gyur ro || ji ltar na stong pa nyid legs par bzung ba yin zhe na | gang na gang med pa de ni des stong pa nyid do zhes yang dag par mthong la | lhag ma yod pa nyid de zhes yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du rtogs pa’o  ||.)  † D addit. su; ‡ Lindtner ed. pa. 26  Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 75.10–19. 27  Mathes 2012: 195–198. 28   L AS 74.1–5: “The illustrious one said this: ‘Emptiness – what is called emptiness – Mahāmati, is a word for the imagined nature. Again, Mahāmati, since [you people] obstinately

246

Higgins

espoused in the LAS (and many other Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha works) and criticized by Candrakīrti is one that establishes the existence of one thing (tathāgatagarbha, paratantra) in denying the existence of something else (āgantukamala, parikalpita). 4 Tibetan Gzhan stong and Rang stong Assimilations Turning to Tibetan assimilations of the remainder problem, we will examine how it figured in formative classical and post-classical Tibetan debates over the status of emptiness and ultimate reality, as affirmative Mahāmudrā and Mantrayāna discourses espousing the abiding nature of mind, reality, and buddhahood faced anti-foundationalist Madhyamaka critiques. While the former discourses retained the idea of an invariant continuum of human reality that is amenable to positive descriptions, the latter rejected the ontological possibility of any metaphysical residue – any knowable entity or knowing cognition – following the ascertainment of emptiness, and on this basis ruled out all positive determinations. Mi bskyod rdo rje’s varied treatments of this related set of issues cover a characteristically broad spectrum of viewpoints. Our aim here is to determine how he sought to align his unifying Madhyamaka-Mahāmudrā orientation with the dominant views of his day. We may recall that the positive and negative ends of the spectrum of Tibetan remainder accounts had, by the post-classical period, become associated in the minds of many scholars with the Jo nang pa and Dge lugs pa schools respectively. Geshe Lobsang Dargay has shown that Dol po pa (1292–1361) took the standard formulation of the remainder, as it had been interpreted in texts such as the Śrīmālādevīsūtra and Madhyāntavibhāga, as confirmation for the Gzhan stong view. On this view, although empty phenomena are nonexistent vis-à-vis the basis of emptiness, one correctly sees that some basis of emptiness (stong pa’i gzhi) wherein empty phenomena do not exist is [thus] empty of those phenomena. Hence, one fully comprehends that the remainder that is empty of those [nonexistent] phenomena is the basis of emptiness, i.e., the perfect cling to the imagined nature, we [must] talk about emptiness, non-arising, non-duality, and the nature of essenceless.’ ” (bhagavān etad avocat | śūnyatā śūnyateti mahāmate parikalpitasvabhāvapadam etat | parikalpitasvabhāvābhi­ niveśena punar mahāmate śūnyatānutpādābhāvādvayaniḥsvabhāvabhāvavādino bhavanti |) (Translation by Mathes 2012: 197).

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

247

nature (chos nyid yongs grub), which exists eternally (nam yang)29 there, as the truly real.30 This interpretation is then used by Dol po pa to support his Gzhan stong view that “empty phenomena are understood to be empty of an own-nature (rang stong) and the basis of emptiness (stong pa’i gzhi) is understood to be empty of other (gzhan stong).”31 But this view, from another angle, can be seen as a textbook example of the remainder formulation of emptiness Candrakīrti had rejected: “the y of which x is empty is nonexistent, whereas the x that is empty of y is existent.” Indeed, it was along precisely these lines that the Dge lugs pas tried to reject the Jo nang pa view of an ontological remainder. Tsong kha pa, in his MA commentary, Dbu ma dgongs pa rab gsal, is critical of the Yogācāra view of what remains, particularly its three-nature view, according to which the perfect (pariniṣpanna) is empty of the imagined (parikalpita) and based on (or, in some cases, also empty of) the dependent (paratantra). In this regard, it may be noted that Tsong kha pa characterizes Yogācāra as holding that the perfect is the dependent empty of the imagined, though not the alternative Yogācāra view that the perfect is empty of the dependent and imagined. In any event, he goes on to explain, with good reason, that the Yogācāra view of the remainder found in treatises such as the BBh and MAV is totally dissimilar to the RGV I.154–155 passage that Asaṅga, in his RGVV, had explained in terms of the standard formulation of the remainder.32 RGV I.154–155 reads as follows:

29  This follows the Tibetan (D, P) of the CS, which has de la rtag par yod, “exists permanently there.” 30  Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho (Pecing ed. 1998), 147.1–3: stong pa’i gzhi gang la stong pa’i chos gang med pa de chos des stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong ste | ’di la chos des stong pa’i lhag ma stong pa’i gzhi gang yin pa chos nyid yongs grub de ni ’dir nam yang yod pa’o || zhes yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du rab tu shes so ||; as quoted in Dargay 1990: 90–91 n. 14. (translation my own) Terms from Tibetan version of CS indicated with bold lettering. 31  Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho, quoted in Dargay 1990: 91 n. 15. The translation is my own. 32  Dbu ma dgongs pa rab gsal, 309.3–4: “The meaning of the passage ‘… when something does not exist there, [the latter is empty with regard to the former],’ etc., as interpreted in the Rgyud bla ma [RGV] commentary, is not at all comparable to the previous two [Yogācāra works, i.e., BBh and MAV], but it does exist in the Madhyamaka commentarial method. I will not write [about it here] for fear of prolixity”; (rgyud bla ma’i ’grel bar gang zhig gang na med pa de ni zhes sogs kyi don bkral ba ni | snga ma gnyis dang gtan mi ’dra bar dbu ma’i ’grel tshul du yod de mangs bas ’jigs nas ma bris so |.) The passage is quoted in Dargay 1990: 91 n. 21. The translation is my own.

248

Higgins

There is nothing to be removed from it and nothing to be added. The real should be seen as real and, seeing the real, one is liberated. (RGV I.154) The [buddha] element is empty of adventitious [stains], which have the characteristic of being separable; But it is not empty of unsurpassable qualities, which have the characteristic of not being separable.33 (RGV I.155) Commenting on this passage, the author of the RGVV34 adopts the same formulation – as for example it occurs the Śrīmālādevīsūtra – to explain that when one recognizes that buddha nature is “not empty of inconceivable buddha qualities, which are inseparable [in that it is impossible] to recognize [them] as something disconnected, and which surpass in number the grains of sand of the river Gaṅgā,” then “one thus perceives that ‘when something that does not exist in that [place],’ then ‘that [place] is empty of that [thing]’ and thus one ‘comprehends that something that remains exists [permanently]’35 there as a real existent.”36 It is unfortunate that Tsong kha pa declines, for fear of prolixity, to specify how this RGVV interpretation of the remainder is “not at all consistent” with that outlined in the two Yogācāra works. Yet it is not hard to fathom why he would be struck by the patent difference between (1) the relatively weak CS, BBh and MAV remainder interpretations, which maintain that after realizing emptiness some vestige of conditioned existence survives – be it the continuity of corporeal life (CS), an inscrutable substrate for the imputation of materiality (BBh), or unreal imaginings (abhūtaparikalpa) and emptiness (MAV) – and (2) the strong RGVV version, which construes the remainder as buddha nature that is completely devoid of adventitious stains (i.e., the conditioned), which do not exist at all. In the RGV, the unreal imaginings are part of adventitious stains (āgantukamala) and thus cannot be part of the remnant.37 In the strong version, the remainder is all that exists, as in an arithmetic remainder 33   R GV 1.157–158 (J 1.154–55): RGVV, 76.1–4: nāpaneyam ataḥ kiṃcid upaneyaṃ na kiṃcana | draṣṭavyaṃ bhūtato bhūtaṃ bhūtadarśī vimucyate || śūnya āgantukair dhātuḥ savinirbhāgalakṣaṇaiḥ | aśūnyo ’nuttarair dharmair avinirbhāgalakṣaṇaiḥ ||. 34  The authorship of RGVV is uncertain. Tibetans attribute the work to Asaṅga. 35  The Tibetan versions (D, P) have de la rtag par yod, “exists permanently there.” 36   R GVV, 76.6–7: aśūnyo gaṅgānadīvālikāvyativṛttair avinirbhāgair amuktajñair acintyair buddhadharmair iti | evaṃ yad yatra nāsti tat tena śūnyam iti samanupaśyati | yat punar atrāvaśiṣṭaṃ bhavati tat sad ihāstīti yathābhūtaṃ prajānāti |. Compare with the Cūḷasuññata passage, Majjhimanikāya, sutta no. 121. 37  See Mathes 2009; 2012.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

249

or difference left over after performing a subtraction,38 whereas what is subtracted from the original is entirely nonexistent. It was left to Tsong kha pa’s disciple Rgyal tshab Dar ma rin chen (1364–1432) to reinterpret the relevant RGV I.154–155 statement in line with his master’s *Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka philosophical orientation. On this interpretation, the statement that buddha dhātu is “empty of adventitious stains … but not empty of unsurpassable qualities” is taken as support for the thesis that what remains is that which is empty of intrinsic essence and it is that which “exists permanently” (lhag mar gyur pa rang bzhin gyis stong pa de ni de la rtag par yod). On this reinterpretation, there indeed is a remainder (rather than no remainder at all) but it consists in things as they really are (yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin, yathābhūtam) when all reifications are removed, namely, that which is empty of intrinsic essence (rang bzhin gyis stong pa). This enables him to identify the remnant buddha nature in terms of a nonaffirming negation. As Rgyal tshab explains: Because this tathāgata element is by nature thoroughly pure inasmuch as there are [no] defilements that were previously existent and are currently to be removed, the two kinds of self that were the object or the reason for believing in a self of persons and phenomena do not exist at all. This is so because freedom from inherently existent (rang bzhin gyis grub pa) adventitious stains is the nature of this element. When, according to this [Ratnagotravibhāga], being empty of inherent existence (rang bzhin gyis grub pa), empty of existence by its own characteristics (rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub pa), and empty of existence by its own nature (rang gi ngo bo nyid kyis grub pa) are taught as the ultimate truth, one should know that the presentation of this system of two truths is shown to have the same meaning as the doctrine of Lord Nāgārjuna…. In this regard, the insight that directly understands selflessness perceives correctly that “when something does not exist there” – i.e., some inherently existent phenomena as a basis – “then that [place] is empty of that [thing]” (de ni des stong ngo). However, “something that remains” is that emptiness of intrinsic essence, and it is “that which exists permanently there.” It is comprehended, in the context of the post-meditation state (rjes kyi skabs), as reality just as it is (yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin; yathābhūtam).39 38  Nagao notes that the RGV remainder is akin to the arithmetic remainder (or, more precisely, the difference) that is left over after performing a subtraction. 39  Theg pa then po rgyud bla ma’i ṭīka, 324.5–325.6: gang gi phyir rang bzhin gyis yongs su dag pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i khams ’di la sngar yod gsar du bsal bar bya ba kun nas nyon mongs

250

Higgins

It is evident from the two foregoing accounts of the remainder that the Jo nang pa and Dge lugs pa arrive at diametrically opposed interpretations of the same RGV passage on the remainder, and that these are used to support divergent views of buddha nature. For the Jo nang pa, buddha nature, with its inseparable qualities, constitutes an intrinsic essence (rang gi ngo bo; svabhāva). For the Dge lugs pas, buddha nature is the mind’s emptiness of being an inherently existing mind; and the inseparability of buddha qualities is interpreted, along the lines of Rngog Blo ldan shes rab, to mean that they emerge when meditating on the emptiness of mind. In short, for the Jo nang pa, buddha nature is existent and its qualities are innate, whereas for the Dge lugs pas, buddha nature is a nonaffirming negation and its qualities are emergent or acquired. On the basis of their divergent views of buddha nature, the Jo nang pas use the idea of the remainder to support the determination of a permanent metaphysical perfect nature (chos nyid yongs grub) construed as a basis of emptiness (stong gzhi) that is empty of adventitious stains, whereas the Dge lugs pas use it to support the determination of reality just as it is, viz., as empty of intrinsic essence, a stance that allows no room for any residual basis of emptiness (stong gzhi). 5

Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Non-Foundationalist Unity Standpoint

Turning to Mi bskyod rdo rje’s own treatments of the remainder problem, we find him attempting in different ways to navigate the middle ground between these contrasting lines of thought. The main sources for his treatment are found in his Madhyamakāvatāra (MA) and Dgongs gcig commentaries, which we can assign to roughly the same period based on colophonic information

pa gang zag dang chos kyi bdag tu ’dzin pa’i rgyu mtshan te dmigs pa bdag gnyis ’ga’ yang med de | glo bur ba’i dri ma rang bzhin gyis grub pa dang bral ba ni khams ’di’i rang bzhin yin pa’i phyir ro || ’dis rang bzhin gyis grub pas stong pa dang | rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub pas stong pa dang | rang gi ngo bo nyid kyis grub pas stong pa don dam pa bden par bstan pa na | bden pa gnyis kyi rnam bzhag mgon po klu sgrub kyi bzhed pa dang don gcig tu bstan par shes par bya’o ||… de ltar na rang bzhin gyis grub pa’i chos gang zhig gzhi gang na med pa de ni des stong ngo zhes bdag med mngon sum du rtogs pa shes rab kyis yang dag par rjes su mthong la | gang zhig de la lhag mar gyur pa rang bzhin gyis stong pa de ni de la rtag par yod do zhes | rjes kyi skabs su yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du shes so | zhes so ||. Wording from Tibetan edition of RGVV (D) indicated in bold face lettering. For an English translation of Rgyal tshab’s Theg pa then po rgyud bla ma’i ṭīka, see Jiang 2017. The above passage is quoted on p. 463.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

251

and intertextual cross-references.40 The author’s interpretive method in these works is to rigorously apply the Madhyamaka principle of freedom from extremes: “according to the Madhyamaka of sūtra and mantra [traditions], the real objects of refutation are the two great extremes of eternalism and nihilism,41 because there are no other extremes that are not subsumed under these.” And, once liberated from these extremes, “there is left behind not the slightest remainder of any belief in extreme [positions].”42 Note that Mi bskyod rdo rje here qualifies the absence of remainder to pertain to beliefs, leaving the question of the ontological status of the remainder open. For the Karma pa and the Madhyamaka tradition he follows, the principal object of refutation is the grasping for or belief in reality (bden ’dzin) that is at the root of reification and ignorance. The Karma pa investigates the remainder issue in a section of Dgongs gcig ’grel pa V devoted to clarifying ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s eleventh adamantine precept from the first section of his Dgongs pa gcig pa (GC I.11), which states that “the teachings of Cittamātra reveal the Madhyamaka free from extremes.”43 Mi bskyod rdo rje’s excursus to some extent follows the Sa skya master Stag tshang lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen’s arguments for the superiority of Madhyamaka over Cittamātra, which are advanced in his Grub mtha’ kun shes auto-commentary.44 At any rate, in clarifying the sense of ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s precept, it is evident that the Karma pa wishes to emphasize not only that Cittamātra and Madhyamaka traditions are complementary, but that the latter marks a definite advance beyond the former’s idealistic standpoint. It should be noted that this interpretation underscores the superiority of Madhyamaka over Cittamātra, in contrast to ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s precept, as well as its interpretation by one of his ’Bri gung commentators, Chos kyi grags pa (1595–1659), who had rather stressed the compatibility of their views, as evident in the latter’s remark: “the precept [I.11] teaches that all entities are not established as other than mind. Since mind, too, is free from the extremes of existence and nonexistence, who 40  The Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta and Dgongs gcig works each contain references to one another that will be documented in a forthcoming publication on Mi bskyod rdo rje’s buddha nature views. 41  The view of ucchedavāda, “annihilationism,” rejected by Buddhists maintains that something which has come into existence ceases to exists. It is rather loosely translated in this essay as “nihilism” (a term which itself has many meanings in Western philosophy and theology). 42  Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 22.9–11: mdo sngags kyi dbu ma mtha’ dag gis dgag par bya ba’i don po rtag chad kyi mtha’ chen po ’di gnyis yin te | ’dir ma ’dus pa’i mtha’ gzhan med pa’i phyir te | … mthar ’dzin gyi lhag ma cung zad kyang lus pa’i phyir |. 43  Dgongs pa gcig pa, 165.12: sems tsam bka’ yis mtha’ bral dbu ma ston ||. 44  See Grub mtha’ kun shes rtsa ’grel, 10ff. (root text) and 140ff. (auto-commentary).

252

Higgins

would expound a Madhyamaka different from that? Take the training in the nonduality of manifestation and mind as [your] basis.”45 Mi bskyod rdo rje, for his part, begins by explaining that “although in Mahāyāna teachings, there are scriptural passages by Cittamātra teachers cited as support for the establishment of cognition (rnam rig pa’i grub pa), the final intent must be based solely on the interpretations by the Great Ācārya Nāgārjuna.46 It is of course this Indian master’s teaching on emptiness that is taken by the Karma pa to be the core insight and indisputable axiom of Buddhist philosophical thinking. In general, although it is not declared in all the buddha’s teachings that there is no distinction between provisional and definitive meaning, in the case of canonical writings of both the middle and final turnings, which teach the selflessness of phenomena, it is indisputable that in teaching profound emptiness as it is, they did not teach that there are profound differences [between] superior and inferior [kinds].47 In other words, there is only a single, comprehensive emptiness, which admits of no gradations. He then quotes a passage from the Samādhirājasūtra (SRS) that proclaims the emptiness of phenomena to be the single meaning (don gcig) common to all the varied buddhavacana. He concludes that “here in Tibet in particular, even among those sūtras that profess to teach the Vijñāpti[mātra] (Cognition [Only]), it is abundantly clear that this Vijñāpti[mātra] doctrine is shown as not being the superior one.”48 In this connection, Mi bskyod rdo rje quotes the following passage from the Laṅkāvatāra (LAS): Once one has relied on [the notion of] Mind Only, External objects should not be imagined. 45  D  gongs pa gcig pa dka’ ’grel, 165.13–17: gsungs pa dngos kun sems tsam las gzhan du || ma grub sems kyang yod med mtha’ bral pas|| de las gzhan pa’i dbu ma su yis bshad || skrang sems gnyis med nyams len rta bar gzung ||. Translation my own. 46  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa V, ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo, vol. 80, 194.4–5: theg pa chen po’i bka’ ni sems tsam pa’i slob dpon dag gis rnam rig pa’i grub pa’i rgyab tu ’dren yang | mthar thug gi dgongs pa slob dpon chen po nā ga rdzu nas bkral ba nyid kho nar gnas bya ba yin |. 47  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa V, ibid., 194.6–195.1: spyir bde bar gshegs pa’i bka’ thams cad la drang nges kyi rnam dbye med par mi smra yang | ’khor lo bar mthar chos kyi bdag med ston pa’i gsung rab la ni | zab mo stong pa nyid kyi rang ldog bstan pa la mchog dman nam zab khyad yod par ma bstan par gor ma chag ste |. 48  Ibid., 195.4: khyad par bod ’dir rnam rig bstan par ’dod pa’i mdo dag las kyang | chos rnam rig pa’i lugs de mchog ma yin par bstan pa ni ches gsal te |.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

253

Based on the apprehension of suchness, One should also pass beyond Mind Only. (LAS X.256) Having passed beyond Mind Only, One should pass beyond a state that is without appearances. A yoga practitioner who is established in a state without appearances Sees the Mahāyāna.49 (LAS X.257) The author at this point turns his attention to the question of the remainder: Now, some teachers who cling to a Cittamātra position [say] that a truly established cognition (rnam rig, vijñapti) is shown by the final turning [scriptures] to be of definitive meaning. From the Sūtra on Ultimate Emptiness (Don dam pa stong pa nyid kyi mdo50): When something does not exist there, then that [place] is empty of that [thing]. Further it is comprehended that something that remains there does exist there. This is the nonerroneous, correct view regarding emptiness, the Middle Way.51 In clarifying the intent behind this statement, the Karma pa first explains that the Buddhist teachings were unlimited both in content and modes of expression because they functioned as skillful means tailored to each of the multifarious mind-sets of individuals. After outlining some of the hermeneutical devices employed in interpreting and translating the buddha-word, the Karma pa turns to the RGV’s special

49   L AS 298.15–299.1: cittamātraṃ samāruhya bāhyam arthaṃ na kalpayet | tathatā­lambane sthitvā cittamātram atikramet || cittamātram atikramya nirābhāsam atikramet | nir­ ābhāsasthito yogī mahāyānaṃ sa† paśyati ||. †According to Tibetan in Nanjio 1923: 299 n. 1. Nanjio proposes to read na. Mi bskyod rdo rje quotes only the first stanza, but the second is included here for context. 50  This title is not found in the Tibetan canon. It may be noted that the Tibetan title of the CS is Mdo chen po stong pa nyid. The quotation resembles the CS passage on the remainder with the exception of the last line. The same sūtra is also quoted in the Vyākhyāyukti, on which see Mathes 2007: 335. Stag tshang lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen quotes the same passage and under the same title Don dam pa stong pa nyid kyi mdo in his Grub mtha’ kun shes auto-commentary, 141.13–16. 51  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa V, ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo vol. 80, 195.5–196.1: yang sems tsam gyi phyogs ’dzin pa’i slob dpon kha cig || ’khor lo tha mas rnam rig bden grub pa zhig nges don du bstan pa yin te | don dam pa stong pa nyid kyi mdo las | gang na gang med pa de ni des stong pa nyid yin la | ’di la lhag ma gang yin pa de ni ‘dir yod pa ste | ’di ni dbu ma’i lam stong pa nyid la lta ba yang dag par phyin ci ma log pa’o….

254

Higgins

interpretation of the “remainder” as buddha nature that is empty of adventitious stains: When it comes to the meaning of the [above] quotation, the esteemed teacher Asaṅga stated that uncontaminated awareness (zag med kyi shes pa), operative since time without beginning, which is the cause of perfect buddhahood (rdzogs sangs) free from obscurations, was termed “buddha nature.” Since it is not possible for its mode of being to mingle with the nature of all obscurations, [the latter] exist as something separable. However, since [buddha nature] is the cause that generates qualities such as the powers on the level of buddhahood, since beginningless time it has not been known to be separable. Hence, it appeared to be explained in the sense of not being empty [of buddha qualities].52 The author concludes by quoting the above-cited passage from Asaṅga’s RGVV to substantiate the view that the remainder is buddha nature, which is said in RGV to be inseparable in the sense of not being empty of unsurpassed buddha qualities but devoid of adventitious stains that are characterized as separable because they are superfluous and can be removed through spiritual praxis. Surveying a number of the Karma pa’s treatments of the remainder problem, it becomes evident that his aim is to avoid extremes of existence and nonexistence while at the same time balancing affirmative and negative modes of discourse. We have proposed that his Mahāmudrā and Tathāgatagarbha orientations prompted him to acknowledge a remainder of some kind – buddha nature, the nature of mind, the nature of reality, while his allegiance to *Prāsaṅgika and Apratiṣṭhāna views led him to disavow any hypostatization of this remainder as an established basis (gzhi grub). This helps to explain his emphasis, increasingly conspicuous in his later writings, on the need to ascertain an emptiness free from any residual beliefs in the extremes of existence and nonexistence. In this regard, despite indications of his preference for Gzhan stong-like affirmation of the basis of emptiness over the Rang stong-based denial of such a basis, his later works, such as the MA and Dgongs gcig commentaries, endorse the metaphysically disinclined stance of the anti-foundationalist Madhyamaka traditions. In his MA commentary, 52  Ibid., 196.3–5: … lung de’i don ni slob dpon thogs med zhabs kyis | thog ma med pa’i dus can gyi zag med kyi shes pa bden par med bzhin du sgrib bral rdzogs sangs kyi rgyu bde gshegs snying po’i ming can la | sgrib pa thams cad kyi rang bzhin de’i gnas tshul dang ’dre mi rung bas dbyer yod la | sangs rgyas kyi sa’i stobs sogs kyi chos bskyed pa’i rgyus ni thog med nas ’bral mi shes pas mi stong ba’i don du ’chad par snang gi….

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

255

he determines that among the extensive ways of teaching emptiness found among innumerable Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and tantric sources, those presented within Madhyamaka teachings and treatises are “most lucid” (ches gsal ba) because “by teaching an emptiness that leaves behind not even the slightest remainder of discursive elaborations and characteristics (spros mtshan gyi lhag ma), this tradition takes the remaining emptiness to be fully comprehensive in scope.”53 Stated succinctly, this tradition’s profound emptiness, which leaves behind no ontological residue in the form of reifying superimpositions, is deemed to be the most far-reaching and soteriologically efficacious. Later in his MA commentary, the Karma pa remarks that the Jo nang pa had forsaken this comprehensive emptiness of the Madhyamaka tradition in subscribing to an “emptiness of other” (gzhan stong) position predicated on the belief in a permanent, unconditioned ultimate reality that is fundamentally separate from dependent arising. To this extent the Jo nang school is said to be vulnerable to the criticism of advocating an extreme of eternalism. Yet this is a view, Mi bskyod rdo rje contends, that also leads inescapably to the opposite extreme of nihilism: Hence, you take the real Gzhan stong ultimate truth to be something unconditioned and permanent. Thus, since what is permanent would perforce be devoid of activity (bya ba med pa), the triad of object, agent, and action (bya byed las) stemming from ultimate truth would stop functioning. And were that to stop, then liberation stemming from realizing that ultimate truth would [also] stop. Were that to stop, then saṃsāric phenomena would also stop functioning. Hence, anyone who claims that the conventional, i.e., saṃsāra, is erroneous due to delusion regarding the ultimate, i.e., nirvāṇa, is required to assert the qualification that it is impossible for the ultimate, nirvāṇa, to exist. And if there is no nirvāṇa, then there is also no saṃsāra as its counterpart, and thus there is no alternative but to assert nihilism.54 53  D  wags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 5.19–6.3: lugs ’dir ni spros mtshan gyi lhag ma cung zad kyang ma lus par stong nyid du bstan nas stong pa nyid kyi lus yongs su rdzogs par mdzad pa’i phyir |. 54  Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 22.14–21: des na khyed cag dngos su gzhan stong don dam bden pa ’dus ma byas rtag pa la byas pas | de’i dbang gis rtag pa la bya ba med pas don dam bden pa las brtsams pa’i bya byed las gsum rgyun chad par ’gyur zhing | de chad na don dam bden pa rtogs pa las brtsams pa’i rnam grol rgyun chad par ’gyur la | de chad na ’khor ba’i chos kyang rgyun chad par ’gyur te | ’khor ba kun rdzob pa ni don dam myang ’das la ’khrul nas phyin ci log tu byung bar ’dod pa gang zhig | don dam myang ’das ni yod du mi rung ba’i khyad par khas len dgos byung zhing | myang ’das med na der bltos kyi ’khor ba yang med pas chad par khas mi len ka med du ’gyur ba’i phyir |.

256

Higgins

The Karma pa here tactfully redeploys Nāgārjuna’s argumentation (e.g., in MMK chapter 24) for why emptiness – i.e., the lack of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena – is a precondition for conditioned, transitory, dependently arisen, phenomena. The latter had on this basis maintained (MMK XXIV.18) that emptiness (śūnyatā) is equivalent to dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda). Against a rival substance realist (vastuvādin) who had contended that emptiness, if true, would render spiritual realization impossible, Nāgārjuna responded that, on the contrary, emptiness, the lack of inherent existence, is a necessary condition for any kind of activity and change, spiritual progress and realization included. It was rather his opponent’s view of independently and inherently existent entities that would render such progress impossible, since permanence and independent existence preclude activity, causality, and change. Arguing along similar lines, the Eighth Karma pa demonstrates how belief in a metaphysical ultimate outside of space and time and disconnected from causally dependent processes commits one to the view that soteriological activity such as the cultivation of virtue and wisdom are pointless.55 In his Dgongs gcig ’grel pa, Mi bskyod rdo rje extends this line of criticism to Tsong kha pa’s account of the realization of emptiness, which leaves as its remainder a true reality, “the way things really are” (yathābhūtam) ultimately, that is, empty of any established nature.56 The Karma pa poses the question: “How, according to the account of emptiness advanced by you, Tsong kha pa, can [you] establish an entity that is not the entity of the negandum (dgag bya)?”57 The question follows a lengthy interrogation of Tsong kha pa’s acceptance of a non-reified true reality (yathābhūtam) by exposing it to Candrakīrti’s unequivocal repudiation of substance realist vastuvādin (dngos po smra ba) views. Coming to the gist of his criticism, Mi bskyod rdo rje states “If the general idea of a real entity is not established even conventionally by Mādhyamikas, then how could it be established ultimately!”58 The answer would be, it can only be established ultimately, because conventionally everything is unreal. To sharpen his criticism, the Karma pa draws the surprising, and rather uncharitable, conclusion that Tsong kha pa’s account of emptiness 55  See, for example, his remarks on the Jo nang pa view of the ultimate in Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 257–258. Compare with Dol po pa who maintained that it is the permanent which makes the impermanent possible. See Stearns 1999: 215. 56  On this matter, see Williams 1983 and Broido 1988. 57  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia, MKsb vol. 4, 445.5–6: ci tsong kha pa khyed bzhed pa’i stong nyid kyi tshul la chos can dngos po dgag bya’i dngos po min pa’i dngos po sgrub tshul de ni |. 58  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia, MKsb vol. 4, 445.2–3: dbu ma pas dngos po’i spyi tsam kun rdzob tu yang ma grub na don dam par grub par lta ga la zhig …

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

257

is no different from the account of emptiness as a real, existent remainder given in the Abhidharmasamuccaya (AS).59 This is so, the Karma pa argues, because “since your account of emptiness amounts to one real entity being empty of another real entity, and therefore does not establish that the entire spectrum of phenomenal entities is empty, what [view] could be lower than that?”60 Here he echoes Candrakīrti’s rejection of a type of emptiness that posits the existence of one aspect of reality to the exclusion of another. Turning the table on his opponent, he accuses the Dge lugs pa of employing the partial emptiness (prādeśikaśūnyatā, nyi tshe ba’i stong pa nyid) that had been criticized in the Samādhirājasūtra (SRS) IX, 47. This he takes to be none other than the Yogācāra remainder formulation of emptiness. The specific sense in which Tsong kha pa’s account of emptiness can be refuted as an instance of this contested type of emptiness is clarified in the Karma pa’s MA commentary: “In [this] account of emptiness, according to which all phenomena are empty of an own-nature, a pot is not empty of a pot in the sense that a pot that is empty of reality is said to be a pot that is empty of own-nature.”61 By way of summary, to declare that a pot that is empty of a truly established (bden grub) nature survives as a remnant on the ultimate level is to endorse a type of object realism predicated on an emptiness consisting in one thing being empty of another. Mi bskyod rdo rje considers Tsong kha pa’s logic of emptiness to be at least formally identical to the rival position (phyogs snga) that posits something existent that is empty of something nonexistent, and that had been criticized by a wide range of Madhyamaka canonical texts as being antithetical to the principle of profound all-inclusive emptiness that leaves no remainder. As he explains:

59   A S, D 4049, 152.3–4: “What is the defining characteristic of emptiness? ‘It is perceived that when something does not exist there, then that [place] is empty of that [thing]. It is further comprehended that ‘something that remains there exists there’ [and that] it is the truly real.’ This is the view of the real that is the entry into emptiness; it is described as ‘nonerroneous’.” (stong pa nyid kyi mtshan nyid gang zhe na | “gang la gang med pa de ni de stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong ba ste | ’di la lhag ma gang yin pa de ni ’dir yod pa’o zhes yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du rab tu shes so” | ’di ni stong pa nyid la ’jug pa yang dag pa’i lta ba ste | phyin ci ma log pa zhes bya’o |.) 60  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia, MKsb vol 4., 445.5–6: khyod kyi stong tshul de ni dngos po gzhan la dngos po gzhan gyis stong tshul du song ba’i phyir dngos chos mtha’ dag stong par mi ’grub pas de las tha shal ba ci zhig yod |. 61  Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 343.19–21: chos thams cad rang gi ngo bos stong pa’i stong tshul la bum pa bum pas mi stong la | bum pa bden pas stong pa bum pa rang stong pa’i don yin ces smras pa….

258

Higgins

The claim that the partial emptiness is a [valid] principle of emptiness is refuted as follows. For example, the Cittamātra propounds within the framework of dependent cognition (gzhan dbang rnam rig) an emptiness that is empty of the imagined subject and object (gzung ’dzin kun brtags), but nevertheless proclaims that it is not empty of the nature of dependent cognition. As the principle of emptiness you maintain is like that, it follows that it is not that final emptiness (stong pa nyid dpyis phyin) encompassing all phenomena. This is because amidst the two truths, there is ultimately left behind as a remainder some phenomenon that is not empty. Thus, we declare [that you] propound partial emptiness. While proponents of real entities (vastuvādins) are [on this same basis] ruled out [by you] as mistaken, in the case of the Madhyamaka tradition you subscribe to, the accusation directed at the realists such as the Cittamātra rebounds to your side.62 6

Concluding Remarks: On the Prospect of a Groundless Ground

Mi bskyod rdo rje’s analysis of opposing Tibetan Buddhist “remainder” positions attempted to demonstrate the extent to which the Jo nang pa Other-emptiness and Dge lugs pa Own-emptiness accounts of emptiness were predicated on the same logic of salvaging one aspect of reality at the expense of another. The principal difference is that Jo nang pa remainder is an enduring yet atemporal metaphysical reality whereas the Dge lugs pa remainder is non-reified external phenomena. Now, for the Karma pa, neither of these views satisfies the condition of being an all-inclusive emptiness that leaves behind no ontological residue. But is Mi bskyod rdo rje’s own viewpoint able to meet this stringent requirement? In other words, can he retain his Mahāmudrā tradition’s central teachings on recognizing the nature of mind (sems nyid) or natural awareness (tha mal gyi shes pa) by means of unmediated yogic direct perception (rnal ’byor pa’i mngon sum) and mental nonengagement (yid la mi byed pa) without recourse to realist and foundationalist aspirations and assumptions? 62  D  wags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 344.5–9: ’dis nyi tshe ba’i stong nyid stong pa nyid kyi tshul du smra ba ’gog pa ni | dper na | sems tsam pas gzhan dbang rnam rig gi steng du gzung ’dzin kun brtags kyis stong pa’i stong nyid smra yang | gzhan dbang rnam rig gi ngo bos mi stong par ’dod pa la | khyod ’dod pa’i stong nyid kyi tshul de lta bu de chos thams cad la khyab pa’i stong pa nyid dpyis phyin de ma yin par thal | bden pa gnyis las don dam par mi stong pa’i chos shig lhag mar lus pas stong nyid nyi tshe bar smra ba’i phyir zhes dngos por smra ba la nongs pa phar la bskur bar mdzad pa yin la | khyed ’dod pa’i dbu ma’i lugs de ltar na | sems tsam pa sogs dngos smra ba la nongs pa phar la bskur ba de tshur la log par ’gyur te |.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

259

This question brings us to the heart of the Karma pa’s middle path, a path that opens onto the discernable but elusive nature of mind and reality described in Mantrayāna, Mahāmudrā, and Tathāgatagarbha discourses while steering clear of illegitimate imputations. It is a path, that is, that brings into view what he sometimes calls a groundless ground (gzhi’i gzhi med) or foundationless foundation (gnas med gnas). Its discovery must be a matter of yogic direct perception, an attestation of reality in its most ontologically primitive condition, but one that avoids construing what is uncovered as a foundation, some shovelstopping bedrock on which all depends but that itself depends on ­nothing.63 The Karma pa thus finds himself in the difficult position of having to clarify and justify how there is available to the Mahāmudrā practitioner some basic and invariant ground (gzhi) of human experience that is itself without any still deeper source or grounding (gzhi med rtsa bral) and therefore exempt from Madhyamaka charges of realism and foundationalism. To articulate the possibility of a non-foundationalist ground of experience, the Karma pa must first acknowledge the presence of a basic nondual mode of awareness that, however elusive, is nonetheless accessible and discernible within the experiential continuum. He must also specify how it is structurally separate from the concurrent adventitious streams of dualistic cognition. In this regard, it is imperative for him to clarify that the former can never be a transformed aspect of the latter – that is to say, nondual wisdom cannot be merely an altered state of mundane consciousness. Rather, nondual wisdom is what reveals itself when the imputed and adventitious modes of consciousness are purified out of existence, leaving in their wake no remainder, no residual reifications: In this [Karma Bka’ brgyud] tradition, according to the Prāsaṅgika Mādhyamikas, if investigated, all the constellations of consciousness are of the nature of adventitious stains, so it is not possible for them to be fundamentally transformed into the essence of stainless wisdom. This is so because, were this possible, then [wisdom] would have to possess error (’khrul pa) since an effect must be concordant with its cause. For this reason [the Prāsaṅgika] do not accept that on the level of buddhahood even the wisdom of fundamentally transformed consciousness [exists]. And consequently, a truly established mind empty of both subject and object is not endorsed by any Mādhyamika. That said, there are some Svātantrikas who explain that, conventionally, the mind empty of duality, luminosity, and wisdom exists in the meditative equipoise of noble 63  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia, MKsb vol. 4, 497.1.

260

Higgins

bodhisattvas and perfect buddhas. However, the Prāsaṅgikas do not maintain the existence of the functioning of mind and wisdom at all, even conventionally. Hence, in the case of the six or eight constellations of consciousness, some remnant (lhag ma) mind empty of subject and object would [have to] be covert, unable to produce the overt cognitions (rnam rig, p­ rajñapti) of subject and object. The stream of consciousness (rig rgyun) that has entered the sphere without remainder [in the case] of śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha saints is not explicitly manifest; [yet] this cognition or mind that is not modified by objects and in which dualistic appearances have vanished is not at all the same as the buddha nature of ground, path, and fruition explained in the Uttaratantra [RGV] and the nondual wisdom of ground, path and fruition explained in the Mantra[yāna] because were it the same, then one would be forced to conclude that even the goals of buddhahood of the sūtras and tantras are not at all the same … and the buddha[hood] of sūtras and tantras [would] be subdivided into superior and inferior [types].64 The author is here emphatic that the invariant nondual wisdom or buddha nature that is progressively revealed in all its dynamism by the Buddhist sūtric and tantric paths is fundamentally different from consciousness as variously classified in Buddhist Abhidharma and Yogācāra sources, as well as the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha “stream of consciousness” that enters the sphere without remainder. As he explained in his Reply to Bla ma Khams pa, it may be observed that the flow of adventitious mind (glo bur gyi sems) is concurrent but

64  D  wags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 48.13–49.11: lugs ’dir dbu ma thal ’gyur bas dpyad pa na rnam shes kyi tshogs thams cad glo bur dri ma’i bdag nyid can yin pas de nyid dri bral ye shes kyi ngo bor gnas ’gyur du mi rung ste | rung na ’bras bu rgyu’i rjes su ’gro bas ’khrul bcas su ’gyur ba’i phyir | sangs rgyas kyi sar rnam shes gnas gyur gyi ye shes kyang mi ’dod la | des na gzung ’dzin gnyis kyis stong pa’i sems bden grub pa dbu ma thams cad kyis mi bzhed kyang | tha snyad du rang rgyud pa kha cig | gnyis stong gi sems ’od gsal ba dang | ye shes byang ’phags dang rdzogs sangs kyi mnyam gzhag na yod par ’chad cing | thal ’gyur bas ni tha snyad du’ang der sems dang ye shes kyi rgyu ba gtan yod par mi bzhed la | des na rnam shes kyi tshogs drug gam brgyad la gzung ’dzin gyis stong pa’i sems lhag ma gzung ’dzin mngon gyur ba’i rnam rig bskyed mi nus kyi bag nyal | nyan rang dgra bcom lhag med kyi dbyings su zhugs pa’i rig rgyun mngon par mi gsal ba yul gyis kha ma bsgyur cing gnyis snang nub pa’i shes pa’am sems de ni rgyud bla mar bshad pa’i rgyu lam ’bras bu’i bde gshegs snying po dang | sngags su bshad pa’i gzhi lam ’bras gsum gyi gnyis med ye shes dang gtan mi gcig ste | gcig na mdo sngags kyi ’bras bu sangs rgyas kyang mi gcig ka med du ’ong zhing |… mdo sngags kyi sangs rgyas la mchog dman gyi khyad par ’byed pa’i phyir |.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

261

nonconvergent (ma ’dres pa) with the flow of innate mind (gnyug ma’i sems).65 This phenomenological observation allows Mi bskyod rdo rje to conclude that “consciousness” both in its sixfold (non-Yogācāra) and eightfold (Yogācāra) classifications is a cover term for a complex and heterogeneous set of phenomena that are epiphenomenal, having no independent existence apart from the nature of mind and reality. Unconditioned wisdom is what remains when the conditioned ālayavijñāna and its dualistic operations have ceased. The nondual wisdom revealed is therefore not the same as the residual nondual mind left behind when duality ceases, if this latter is taken as a foundational construct to support a particular theory of mind. The point is that, to be attested, this wisdom needs to be personally experienced (so sor rang rig gi ye shes); methods of rational justification, such as deductive or inductive inference, are insufficient for verifying its presence. To be sure, the possibility of human beings attaining this buddhajñāna can scarcely be denied without rendering the entire edifice of Buddhist soteriology incoherent and pointless. Nondual primordial awareness is both the point of the Buddhist path and what makes it possible. Nor can the view be rejected that there remains a nondual mode of awareness – however elusive to deluded minds – when all that obscures and obstructs it is dispelled, without begging the question of what distinguishes Buddhist goal-realization from the kind of voluntary stupefaction or blank-mindedness that was so sharply criticized by Mahāyānists. In this regard, the Karma pa underscores the soteriological significance of Buddhist ideas concerning mind’s luminous nature, which, whether described implicitly (in the sūtras) or explicitly (in the tantras), were taught in order to draw attention to immanent buddhahood that may be realized through these exoteric or esoteric paths: Now, among the middle turning [scriptures], etc., intending as [their] underlying intentional reference (dgongs gzhi)66 the luminous mind (sems ’od gsal) that is explicated in Mantra [scriptures], there were statements that the very essence of the six or eight constellations of consciousness 65  See the translation of this text, Bla ma khams pa’i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis, in Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 2, 117–122. 66  In Tibetan Buddhist hermeneutics, a statement, teaching, or scripture that is deemed to be of provisional meaning (neyārtha; drang don), i.e., in need of further interpretation to arrive at a definitive sense (nītārtha; nges don), must meet three criteria: (1) it has a fundamental or underlying (deep or hidden) intentional reference (abhiprāya; dgongs pa/dgongs gzhi), (2) it has a motive or necessity (dgos pa, prayojana), and (3) it contradicts reality if taken literally (dngos la gnod byed; mukhyārthabādha). On this three-fold scheme as formulated in Tibet by Sa skya Paṇḍita, see Seyfort Ruegg 1985: 198.

262

Higgins

is luminosity with the purpose (dgos pa) of making [people] thereby understand the buddhahood of the sūtras and tantras, which is attained by means of the paths of sūtras and tantras. Hence the statement, “mind is no mind; the nature of mind is luminous,”67 was explained in terms of that most expansive mind and wisdom that is not the mind consisting in the apprehending [subject] and apprehended [object]. Having this meaning in mind, the noble Maitreya also stated:68 “It is declared that there is no other mind apart from the mind of reality (dharmatācitta), which is naturally luminous.”69 In an exposition on tantric practice in his Explanation of the Direct Introduction to the Three Kāyas (Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad) commentary, Mi bskyod rdo rje characterizes the nature of that mind that is thoroughly acquainted with the supremely incomprehensible70 domain of the buddhas but is not the domain of logicians (rtog ge ba), as being devoid of any source (rtsa ba med pa), foundation (gnas pa med pa), ground (gzhi med pa), characteristics (mt­ shan ma med pa), or shapes and colors (dbyibs dang kha dog med pa), and also as transcending the sense faculties (dbang po las ’das pa).71 Thus, what is truly established as the unchanging and luminous features of ordinary mind cannot be equated with the ultimate tantric luminosity of mind (sems kyi ’od gsal) because the former are simply reified images of the mind.

67  A  ṣṭasāhasrikaprajñāpāramitā (ASP), D 12: 5b1–2. The corresponding passage from the Sanskrit is given in Schmithausen 1977, 41 as lines E.b.1–2 tathā hi tac cittam acittam | prakṛtiś cittasya prabhāsvarā ||. See n. 173. 68   M SA XIII.19 (Sylvain Lévi ed., 88): na dharmatā cittam ṛte ’anya cetsaḥ prabhāsvaratvaṃ pra­kṛtyā (text: prakṛtau) vidhīyate ||. 69  Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta, 49.11–19: des na ’khor lo bar pa sogs las dgongs gzhi sn­ gags nas bshad pa’i sems ’od gsal la dgongs nas | dgos pa mdo lugs kyi lam gyis mdo lugs kyi sangs rgyas thob par shes pa’i ched du rnam shes kyi tshogs brgyad dam | drug gi rang ngo ’od gsal bar gsungs pa yod de | “sems ni sems ma mchis pa ste sems kyi rang bzhin ’od gsal ba’o” zhes gzung ’dzin gyi sems ma mchis pa’i sems dang ye shes ches rab ’byams su bshad cing | don de la dgongs nas rje btsun byams pas kyang | chos nyid sems las gzhan pa’i sems gzhan ni || ’od gsal ma yin rang bzhin la brjod do ||. The Skt. of MSA XIII.19a–d, according to Lévi (MSABh, 88.9–10) is as follows: [mataṃ ca cittaṃ prakṛtiprabhāsvaraṃ sadā tad āgantukadośadūṣitaṃ |] na dharmatācittam ṛte ’nyacetasaḥ prabhāsvaratvaṃ prakṛtyā (text: prakṛtau) vidhīyate ||. “[The mind is taken to be luminous by nature; it is [only] tainted by adventitious faults.] A natural luminosity of (i.e., consisting of) another [dependent] mind (cetas), different from the mind as true nature (dharmatā) is not taught.” As referenced and quoted in Mathes 2008: 487–488 n. 966. 70  The expression mchog tu bzung bar dka ’bar literally means “supremely difficult to grasp.” 71  Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, MKsb vol. 22, 260.4–5.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

263

One’s own mind has been described by the illustrious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pas as “great primordial freedom without ground or source” (gzhi med rtsa bral), which is free from all limits of discursive elaborations. Though established in that way, it is not possible that [what is] truly established as the unchanging permanence of mind and the luminosity of cognizing mind constitutes the luminosity of mind of the Mantra[yāna] that is the limit of reality (bhūtakoṭi) [i.e., ultimate truth] because these are not free from mental imagery involving elaborations.72 The idea that the nature of mind is without ground or source (gzhi med rtsa bral) has been a recurrent theme in Tibetan doctrinal history and was already well attested in the earliest Rdzogs chen traditions.73 Mi bskyod rdo rje resurrects this idea in his Dgongs gcig commentaries, observing that in Buddhist teachings on the lack of intrinsic essence of all phenomena, “inasmuch as the nature of all phenomena is without foundation, it was not demonstrable in terms of any linguistic imputation of a ‘foundation.’ ”74 Yet, emptiness, the lack of intrinsic essence, had been described by the buddha as a foundationless foundation (gnas med gnas yin), since it is of the nature of nonreification or nonsuperimposition. Already in the twelfth century, Bla ma Zhang brtson ’grus grags pa (1122–1193) had provocatively declared that characterizing the absolute without ground and devoid of a source (gzhi med rtsa bral) is deeply mistaken given that “the basis of designation, the designation, and the terms themselves” are without ground or source. The absolute is neither a ground nor groundless, neither a source nor sourceless. Mi bskyod rdo rje comments that if one is to fully comprehend the comprehensive Madhyamaka mode of emptiness that is not one thing’s dialectical emptiness of another thing, it is necessary to realize that the entire range of phenomenal entities are without any ground or source (gzhi med rtsa bral). However, he proceeds to quote the 72  S ku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, 260.5–261.1: dpal ldan dwags po bka’ brgyud pa dag gi rang sems gzhi med rtsa bral spros pa’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba’i ye grol chen po zhes bshad pa de nyid du grub la | sems ’gyur med kyi rtag pa dang rnam rig pa’i sems ’od gsal bden grub la | sngags kyi sems kyi ’od gsal yang dag mthar mi rung | de dag gis ni spros pa’i mtshan ma las ma grol ba nyid kyi phyir ro |. 73  See Higgins 2013: 172f. 74  Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia, MKsb vol. 4, 496.4–5: chos rnams kyi rang bzhin ni gnas pa med pa la gnas pa’i sgras sgro btags nas bstan ma yin te |…. The author quotes an unidentified sūtra, which states “these phenomena, these things which are not grounded, do not have a foundation. Although the foundationless is described in terms of a foundation, an intrinsic essence is not discovered.” (chos ’di dag ni mi gnas pa’i ’di dag la ni gnas yod min || gnas med gnas pa’i sgras brjod kyang || rang gis ngo bo’o rnyed ma yin ||.)

264

Higgins

relevant passage of Bla ma Zhang, which concludes by stressing the absurdity of declaring the absolute to be groundless: Even concerning the absolute imputed by the scholars, The basis of designation, the designation, and the terms themselves Are [said to be] without ground and devoid of source. [But] being neither ground nor groundless, Those who call it “groundless” are mistaken. [And] being neither a source nor devoid of source, There being no deeper supporting ground, Those who label it as “devoid of source” are deeply mistaken!75 In sum, the eighth Karma pa’s recourse to paradoxical-sounding Buddhist formulations such as “groundless ground”76 may be viewed as an attempt to articulate an invariant continuum of being and awareness that is available to first-hand experience but cannot be reduced to the oppositional categories of existence and nonexistence and the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism based on these. From the Karma pa’s Middle Way perspective, it is a fallacy, in this instance as in so many others, to force upon the mind a choice between existence and nonexistence, as though such exclusive options exhausted the range of possibilities. To take either side is to impute either more or less to phenomena than experience can deliver. We might add that it is precisely because human experience is as heterogeneous and hierarchically stratified as it is that it remains radically underdetermined by what we make of it, lending itself to multiple descriptions without being definitively captured by any of them. Acknowledgements This essay is the result of research that was generously funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF Project number P23826-G15). Many friends and colleagues helped me to rethink and refine the material presented in this essay. I am especially grateful to Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Roger Jackson for their many useful comments and suggestions. 75  As quoted in Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia,’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo vol. 77, 445.3–5: mkhas pa’i mthar thug sus btags kyang || gdags gzhi dang ni ’dogs byed dang || ming nyid gzhi med rtsa bral te || gzhi dang gzhi med mi ’dug par || gzhi med ces su btags pas ’khrul || rtsa ba med cing rtsa bral med || gtad sa gting nas mi ’dug par || rtsa bral zhes btags shin tu ’khrul ||. This passage belongs to a section that is missing from MKsb. 76  See Braver 2012: 177.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

265

Bibliography

Primary Indic Sources



Tibetan Primary Sources

AN:  Aṅguttaranikāya (part I). Ed. R. Morris; 2nd ed. rev. by A.K. Warder. London: Pali Text Society, 1923. AS: Asaṅga. Abhidharmasamuccaya. Ed. Pralhad Pradhan. Santiniketan: VisvaBharati Publishing Press, 1950. ASP: Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, D 12 (Tibetan translation). BBh: Asaṅga. Bodhisattvabhūmi. Ed. Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: 1930–1936. CS: Cūḷasuññatasutta. Pāli: Majjhiimanikāya no. 121, vol. 3, pp. 104–109. Ed. Robert Chalmers. London: Pali Text Society, 1899. Tibetan: Mdo chen po stong pa nyid ces bya ba (Skt. śūnyatānāmamahāsūtra) P 956: 274b2–278a7; D 290: 253b2–253b2. LAS:  Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Ed. Bunyiu Nanjio. Bibliotheca Otaniensis 1. Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1923. MAV: Maitreya. Madhyāntavibhāga. Ed. Gadjin M. Nagao. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964. MMK: Nāgārjuna. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Ed. Ye Shaoyong. Beijing: Research Institute of Sanskrit Manuscripts and Buddhist Literature, 2011. MSA:  Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. Maitreya. Ed. Sylvain Lévi. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences historiques et philologiques 159. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1907. PSP:  Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa. Ed. Christian Lindtner. Candrakīrti’s Pañcaskandhapraka-raṇa: I. Tibetan text. Acta orientalia (1979) 41: 87–145. RGV: Maitreya. Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. Ed. Edward H. Johnston. Patna: Bihar Research Society, 1950. (Includes the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā.) RGVV: Asaṅga. Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā. See RGV. SRS:  Samādhirājasūtra. Ed. P.L. Vaidya. Darbhanga, Mithila Institute of PostGraduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1961.

Chos kyi grags pa, ’Bri gung chung tshang I. Dgongs pa gcig pa dka’ ’grel. Full title: Dam pa’i chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i dka’ ’grel tshigs su bcad pa mun sel sgron me. In ’Jigs rten gsum mgon, Dgongs pa gcig pa, 157–277. D: Derge edition of Bstan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Taipei Edition. Taipei, Taiwan: SMC Publishing, 1991. Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan. Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho. Full title: Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho zhes bya ba mthar thug thun mong ma yin pa’i man ngag. Pecing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998.

266

Higgins

’Jigs rten gsum mgon. Dgongs pa gcig pa. In Gongchig das einzige Ansinnen, der wah­ rhafte Dharma. Mit dem Kommentar Die Lampe, die die Dunkelheit beseitigt von Rigdzin Chökyi Dragpa. Ed. Susanne Schmidt. 2009. München: Otter Verlag, 157–277 (Tibetan text and commentary). Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. Dgongs gcig ’grel pa Ia. Full title: ’Jig rten gsum gyi mgon po ’bri gung pa chen po’i dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i kar ṭīka las | tshoms dang po’i rnam bshad karma bka’ brgyud kyi mkhyen pa rab gsal bka’i me long mchog tu ’bar ba. In: MKsb vol. 4, 69–5753. Also in: ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo. Lhasa: A mgon rin po che, 2004, vol. 77. Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. Dgongs gcig ’grel pa V. Full title: Dgongs gcig kar ṭīka las | Dum bu lnga pa’i rnam bshad. In: ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod chen mo, vol. 80, 103–511. Lhasa: A mgon rin po che, 2004. (missing from MKsb). Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Full title: Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung Dvags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Reprod. From a Dpal spungs edition of Zhwa dmar Chos kyi blo gros. Gangtok: Rumtek Monastery, 1974. Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. Ma hā mudrā’i man ngag lnga bcu pa. In: MKsb vol. 19, 623–641. Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. MKsb: Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum. Full title: Dpal rgyal ba karma pa sku ’phreng brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum, 26 vols. Lhasa: 2004. Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII. Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad. Full title: Sku gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e vaṃ phyag rgya. In MKsb vols. 21–22. Also: dbu med edition (4 vols.) Gangtok: Rumtek Monastery, 1978. P: Peking edition of Bstan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Peking Edition. Tokyo/Kyoto: Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute, 1957. Rgyal tshab rje Darma rin chen. Theg pa then po rgyud bla ma’i ṭīka. In The Collected Works (gsung ’bum) of the Lord Rgyal tshab rje Dar ma rin chen. 8 vols. Vol. 3, 3–4613. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1982. Stag tshang lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen. Grub mtha’ kun shes. Full title: Grub mtha’ kun shes kyi rtsa ’grel. Root text: 1–25; auto-commentary: 26–230. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999. Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa. Dbu ma dgongs pa rab gsal. Ed. By N. Gelek. n.d. n.p.



Secondary Sources

Almogi, Orna. 2009. Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna, ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Question of What Remains

267

Anālayo, Bhikkhu. 2012. Excursions into the Thought-world of the Pāli Discourses. Onalaska, WA: Pariyatti Publishing. Braver, Lee. 2012. Groundless Grounds: A Study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Broido, Michael. 1988. “Veridical and Delusive Cognition: Tsong-kha-pa on the Two Satyas.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 16: 30–32. Dargay, Lobsang. 1990. “What is Non-existent and What is Remanent in Śūnyatā.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 18: 81–91. Griffiths, Paul. 1991. On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. Higgins, David. 2013. The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes). (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 78.) Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien. Higgins, David and Martina Draszczyk. 2016. Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way: Post-classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-Nature. 2 vols. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 90.) Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien. Isaacson, Harunaga and Francesco Sferra. 2014. The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproductions of the MSS. (Manuscripta Buddhica 2.) Naples: Università degli Studi Napoli “L’Orientale.” Jiang, Bo, trans. 2017. The Sublime Continuum and its Explanatory Commentary (Mahayanottaratantrasastravyakhya; theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos dang de’i rnam par bshad pa). New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies, Columbia University Center for Buddhist Studies, Tibet House USA. La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. 1907, 1910, 1911. Madhyamakāvatāra, Introduction au Traité du Milieu de l’Ācārya Candrakīrti, avec le commentaire de l’auteur, traduit d’après la version tibétaine. Le Muséon (Louvain) VIII 1907: 249–317; XI 1910: 271–358; XII 1911: 235–328. La Vallée Poussin, Louis de, ed. 1912. Madhyamakavatara par Candrakirti. Biblioteca Buddhica IX. St. Petersbourg. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2007. “The Ontological Status of the Dependent (paratantra) in the Saṃdhinirmo-canasūtra and the Vyākhyāyukti.” In Indica et Tibetica. Festschrift für Michael Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht. Edited by Konrad Klaus and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, 323–339. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 66.) Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

268

Higgins

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2009. “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (‘A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged’).” Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 13: 5–32. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2012 “The gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on its Origin, Transmission and Interpretation.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34: 187–226. Nagao, Gajin. 1991 [1978]. “What Remains in Śūnyatā: A Yogācāra Interpretation of Emptiness.” In Mādhyamika and Yogācāra a Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies: Collected Papers of G.M. Nagao. Albany: State University of New York Press. Salvini, Mattia. 2015. “Language and Existence in Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: Preliminary Reflections.” In Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: Allies or Rivals? Edited by Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff, 29–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmithausen, Lambert. 1981. “On Some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of ‘Liberating Insight’ and ‘Enlightenment’ in Early Buddhism.” In Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift fur Ludwig Alsdorf. Edited by K. Bruhn and A. Wezler. Wiesbaden: Franz-Steiner Verlag. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1963. “The Jo Naṅ pas: A School of Buddhist Ontologists According to the Grub mtha’ śel gyi me loṅ.” Journal of American Oriental Society 83.1: 73–91. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1969. La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra; études sur la sotériologie et la gnoséologie du bouddhisme. Paris: É cole Française d’Extrême-Orient. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1985. “Purport, Implicature and Presupposition: Sanskrit Abhiprāya and Tibetan Dgoṅs pa/​Dgoṅgs Gži as Hermeneutical Concepts.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 13.4: 309–325. Skilling, Peter. 1994–1997. Mahā sūtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha. Vol. I. Texts. Critical editions of the Tibetan Mahāsūtras with Pāli and Sanskrit counterparts as available. 1994. Vol. II, Parts I and II. 1997. Oxford: The Pali Text Society. Sacred Books of the Buddhists XLIV, XLVI. Stearns, Cyrus. 1999. The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. SUNY series in Buddhist Studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sternberg, R.J., L. Jarvin, and A. Reznitskaya. 2008. “Teaching of Wisdom through History: Infusing Wise Thinking Skills in the School Curriculum.” In Teaching for Wisdom. Edited by M. Ferrari and G. Potworowski, 37–57. New York, New York: Springer. Urban, Hugh and Paul Griffiths. 1994. “What Else Remains In Śūnyatā? An Investigation of Terms for Mental Imagery in the Madhyāntavibhāga-Corpus.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17.1: 1–25. Williams, Paul. 1983. “A Note on Some Aspects of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Critique of dGe lugs pa Madhyamaka.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 11.2: 125–145. Yamaguchi, Susumu. 1941. Bukkyō ni okeru Mu to U tono Tairon [Controversy between the Theories of Nonbeing and Being in Buddhism]. Tokyo, Kyoto: Kōbundō-shobō.

Chapter 9

Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā in the Works of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje Klaus-Dieter Mathes 1 Introduction In his cycle of amanasikāra texts, Maitrīpa (986–1063) combines the tantric Mahāmudrā teachings of Saraha, Nāgārjuna,1 and Śavaripa with a particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called apratiṣṭhāna (“non-abiding” or “nonfoundation”), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. This goal is achieved by “withdrawing one’s attention” (amanasikāra) from anything that involves the duality of a perceived and perceiver. At the same time, the adept experiences “luminous self-empowerment,” Maitrīpa’s final Mahāmudrā understanding of amanasikāra. Considering this double meaning, the term amanasikāra is best rendered as “non-conceptual realization.”2 Through its blend of Madhyamaka and Mahāmudrā, Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle plays a crucial role as one of the main sources of Bka’ brgyud lineage instructions. Throughout the collected works of the eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507–1554) the influence of Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra-based Mahāmudrā can be discerned. Mi bskyod rdo rje even insists that Apratiṣṭhāna Madhyamaka forms the main basis for the view of the two truths in the Mar pa Bka’ brgyud schools.3 In this context, in his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad Mi bskyod rdo rje explicitly mentions Sahajavajra’s commentary on Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka, one of the main philosophical texts in the amanasikāra cycle. Further works from the amanasikāra cycle that figure in the writings of Mi bskyod rdo rje are the Kudṛṣṭinirghātana, the Amanasikārādhāra, the Tattvaratnāvalī, the Mahāyānaviṃśikā and the Pañcākāra. Moreover, the Karma pa also refers to the Caturmudrānvaya. The latter text is probably not by Maitrīpa, but it nonetheless plays a key role in the amanasikāra cycle by preparing the doctrinal 1  It goes without saying that the tantric Nāgārjuna is meant here, who lived much later than the author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās. 2  See Mathes 2015: 1. 3  I.e., the Bka’ brgyud schools going back to Mar pa Lo tsā ba Chos kyi blo gros (11th cent. CE).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_011

270

Mathes

ground for Maitrīpa’s equation of Mahāmudrā with non-abiding, and thus amanasikāra, in his Sekanirdeśa, another important text from the cycle. 2

Three Types of Madhyamaka-based Mahāmudrā

In the introduction to his Madhyamakāvatāra commentary, Mi bskyod rdo rje closely links his Mahāmudrā tradition with Madhyamaka, which, like many other Bka’ brgyud masters, he traces back to two main sources, the teachings of Nāropa (11th century) and Maitrīpa. The latter source is said to consist mainly of Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle. Mi bskyod rdo rje further explains that Maitrīpa taught his cycle after having internalized the meaning of the Madhyamaka maintained by Saraha the Elder, Saraha the Younger, Nāgārjuna (fl. 200 CE),4 and Candrakīrti (c. 600–c. 650),5 and goes on to list three Tibetan interpretations of Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra based Mahāmudrā (i.e., his amanasikāra cycle), in terms of (1) Mantra Madhyamaka, (2) Sūtra Madhyamaka, and (3) Madhyamaka of Alīkākāra–Cittamātra.6 While the first two traditions were completely transmitted and practiced by Mar pa Lo tsā ba Chos kyi blo gros and Mi la ras pa (both 11th century CE), it was mainly the middle one, Maitrīpa’s cycle transmitted as Sūtra Madhyamaka, that Sgam po pa (1079–1153) emphasized and spread. Sgam po pa called it mahāmudrā, but, Mi bskyod rdo rje warns that this term is normally reserved for the wisdom of bliss and emptiness in Mantrayāna. Related to the issue of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Sgam po pa is said to have actualized the state of the natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa), which he calls the actualization of the dharmakāya. This led him to the famous statement that thoughts appear as dharmakāya.7 For Mi bskyod rdo rje, this amounts to the realization that thoughts do not exist as anything other than their true nature (dharmatā): Once [Sgam po pa] had realized that phenomena (dharmin) such as sprouts or concepts, are nothing but their dharmatā, he used the verbal 4  This is the time frame of the early Nāgārjuna, who is mainly intended here. It should be noted, though, that according to Tibetan tradition the early and tantric Nāgārjuna are the same person. 5  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i kar ṭī ka, 7.19–21: sa ra ha che chung dang | slob dpon klu sgrub dang zla grags bzhed pa’i dbu ma’i don thugs su chud nas gzhan la ston par mdzad pa mnga’ bdag rgyal ba mai tri pa ste | lugs ‘di’i dbu ma’i chos skor la yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor zhes grags la |. First paraphrased by Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1255. 6  Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1255–1256. 7  Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1257–1258.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

271

convention that thoughts appear as dharmakāya8 and recommended that even somebody who has a very good experience of the secret tantric wisdom of inseparable bliss and emptiness is in great need of this view and meditation [of thoughts appearing as dharmakāya] as a remedy to remove the remaining latencies of mental fabrication and negative states. This is because all hindrances are eradicated by it, just as in the case of the omnipotent white medicine. This is [Sgam po pa’s] special instruction.9 Mi bskyod rdo rje here comes to the defense of Sgam po pa’s Sūtra Mahāmudrā and his allusion to the simile of the omnipotent white medicine (dkar po gcig thub), a controversial concept that was notably criticized by Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1151).10 Still, Mi bskyod rdo rje continues with the more moderate and accommodating remark that in these instructions, the calm abiding and deep insight of Sūtra Mahāmudrā should not be mistaken for the exemplifying and actual wisdoms of unsurpassable Mantrayāna: In this Dharma system [of Sgam po pa], calm abiding and deep insight [tend to] be overstated as the exemplifying and actual wisdoms, which are known as the third and fourth empowerments explained in the unsurpassable Mantra[yāna]. Whatever experience of calm abiding and 8  Mi bskyod rdo rje’s reluctance to endorse Sgam po pa’s “thoughts appear as dharmakāya” must be seen against the background of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-based distinction between the buddha-kāyas and the impure adventitious mind, or “all-ground wisdom” (kun gzhi ye shes) and “all-ground consciousness” (kun gzhi rnam shes). In line with this distinction, in his Abhisamayālaṃkāra commentary Mi bskyod rdo rje criticizes those followers of Mahāmudrā whose confusion, he says, is a hundred thousand times greater than the assertion that the ālayavijñāna, when purified, becomes the fruit of the mirrorlike wisdom. Mi bskyod rdo rje’s distinction also translates into his interpretation of buddha nature, which certainly does not belong to sentient beings according to him. Sentient beings merely consist of the six cognitive domains, which resemble those of a buddha. Mi bskyod rdo rje equates buddha nature with the dharmakāya, asserting that it only acts in relation to the six cognitive domains, like milk diffused within water. (See Mathes 2008: 55–65.) 9  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dbu ma la ‘jug pa’i kar ṭī ka, 10.3–8: chos can myu gu dang rnam rtog sogs de dag de’i chos nyid las gzhan du ma grub par rtogs pa na rnam rtog chos skur shar ba zhes tha snyad mdzad nas | gsang sngags kyi bde stong dbyer med kyi ye shes sogs kyi nyams myong ches bzang bzang po skyes pa la’ang da dung spros pa’i bag nyal dang | gnas ngan len yod pa sel byed kyi gnyen por lta sgom ’di nyid cher dgos par sngags te | ’dis dper na sman dkar po chig thub dang ’dra bar sgrib pa thams cad rmeg nas sel bar byed pa’i phyir zhes gdams pa yin no |. First translated by Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1258. 10  See Jackson 1994: 3–6.

272

Mathes

deep insight may have arisen in one’s mind-stream, it cannot eradicate indisputably most of what must be abandoned, i.e., the three hindrances. Thus, when one reaches conclusive certainty about the meaning of signs [and words] in this Dharma system, this is praised as the supreme progress of realization.11 Interestingly, Mi bskyod rdo rje then turns the tables on Sa skya Paṇḍita, claiming that it is in fact the latter’s method of producing the soteriologically relevant wisdom through causing the disciple’s subtle wind to enter the central channel (and not Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā) that is insufficient: Master Phag [mo] gru [pa] (1110–1170), for example, once boasted that he found the wisdom of the path of seeing at the feet of Sa skya [Paṇḍita] through [his] subtle winds having been caused to enter the central [channel] and co-emergent joy having been caused to manifest. Later on, he offered this realization at the feet of Master Sgam po pa, and all this previous experience fell off [like] a husk. [It only seems that] he had been made to find the wisdom of the path of seeing. Such a [pointing-out by Sgam po pa] should be correctly known as the particular profundity of the very heart of Dharma. With this in mind, it is said in the works of the great Victorious One from ’Bri gung (1143–1217): The Mahāmudrā of our tradition is beyond the four joys, superior to luminosity, and not touched by the three great ones (i.e., Great Madhyamaka, Mahāmudrā, and Rdzogs chen12).13

11  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i kar ṭī ka, 10.8–12: chos tshul ’di la brgyud pa rin po che ’di pa dag gi lugs kyi sngags bla med nas bshad pa’i dbang gsum pa dang bzhi par grags pa’i dpe don gyi ye shes su rlom pa’i zhi lhag gi nyams ci rigs rgyud la skyes pas sgrib gsum gyi spang bya cher cher brtsad nas drungs ’byin par mi nus la | de las chos tshul ’di brda don dpyis phyin pa’i rdo rus gtugs par gyur na rtogs pa’i bogs dbyung mchog tu bsngags te |. 12  Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1259. Khenpo Tamphel explains that Mahāmudrā cannot be grasped within the conceptual framework of the three great ones. See also Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 115 n. 299. 13  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dbu ma la ‘jug pa’i kar ṭī ka, 10.12–21: dper na rje phag gru sngar sa skya pa’i sku bdun du rlung dbu mar chud de lhan cig skyes dga’ mngon du mdzad nas mthong lam gyi ye shes brnyes par rlom pa zhig | phyis rje sgam po pa’i drung du rtogs ’bul mdzad pas sngar gyi nyams de thams cad shun par bud nas gdod mthong lam gyi ye shes brnyes par mdzad pa lta bu ni chos kyi gnad ’di’i zab khyad yang dag par shes dgos so || ’di lta bu la dgongs nas rgyal ba ’bri gung pa chen po’i gsung rab nas | kho bo’i lugs kyi phyag rgya chen po ni dga’ ba bzhi las ‘das pa | ’od gsal las khyad par du ’phags pa | chen po gsum gyis ma reg pa | zhes gsungs te |.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

273

In his answer to a question by Gling drung pa La dor ba, Mi bskyod rdo rje refers to the same statement by ’Bri gung pa in support of Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā being neither identical to nor different from both worldly and transmundane empowerment: As for Bka’ brgyud Dwags po Lha rje’s (i.e., Sgam po pa’s) Mahāmudrā, neither identity with, nor difference from, both the worldly and transmundane fourth empowerment in the tantra sections applies. ’Jig rten gsum gyi mgon po ’Bri gung pa said: “The Mahāmudrā of our tradition is beyond the four joys, superior to luminosity, and not touched by the three great ones.” Even the Great Brahmin Saraha said that the innate co-emergent Mahāmudrā, i.e., the purpose of the dohās, cannot be realized through the fourth empowerment. This is because in the Dohās for the People (i.e., Dohākoṣa, lines 10d–11c) it is said: “Some are engaged in explaining the meaning of the fourth. Some develop concepts about the element of space. Still, others develop views on emptiness. In general, they stand in contradiction.”14 Mi bskyod rdo rje leaves no doubt, however, that the Tibetan Sūtra Madhyamaka reception of Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle, which Sgam po pa calls mahāmudrā, does not replace tantric Mahāmudrā. In the Shing rta chen po, Mi bskyod rdo rje concisely presents his understanding of the two truths in Madhyamaka. Here, in opposition to what seemed to have been common practice in Tibet in his time, he stresses that Mahāmudrā realization requires the tantric context of empowerment: These days, Mahāmudrā realization In the mountain solitude of Tibet Is the current discursive awareness only. It depends on the study and reflection on scriptures and reasoning 14  Mi bskyod rdo rje: “Gling drung pa la ’dor ba’i dris lan,” 2b2–6 (p. 314): bka’ brgyud dwags po lha rje ba’i phyag rgya chen po ni rgyud sde las ’byung ba’i ’jig rten dang ’jig rten las ’das pa’i dbang bzhi pa dang gcig mi gcig bstun tu yod pa min te | ’jig rten gsum gyi mgon po ’bri gung [em., text: khung] pas | dga’ ba bzhi las ’das pa | ’od gsal las khyad par du gyur pa || chen po gsum gyis ma reg pa zhes gsungs pa ste | bram ze chen po sa ra has kyang gnyug ma lhan cig skes pa phyag rgya chen po do ha’i don ni dbang bzhis pas rtogs par mi nus zhes dmangs do har | la la bzhi pa’i don ’chad pa la zhugs | la la nam mkha’i khams la rtog [em., text: rtogs] par byed | gzhan dag stong nyid lta bar byed pa ste | phal cher mi mthun phyogs la zhugs pa yin | zhes ’byung ba’i phyir |. For the quotation from the Dohākoṣa, see Shahidullah 1928: 128–129.

274

Mathes

And arises in the mind-stream Thanks to pointing-out [instructions] by the lama. … As for Mahāmudrā realization, It is the distinguishing feature of Great Yoga. Other than occurring after accomplishment Through the three empowerments, Vows, and conduct, How Mahāmudrā could be known Through verbally or symbolically pointing out That one’s mind is merely emptiness?15 Still, in support of Sgam po pa’s strategy of widely propagating a Samādhi­rājasūtra-based Mahāmudrā,16 Mi bskyod rdo rje refers to the same passages from Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra and Sahajavajra’s *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā as does ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481).17 As I have already shown 15  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Shing rta chen po 532.6–533.3: deng sang gangs ri’i khrod ’di na || phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa ni || da lta’i ’gyu ’gyu’i rig tsam ’di || lung rig thos dang bsam pa la || la ltos bla mas ngo sprad pas || de ltar rgyud la skyes pa de | … | phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa ni || rnal ’byor chen po’i khyad chos yin || de ni dbang dang sdom pa dang || spyod pa rnam gsum la sogs kyis || bsgrub nas ’byung ba ma gtogs pa || rang sems stong pa nyid tsam du || ngo sprod pa’am brda sprod kyis || phyag rgya chen po ga la shes |. 16  It is not clear how Sgam po pa reads Mahāmudrā into the Samādhirājasūtra, but Sahajavajra quotes in his commentary to the Tattvadaśaka a group of verses from the Samādhirājasūtra (XXXII.92–97b), which back up his Mahāmudrā pith-instructions to the effect that characteristic signs (nimittas) or notions (saṃjñās) do not arise and are pure. Sahajavajra further points out that the inconceivable nature of this purity is equally expressed in SRS XXXII.98–105 and Sekanirdeśa, verse 30 (see Mathes 2015: 114, 232–236). 17  See Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1259–1260; and ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal, Deb ther sngon po, 632.6–633.4: “Moreover, Dwags po Rin po che said to Phag mo gru pa: ‘The basic text of this Mahāmudrā of ours is the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (Ratnagotravibhāga) by the Venerable Maitreya.’ Phag mo gru pa in turn said the same thing to Rje ’Bri gung pa, and for this reason many explanations of the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra are found in the works of Rje ’Bri gung pa and his disciples. In this connection, the Dharma master Sa skya pa (i.e., Sa skya Paṇḍita) maintains that there is no conventional expression for mahāmudrā in Pāramitāyāna, and that the wisdom of mahāmudrā is only the wisdom arisen from initiation. But in the Tattvāvatāra composed by the master Jñānakīrti it is said: ‘As for someone with sharp faculties who practises the pāramitās diligently, by performing the meditations of calm abiding and deep insight, he [already becomes] truly endowed with the mahāmudrā [while] in the state of an ordinary being; [and this] is the sign of the irreversible [state attained] through correct realization.’ And the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā composed by Sahajavajra clearly explains a wisdom that realizes suchness as possessing the following three particular [features]: in essence it is Pāramitā[yāna], it accords with Mantra[yāna] and its name is ‘mahāmudrā.’ Therefore Rgod tshang pa, too, explains that Rje Sgam po

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

275

elsewhere, Gzhon nu dpal identifies Mahāmudrā instructions in non-tantric sources such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra or the Maitreya works.18 In his Dgongs gcig commentary, however, Mi bskyod rdo rje seems to express his concern about Gzhon nu dpal’s position on this matter, as he accuses the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa Chos kyi grags pa (1453–1526) of uncritically following Gzhon nu dpal: Later on, Yid bzang rtse ba (i.e., Gzhon nu dpal) said: “The Mahāmudrā maintained by the lord Nāropa is the Mahāmudrā of bliss and emptiness. The Mahāmudrā maintained by master Maitrīpa is the Mahāmudrā of the true nature [of mind]. The Mahāmudrā of bliss and emptiness is good Mahāmudrā. The Mahāmudrā of the true nature depends on it, and thus is a little inferior.” Not being independent (tsho zin) himself, our Zhwa dmar pa Chos kyi grags pa imitates him (i.e., Gzhon nu dpal).19 Mi bskyod rdo rje presents the transmission of this Mahāmudrā, which, as a Madhyamaka system based on freedom from mental fabrication, does not require tantric empowerment, as follows:

pa’s Pāramitā[yāna] Mahāmudrā is [in line with] the assertions of the master Maitrīpa.” (de yang dwags po rin po ches dpal phag mo gru pa la | ’o skol gyi phyag rgya chen po ’di’i gzhung ni bcom ldan ‘das byams pas mdzad pa’i theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos ’di yin zhes gsungs shing | dpal phag mo gru pas kyang rje ’bri gung [text: khung] pa la de skad du gsungs pas | rje ’bri gung [text: khung] pa dpon slob kyi gsung rab rnams su theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bshad pa mang du ’byung ba de yin no | ’di la chos rje sa skya pas pha rol tu phyin pa’i lugs la phyag rgya chen po’i tha snyad med cing | phyag rgya chen po’i ye shes gang yin pa de ni dbang las skyes pa’i ye shes kho na yin no zhes bzhed mod kyi | slob dpon ye shes grags pas mdzad pa’i de kho na nyid la ’jug par | pha rol tu phyin pa la mngon par brtson pa’i dbang po rab ni | zhi gnas dang lhag mthong bsgoms pas so so’i skye bo’i gnas skabs nyid na phyag rgya chen po dang nges par ldan pa yang dag par rtogs pas phyir mi ldog pa’i rtags nyid dang | zhes gsungs la | de kho na nyid bcu pa’i ’grel pa [text: ’brel ba] lhan cig skyes pa’i rdo rjes mdzad par yang | ngo bo pha rol tu phyin pa | sngags dang rjes su mthun pa | ming phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba’i khyad par gsum dang ldan pa’i de bzhin nyid rtogs pa’i ye shes gsal bar bshad do | de bas na rje sgam po pa’i pha rol tu [text: du] phyin pa’i phyag rgya chen po ni mnga’ bdag mai trī [text: tri] pa’i bzhed pa yin par rje rgod tshang pas kyang bshad do |.) First translated, in collaboration with Gendun Chophel, by Roerich 1949–1953: 724–725. 18  See Mathes 2008. 19  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dgongs gcig lta sgom spyod pa’i tshogs kyi kar ṭīk smad cha (= vol. 2), 304.2–6: dus phyis yid bzang rtse pa’i gsung gis | rje nā ro pa bzhed pa’i phyag chen de bde stong phyag chen yin la | jo bo mai tri pas bzhed pa’i phyag chen de gnas lugs phyag chen yin zhing | bde stong phyag chen ni phyag chen bzang po yin | gnas lugs phyag chen ni de la ltos te cung zad dman pa’o zhes ’chad la | nged kyi zhwa dmar ba chos kyi grags pas kyang rang tsho ma zin nas de’i rjes zlos byed |.

276

Mathes

Thinking of this [Sūtra Māhamudrā], Rgod tshang pa (1189–1258) and his disciples said: “The ones who initiated this Mahāmudrā teaching were the Great Brahmin [Saraha] and Nāgārjuna – the Great Brahmin having taught Mahāmudrā in an affirmative way, and the protector Nāgārjuna under the aspect of negation.”20 Whether Mi bskyod rdo rje was critical of Sūtra Mahāmudrā or not, it should be noted that he sees the via affirmativa of Saraha and the via negationis of Nāgārjuna as complementary approaches to ultimate reality. This requires accepting the goal of Nāgārjuna’s via negationis to be a state that is truly free from any mental fabrication because positive descriptions of the ultimate are merely inadequate attempts to express the ineffable. In other words, the ultimate, and emptiness for that matter, can only be truly realized in the absence of constructing a cognitive object that involves duality. In his Shing rta chen po, for example, Mi bskyod rdo rje takes emptiness to be truly beyond mental fabrication, and not suitable to manifest as a cognitive object. This being the case, any mental engagement (manasikāra) is pointless, realization being found only by refraining from it (amanasikāra). In the Shing rta chen po we find: The emptiness beyond action, agent, and object is without a perceived [object] because it is impossible that [this emptiness] attains the status of a manifest object, which is wrongly [superimposed] by devout meditation. The darkness of wrong superimposition is removed at its root [only] through the genuine sun of wisdom. When reaching such a state, one does not find anything apart from mere natural luminosity, however much one engages in the mental fabrication of cognition’s perceived and perceiver. According to the Victorious Mother of the Perfect Buddhas (i.e., the Prajñāpāramitā texts), it is said that mental engagement is unvirtuous. With this in mind, the great master Maitrīpa has found such a realization, or rather, the yoga of amanasi[kāra] [described] in [his] amanasikāra cycle.21 20  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i kar ṭī ka, 11.19–12.1: 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 | bram ze chen pos phyag rgya chen po sgrub phyogs nas bstan | mgon po klus dgag phyogs nas bstan pa yin | ces gsungs so |. See also Seyfort Ruegg 1988: 1260. 21  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Shing rta chen po 521.1–4 (fol. 4b): bzung med bya ba byed pa dang || las las grol ba’i stong nyid de || mos nas bsgoms pas log pa yi || gsal snang ’char ba’i yul nyid du || yong ba’i go skabs yod min dang || log pa’i sgro skur mun pa rnams || yang dag ye shes nyi ma yis || rtsad nas sel bar byas phyir ro || ’di lta’i skabs su sleb pa na || rang bzhin ’od gsal ’ba’ zhig

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

277

The fact that Mi bskyod rdo rje refers here to Maitrīpa shows that for him amanasikāra is not only the withdrawal of one’s attention from anything that involves a perceived object and a perceiver, but is also luminous selfempowerment.22 A little later in the Shing rta chen po, Mi bskyod rdo rje also describes positively what is beyond mental fabrication: It has been made clear in this tradition that freedom from any knowing, which clings to the extremes of mental fabrication, is non-dual wisdom.23 It should be noted that in this philosophical project of uniting Nāgārjuna’s via negationis with Saraha’s via affirmativa it is essential to reject any form of superimposition or misplaced denial, especially when approaching true reality through inferential analysis. Following this line of thought, Mi bskyod rdo rje criticizes any attempt to conceptually construe existence, even on the level of relative truth.24 In his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, therefore, he takes issue with Tsong kha pa (1357–1419): Regarding such explanations, the great Shar Tsong kha pa [argues that] because conventional valid perception establishes the relative, it is not empty of an own nature. Yet, while the presence of an object that has not been imputed amounts to an autonomous existence as relative truth, the emptiness of being empty of an own nature is the ultimate truth. This places him outside of the excellent Madhyamaka system, which perfectly distinguishes [and is represented by] all those of earlier generations who maintain that ultimate and relative truths are of one essential nature – the glorious Saraha, the noble Nāgārjuna, the master Śavari[pa], the master Buddhapālita (c. 470–c. 550), Candrakīrti, and the great master Maitrīpa.25 las || blo yi gzung dang ’dzin rgyu yi || spros pa yid la byed rgyu zhig || gang ltar byas kyang ma rnyed pas || rdzogs sangs rgyas kyi rgyal yum las || yid byed mi dger gsungs pa yang || ’di yi don la dgongs sam snyam || slob dpon chen po me tri pas || yid la mi byed chos skor gyi || a ma na si’i rnal ’byor yang || ’di lta’i rtogs pa rnyed nas yin |. 22  See Maitrīpa’s final analysis of the term amanasikāra in the Amanasikārādhāra (AMĀ 497.6–7): “[The letter] a stands for the word ‘luminous,’ and manasikāra for the word ‘self-empowerment’ (svādhiṣṭhāna). It is both a and manasikāra, so we get amanasikāra.” (a iti prabhāsvarapadam | manasikāra iti svādhiṣṭhānapadam | aś cāsau manasikāraś cety amanasikāraḥ |). See Mathes 2015: 247. 23  Shing rta chen po, 524.6 (fol. 6a): spros mtha’ ’dzin pa’i shes kun dang || bral la gnyis med ye shes zhes || lugs ’dir gsal bar byas pa yin |. 24  See also Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 239–240. 25  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 112.1–8: shar tsong kha pa chen pos | kun rdzob tha snyad pa’i tshad mas grub pa’i phyir rang rang ngo bos mi stong yang

278

Mathes

In this, Mi bskyod rdo rje also aligns himself with Rong zom Chos bzang (1012–1088) and Atiśa (982–1054), and specifies, in accordance with Rong zom: Obviously the great Paṇḍita Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po, too, taught following the way in which the venerable Maitrīpa and the glorious Atiśa had ascertained the objects of knowledge [known as] the two truths. In his Lta ba’i brjed byang26 [he explains that] even though the phenomena of the two truths occur in mutual dependence and are thus without superimposition and misplaced denial, manifold superimpositions and misplaced denial arise as common defining properties for the appearances of just these interdependent conditions.27 To refrain from any reification is indeed the way Maitrīpa and his disciple Rāmapāla understand Apratiṣṭhāna Madhyamaka. In his commentary on Sekanirdeśa, verse 29ab, where Maitrīpa defines mahāmudrā as “to not abide in anything,”28 Rāmapāla explains: “In anything” means “in dependently arisen skandhas, dhātus, āyatanas, and so forth.” “Not to abide” means “not to become mentally engaged,” “not to superimpose.”29 In other words, the yogin simply refrains from projecting wrong notions, which usually include independent existence, onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhātus or āyatanas. To what extent this reflects Rong zom’s brtags bzhag min pa’i yul gyi sdod lugs tshugs thub kyi grub pa’i kun rdzob bden grub par rang gi ngo bos stong pa’i stong nyid don dam bden pa yin la | don dam bden pa de dang kun rdzob ngo bo gcig yin par ’dod pa thams cad sngon rabs byon pa’i dpal mgon sa ra ha dang | ’phags pa klu sgrub zhabs dang | rje btsun sha ba ri dang | slob dpon sangs rgyas skyangs dang | zla ba grags pa dang | mnga’ bdag mai tri pa chen po dag gis legs par phyes pa’i dbu ma’i lugs bzang po las phyi rol du gyur pa’o |. 26  Rong zom chos kyi bzang po, Sbrul nag po’i stong thun. In Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum, vol. 2, 66–69. At the end of this short discourse, Rong zom pa mentions that this example goes back to Dharmabhadra. (Thanks to Martina Draszczyk for this reference.) 27  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 112.9–13: des na jo bo mai tri pa dang dpal ldan a ti sha de dag gis shes bya bden gnyis ji ltar gtan la dbab pa de ltar pa ṇḍi ta chen po rong zom chos bzang gis kyang bshad par snang ste | des byas pa’i lta ba’i brjed byang las | bden gnyis kyi chos ltos nas ’byung tsam la sgro skur med kyang | ltos ’byung gi rkyen ’di pa tsam gyi snang ba’i mtshan nyid la sgro skur sna tshogs byung ba yin te |. 28  See Mathes 2015: 107. 29  See Rāmapāla’s commentary on Sekanirdeśa 29a (not to abide in anything; sarvasminn apratiṣṭhānam) as follows: sarvasminn iti pratītyasamutpannaskandhadhātvāyatanādau | apratiṣṭhānam amanasikāro | nāropaḥ (SNP 192.5–6).

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

279

understanding of apratiṣṭhāna is another question. Based on her study of Rong zom, Almogi (2010: 135) translates sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda as “the strand which maintains that all phenomena have no substratum whatsoever.” Since for Mi bskyod rdo rje there is nothing whatsoever that exists independent of designation (including on the level of relative truth), the two understandings do not contradict each other, reflecting as they do a strong form of antifoundationalism. From the object side, everything is without a foundation; from the subject side, i.e., when glossed as amanasikāra, apratiṣṭhāna is best taken in its primary sense of “non-abiding.” 3

Mi bskyod rdo rje on Sūtra Mahāmudrā

As we have seen above, Mi bskyod rdo rje does not fully endorse Sgam po pa’s Sūtra Mahāmudrā (or rather Sūtra Madhyamaka-based Mahāmudrā) or his equation of thoughts with the dharmakāya. In this context, Mi bskyod rdo rje also warns that calm abiding and deep insight tend to be overstated as the exemplifying and actual wisdoms of empowerment. Related to this is the question of whether buddhahood can be reached on the sūtra path of pāramitās at all. In his Dgongs gcig commentary, Mi bskyod rdo rje attributes such a position to Maitrīpa: Master Maitrīpa said: “I have decided that buddha[hood] is not attained through Pāramitāyāna. Why was it necessary then to teach so many Pāramitā[yāna] treatises? They were taught as mere steps on the path for those who have not entered the secret Mantrayāna, but one must rely on the Mantrayāna to become fully awakened.”30 To reach a compromise between this exclusively tantric view and Nāropa’s position, Mi bskyod rdo rje states that the above-mentioned emphasis on the Mantrayāna path only refers to an easy and fast buddhahood, but not buddhahood as such. He thus continues in his Dgongs gcig commentary:

30  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dgongs gcig sor byang sngags kyi tshoms kyi kar ṭī ka (= vol. 3), 276.8–12: ’on kyang nangs kyi kham che ba jo bo mai tri pa’i zhal nas | pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa’i sgo nas sangs rgyas mi thob ces rang du kha tshon gcod | ’o na phar phyin gyi gzhung ’di tsam zhig bstan pa la dgos pa ci yod byas pa la | gsang sngags kyi theg pa la mi ’jug pa rnams kyi lam stegs tsam du bstan pa yin gyi | ’tshang rgya ba la sngags kyi theg pa la bsten dgos zhes gsungs |.

280

Mathes

Venerable Nāropa explained that even those who have entered through the gate of Pāramitāyāna do attain buddhahood. The difference between it and the secret Mantra[yāna] is that the latter is an easy and fast support. Therefore, Master Maitrīpa taught that there is no buddhahood on the path of pāramitās itself. Nāropa may say that there is, but the easy and fast buddhahood of secret Mantra[yāna] must be attained [on Mantrayāna] right from the beginning. Therefore, it is greatly praised in the subsequent tradition of Mar pa and his spiritual sons. This is what my [spiritual] father Ras pa chen po said.31 In his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, Mi bskyod rdo rje goes one step further and states that Maitrīpa’s claim that one can only reach the eleventh level (bhūmi) on the tantric path, is a statement with an intention, and so it has a provisional and not a definitive meaning: Maitrīpa’s statement that the eleventh level can certainly not be reached from the ten levels of the sūtra path, in other words, the eleventh level of Tantra[yāna] can certainly not be reached on the sūtra path, is a statement with an intention. Because if it were not so, Maitrīpa would refute himself. In the famous texts of his well-explained amanasikāra cycle, the buddha[hood] of the sūtra tradition is explained extensively. From among these treatises, in the Tattva­ratnāvalī in particular, there are many presentations of the three vehicles and the four positions. Mahāyāna has two parts, the Pāramitāyāna and the Mantrayāna. The causal vehicle consists of the Sautrāntika, the Yogācāra, and the two Mādhyamika [tenet systems]. In the fruitional vehicle there are the two positions of the Yogācāras and the Mādhyamikas. After having taught them extensively, [Maitrīpa] quotes the Abhisamayālaṃkāra presentation of the three kāyas.32 He does not explain the treatises of secret Mantra[yāna].33 31  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dgongs gcig sor byang sngags kyi tshoms kyi kar ṭī ka (= vol. 3), 276.12–18: jo bo nā ro pa’i zhal nas | pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa’i sgor zhugs pas kyang sangs rgyas thob ni thob ste | gsang sngags dang gnyis kyi khyad ni bde bar skyob pa dang | myur skyob kyi byed pa yin zhes gsungs so || zhes bshad pas | jo bo mai tri pas ni phar phyin rang lam gyi sangs rgyas med par gsungs la | nā ro pas yod kyang des gsang sngags bde myur gyi sgrub pa’i sangs rgyas gdod thob dgos pa’i phyir | rje mar pa yab sras lugs phyi ma nyid la ches bsngags pa yin ces kho bo’i pha ras pa chen pos gsungs |. 32  I.e., Abhisamayālaṃkāra, vv. VIII.1, 12, 33. 33  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 350.14–351.5: rje btsun mai tri pas ni | mdo’i lam gyi sa bcu las bcu gcig pa gtan thob mi nus zhes pa’ang mdo’i lam gyis sngags kyi sa bcu gcig pa gtan mi thob zhes dgongs pa la yin mchis te | de lta ma yin na mai tri pa rang la’ang mi rung bar ’gyur ba’i phyir te | nyid kyi legs par bshad pa’i a ma na si’i chos

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

281

One could add here that Maitrīpa quotes the *Nayatrayapradīpa, which makes it clear that the sūtra and tantra paths share the same goal: It has the same goal [as Pāramitāyāna], but is free from confusion, Rich in [skillful] means, and without difficulties. Moreover, it is [only] fit for those with sharp faculties. The treatises of Mantra[yāna] are thus superior.34 This leads to the question of whether the practice of amanasikāra that is related to the view of non-abiding and Mahāmudrā in Maitrīpa’s Sekanirdeśa and Rāmapāla’s commentary on it (see above) also leads to buddhahood. In his Sdom gsum rab dbye, Sa skya Paṇḍita insists on a strict tantric context of Mahāmudrā practice that (implicitly) includes taking the three levels of vows, and empowerment: A monk without vows, A bodhisattva who has not generated [bodhi]citta, And a Mantra[yāna] practitioner without empowerment – These three are plunderers of the Buddha’s teaching. (III.159) Even if they cultivate Mahāmudrā, Their meditation will only be a suspension35 of thought; The wisdom arisen from the [creation and completion] stages Is not known [to them] as Mahāmudrā. (III.160)

bskor du grags pa rnams su mdo’i lugs kyi sangs rgyas yod pa rgyas par bshad cing | khyad par bstan bcos de dag las | de kho na nyid rin po che’i phreng ba zhes bya ba der theg pa gsum dang | gnas pa bzhi’i rnam bzhag mang du byas par theg pa chen po la gnyis te | pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa dang | sngags kyi theg pa gnyis gnyis su byas shing | rgyu’i theg pa la mdo sde pa dang | rnal ’byor spyod pa ba dang | dbu ma pa gnyis dang | ’bras bu’i theg pa la’ang rnal ’byor spyod pa ba dang | dbu ma la gnas pa gnyis yod pa sogs rgyas par gsungs pa’i mjug sdud du | mdo lugs kyi sangs rgyas sku gsum gyi rnam gzhag mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan las byung ba’i | gang gis srid pa ji srid bar|| zhes sogs drangs nas | ’dir kho bos gsang sngags kyi gzhung ma bshad do zhes ’byung la |. 34  T RĀ 351.25–26: ekārthatve ’py asaṃmohād bahūpāyād aduṣkarāt | tīkṣṇendriyādhikārāc ca mantraśāstraṃ viśiṣyate ||. First translated in Mathes 2015: 74. 35  I.e., reading kha ’tshum instead of kha ’tshom. I am indebted to Michele Martin for this emendation. It better fits the context, as Sa skya Paṇḍita criticized a type of blank mahāmudrā without any thoughts.

282

Mathes

A fool’s cultivation of Mahāmudrā Has been taught to be the cause for going mainly to the animal realm.36 (III.161ab) Mi bskyod rdo rje must have had these lines in mind when he wrote in his Dgongs gcig commentary: Some say, that even though fools do not fall into lower realms when they meditate on the Mahāmudrā that is explained in the unsurpassable Mantra[yāna], those who meditate on the natural mind of you Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pas, this mental non-engagement you call Mahāmudrā, will fall into lower realms. Well then, it is obvious that the learned master Nāgārjuna, and even the perfect Buddha said that mahāmudrā and prajñāpāramitā are amanasikāra, and encouraged many wise and foolish ones to meditate [on it]. Therefore, Nāgārjuna, the perfect Buddha, and others, would be false friends, because in Hevajratantra [I.8.44ab] it is said: “The whole world should be meditated upon [in such a way] that it is not produced by the intellect,” and [in his Caturmudrānvaya] Nāgārjuna said:37 “Homage to you [the Buddha], who is without imagined thoughts, whose intellect is not based [on anything], who is without recollection, who does not become mentally engaged, and who is without any cognitive object.” There is much more in the Bka’ ’gyur and the treatises.38 The Hevajratantra (I.8.44ab) is also quoted in the Amanasikārādhāra, where Maitrīpa argues on the basis of these two lines that amanasikāra is 36  Sa skya Paṇḍita, Sdom gsum rab dbye III.159–61b (Rhoton 2002: 303): dge sbyong sdom pa med pa dang || rgyal sras sems bskyed ma thob pa || sngags pa dbang bskur med pa gsum || sangs rgyas bstan pa’i chom rkun yin || phyag rgya chen po bsgom na yang || rtog pa kha ’tshom nyid bsgom gyi || rim gnyis las byung ye shes la || phyag rgya chen por mi shes so || blun po phyag rgya che bsgom pa || phal cher dud ’gro’i rgyu ru gsungs |. 37  In fact, Nāgārjuna quotes the Jñānālokālaṃkāra in his Caturmudrānvaya. 38  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dgongs gcig ’bras bu’i tshoms dang gsung bzhi bcu pa’i kar ṭī ka (= vol. 5) 237.17–238.3: de la kha cig sngags bla med nas bshad pa’i phyag chen de blun pos sgoms na ngan song du mi lhung kyang | khyod dwags po bka’ brgyud pa’i tha mal shes pa yid la mi byed pa la ming phyag chen du btags pa de bsgoms pas ngan song du lhung bar ’gyur ro zhe na | ’o na slob dpon klu sgrub dang rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas kyis kyang yid la mi byed pa de phyag rgya chen po dang sher phyin du ming btags nas mkhas blun mang po la sgom du bcug snang bas rdzogs sangs dang klu sgrub sogs kyang log pa’i bshes gnyen du ’gyur te | dgyes rdor las | gang phyir yid kyis mi sgom par || ’gro ba thams cad sgom par bya || zhes dang | klu sgrub kyis | kun tu rtog pas ma brtags par | | rab tu mi gnas pa yi yid || dran pa med cing yid byed med || dmigs pa med la phyag ’tshal ’dud || ces ’byung ba sogs bka’ bstan bcos mtha’ klas pa nas ’byung ba’i phyir spros pa chog go |.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

283

understood by implication.39 The verse quoted in the Caturmudrānvaya is from the Jñānālokālaṃkārasūtra, which plays an important role in Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra-based Mahāmudrā. In his commentary on the Sekanirdeśa, verse 36, Rāmapāla establishes an essential link between Mahāmudrā and the abandoning of characteristic signs through amanasikāra. He does so based on the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, an earlier non-tantric dhāraṇī text in which four groups of wrong projections – the characteristic signs of the ordinary phenomenal world, remedies, true reality, and the fruit – are abandoned through the practice of amanasikāra.40 As already noted above, here the term amanasikāra not only stands for mental non-engagement, but also for “luminous self-empowerment.” This blend of sūtra and tantra in the amanasikāra cycle is also a topic in Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad: The so-called amanasikāra cycle of Master Maitrīpa elucidates both Sūtra- and Mantra Madhyamaka. One may wonder then, what is the view of the two truths as it came down to us through the Bka’ brgyud [tradition] of Venerable Mar pa Lo tsā ba. [The answer is as follows:] The meaning of the commentary by the great master Sahajavajra on Jina Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka will be roughly explained here. In this commentary, it is maintained that Master Maitrīpa summarized Pāramitā[yāna] pith instructions that accord with Mantra[yāna]. Therefore, the Dharma to be known and ascertained by those seeking liberation, is true reality, or the nature of the three kāyas, which embody the true nature of phenomena. Another name for it is prajñāpāramitā. Venerable Maitreya said [in Madhyāntavibhāga I.14]: The synonyms of emptiness are, in brief, Suchness, the limit of reality, Signlessness, the ultimate, And the “source of buddha qualities” (dharmadhātu). Therefore, (a) the profundity of being free from identifying and differentiating the two truths in terms of what is contained by them – all phenomena (dharmin) and the naturally pure nature of phenomena (dharmatā) – [and (b) the profundity of being free from] the four extremes of ­existence, non-existence and so forth, have the nature of non-apprehension, 39  Mathes 2015: 243. 40  In his commentary on SN 36, Rāmapāla offers a nearly verbatim citation from the section of the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī that describes the abandonment of the four sets of characteristic signs through amanasikāra. For details see Mathes 2016: 327–331.

284

Mathes

understood as any apprehension in what comes with apprehensions as mere appearances that could occur in dependence on existence and nonexistence or production and cessation.41 Sahajavajra’s characterization of the Tattvadaśaka as a summary of Pāramitāyāna pith instructions that accord with Mantrayāna is already found in ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal’s Blue Annals (see above), with the difference that Mi bskyod rdo rje does not say here that the summary’s name is mahāmudrā – which, in fact, corresponds more accurately to what we find in Sahajavajra’s commentary.42 It is interesting that Mi bskyod rdo rje quotes the same verse from the Madhyāntavibhāga upon which Sahajavajra bases his explanation of the Tattvadaśaka’s initial praise of “suchness, which has no association with existence and non-existence.”43 Sahajavajra thus wants us to understand true reality according to this important Maitreya text, which offers a model of reality that differs from Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka in that it positively describes the ultimate in terms of the natural luminosity of mind.44 Moreover, the Madhyāntavibhāga and the related definition of the two truths along the lines of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga – namely as dharmin and dharmatā, which are neither identical nor different – are fully endorsed here.45 Still, the two vibhāgas are obviously not considered to represent the Yogācāra 41  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa, vol. 1, 102.4–20: jo bo mai tri pas yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor bya ba mdo sngags kyi dbu ma gnyis ka’i tshul gsal bar mdzad pa de | rje btsun mar pa lo tsa ba’i bka’ brgyud las ’ongs pa bden gnyis kyi lta ba ji lta bu’o snyam na | rgyal ba mai tri pa’i de kho na nyid bcu pa zhes pa’i ’grel pa slob dpon chen po lhan cig skyes pa’i rdo rjes mdzad pa de nyid kyi don che long ’dir brjod par bya ste | de’ang ’grel pa de las slob dpon mai tri pas | grub mtha’ bzhi la grags pa’i tshad mas rab tu mi gnas pa la ’jug pa’i ’thad pa rgya chen pos sngags dang rjes su mthun pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag mdor bsdus mdzad par bzhed pas | thar pa ’dod pa dag gis shes par bya ba’i chos gtan la dbab bya ni | de kho na nyid dam | chos nyid kyi bdag nyid can gyi sku gsum gyi rang bzhin nam | ming gzhan shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ste | rje btsun gyis | stong pa nyid ni mdor bsdu na || de bzhin nyid dang yang dag mtha’ || mtshan ma med dang don dam nyid || chos kyi dbyings kyi rnam grangs so || zhes bstan pa nyid kyi phyir bden pa gnyis kyis bsdus pa’i chos can gyi chos thams cad rang bzhin gyis rnam par dag pa’i chos nyid las gcig dang tha dad pa dang | yod dang med pa sogs kyi mtha’ bzhi dang bral ba’i zab mo’i don can yod med skye ’gag la sogs par ltos ’byung gi rung bar snang tsam du dmigs pa dang bcas la ji tsam dmigs pa de nyid kyis ma dmigs pa’i rang bzhin can yin te |. 42  See Mathes 2015: 215. 43  For an English translation of the relevant passage, see Brunnhölzl 2007: 142–143. 44  See Mathes 2012: 190–192. 45  In his Shing rta chen po (519.3–4), Mi bskyod rdo rje describes the same relationship between the two truths.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

285

tenets of Sākāra- and Nirākāravāda,46 for it is said in the following verse of the Tattvadaśaka that somebody who wishes to know suchness does not find it in these two tenet systems. Rather, the relationship between dharmin and dharmatā reflects the one between adventitious stains and buddha nature in the Ratnagotravibhāga, where buddha nature is taken as “suchness accompanied by stains” (samalā tathatā), and buddhahood as “stainless suchness” (nirmalā tathatā). This is precisely what is taught in Tattvadaśaka 1cd: “Because, when stainless, this very [suchness] has the form of enlightenment in virtue of being realized.”47 This and also the doctrinal similarity of Mahāmudrā with the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī (its doctrine of abandoning characteristic signs is crucial to the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, too) establish a close relationship between the Maitreya works and the amanasikāra cycle. Returning to the question of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Mi bskyod rdo rje further points out that in the Kudṛṣṭinirghātana Maitrīpa teaches a sūtra path to buddhahood: Moreover, [Maitrīpa] explains in his Kudṛṣṭinirghātana that there is buddha[hood] in the sūtra-tradition [attained] on the sūtra path. It is said [in the Kudṛṣṭinirghātana]: Here, there are two types of sentient beings: those who are [still] learning and those who no longer [need to] learn. For those who are learning and [thus] in a causal state, there is proper intention, the practice of conviction, the practice following the attainment of [bodhisattva]levels, and finally, gaining power over the following [five concerns: defilements, appearances, deeds (karman), means, and causing sentient beings to ripen].48 Perfect enlightenment is fully attained [only] after accumulating the two accumulations by performing very pure initial activity (i.e., the first five pāramitās). For those who no longer [need to] learn, who have abandoned [all] notions about remedy, reality, and fruit, initial activity unfolds through the power of the impetus of [former] prayers, as in the case of Śākyamuni. [This activity is] uninterrupted and has the defining characteristic of fulfilling the needs of sentient beings through an effortless practice [resulting in a state called] “indivisible union” (yuganaddha). 46  I.e., the two common doxographical categories of Yogācāra, according to which phenomenal content is truly established (sākāra), or not (nirākāra). 47  For a translation of Tattvadaśaka 1–2, see Mathes 2015: 211. 48  See KDNṬ 335.30–31: tatra vaśitāḥ pañca | tad yathā kleśa upapattiḥ karma upāyaḥ sattvaparipākāvasthā.

286

Mathes

Since this is taught with respect to the buddha[hood] of the causal vehicle’s own path, there is an extensive explanation of buddha[hood] on the path of the causal vehicle.49 An important topic related to Sūtra–Mahāmudrā is the question of whether an immediate access to the goal of buddhahood through pointing-out instructions is considered possible. In his analysis of the Indian Mahāmudrā works, Karma Bkra shis chos ’phel, a disciple of Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813– 1899) calls this a short or fast Mahāmudrā path that is independent of the sūtras and tantras.50 It can be combined with the latter two, the result being what Kong sprul calls Sūtra Mahāmudrā and Mantra Mahāmudrā.51 In the Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad we find in this respect an interesting quote from, and comment on, Maitrīpa’s Pañcākāra. The quote is at the end of the description of the first deity, and should be taken to apply implicitly to all remaining deities of the maṇḍala: In the Pañcākāra from Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle it is said: [The crown of his head displays a Vajrasattva, for] he has the nature of Vajrasattva, being inseparable from emptiness and compassion. Therefore,52 he has the nature of cause and effect and the defining characteristic of emptiness, which is endowed with all supreme 49  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 351.5–16: yang des mdzad pa’i lta ba ngan sel las mdo’i lam gyis mdo lugs kyi sangs rgyas yod par bshad de | der ji skad du | ’dir sems can ni rnam pa gnyis te slob pa dang mi slob pa’o || de la [em., text: las] lhag pa’i bsam pas mos pa’i sbyor ba dang | sa la zhugs pa’i sbyor ba dang | lnga la dbang thob pa’i mthar thug pa’i bar rgyu’i gnas skabs pa gnas pa’i slob ma rnams shin tu rnam par dag pa las dang po’i cho gas tshogs gnyis bsags nas | yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub yang dag par thob bo || mi slob pa yang de kho na nyid dang ’bras bu rnam par rtog pa ni gnyen po’i phyogs kyis [em., text: kyi] bsal la | shā kya thub pa ltar sngon gyi smon lam gyi shugs kyis nus pas zung du ’jug pa nyid sems can [du ’bad pa med par]† gyi don byed pa ni | mtshan nyid rgyun mi chad par dang po’i las la ’jug go | zhes bya bar gnas so || zhes ’byung bas rgyu’i theg pa’i rang lam gyi sangs rgyas kyi dbang du mdzad nas gsungs pa’i phyir yang rgyu’i theg pa’i lam gyi sangs rgyas yod par ches bzhed pa yin no |.  † Supplied from KDN 324.15–16.  The Sanskrit of the quote is as follows (KDN 323.25–324.2): iha hi dvividhā sattvāḥ śaikṣā aśaikṣāś ca | tatrāśayo ’dhimuktiprayogo bhūmiprapannaprayogaś ca vaśitāptiparyanto hetvavasthāsthitānāṃ śaikṣāṇām suviśuddhādikarmavidhānena saṃbhāradvayaṃ saṃbhṛtya samyaksaṃbodhisampallābhaḥ | aśaikṣāṇām api nirastapratipakṣatattvapha lavikalpānāṃ śākyamuner iva praṇidhānavegasāmarthyād yuganaddhānābhogayogataḥ sattvārthakriyālakṣaṇam avicchinnam ādikarma pravartata eva | iti sthitam | tathā ca |. 50  Mathes 2011: 104–106. 51  Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas: Shes bya kun khyab mdzod, vol. 3, 375f. 52  Tib. de nyid is a wrong translation of Skt. ata eva. See PĀ 416.33.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

287

aspects. Being unconditioned and having the nature of suchness, he is [also] the dharmakāya. Being a mere appearance, he is the sambhoga­ kāya. Given that he has the nature of consciousness on the level of the imagined,53 he is the nirmāṇakāya. Possessing the single taste of all three kāyas, he is the svābhāvikakāya.54 This is stated [in Mahāyāna­ viṃśikā, verse 19]: “The unconditioned mind is the dharma[kāya]; realization is the defining characteristics of the saṃbhoga[kā­ya]. [Then there is] that: a variety has been emanated (i.e., the nirmāṇakā­ya). The natural one (i.e., the nijakāya) is the nature of all [three].” In these excellent explanations, it has been taught that the three kāyas from the co-emergent luminosity of one’s mind are directly pointed out, which means that it is not as if they are taken as the path and practiced.55 This means that Maitrīpa’s Vajrasattva maṇḍala is not cultivated in the usual creation stage manner but directly pointed out. Here, the adept rather has an immediate access to the kāyas of the buddhas. Understood in this way, the common feature of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā whereby students can be directly introduced to the luminous nature of mind is implicitly endorsed. In his Dgongs gcig commentary, Mi bskyod rdo rje characterizes this type of introduction as an immersion in the natural and continuous Mahāmudrā:

53  I.e., taking kalpita in the sense of parikalpitasvabhāva. 54  This sentence is missing in the Tibetan. See PĀ 417.2: nirmāṇakāyaḥ kāyatritayaikarasatvāt svābhāvikakāyaḥ |. 55  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 203.19–204.9: rje mai tri pa’i yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor rnams las | rang bzhin lnga pa las | rdo rje sems dpa’i rang bzhin stong pa dang snying rje dbyer med pa’o || de nyid rgyu dang ’bras bu’i bdag nyid rnam pa thams cad kyi mchog dang ldan pa’i stong pa nyid mtshan nyid ’dus ma byas shing | de bzhin nyid kyi bdag nyid yin pa’i phyir [chos kyi sku’o || rab tu snang ba tsam yin pa’i phyir]† longs spyod rdzogs pa’i sku’o || brtags pa’i rnam par shes pa’i ngo bo yin pa’i phyir sprul pa’i sku’o || de skad gsungs pas | ’dus ma byas sems chos kyi sku || brtags pa longs spyod rdzogs mtshan nyid || sna tshogs de nyid sprul pa’o || gnyug ma kun gyi rang bzhin no || zhes lung dang bcas te ’byung ngo || de ltar legs par bshad pa de dag gis ni rang sems lhan cig skyes pa’i ’od gsal las sku gsum lam du byed cing nyams su len pa med ltar ngo sprod pa’i tshul bstan zin to |.  † Supplied from PĀ 417.7–8.  The Sanskrit (PĀ 416.14–15, 416.32–417.2 and 417.12–13) of the quotation is as follows: vajrasattvasvabhāvaḥ śūnyatākaruṇābhinnaḥ ata eva hetuphalātmakaḥ sarvākāravaro­ petaśūnyatālakṣaṇo ’saṃskṛtatathatātmakatvād dharmakāyaḥ pratibhāsa­ mātratvāt sambhogakāyaḥ kalpitavijñānātmakatvād nirmāṇakāyaḥ kāyatritayaikarasatvāt svābhā­vikakāyaḥ | tad uktam | asaṃskṛtamano dharmo bodhaḥ sambhogalakṣaṇaḥ | tad eva nirmitaś citraḥ nijaḥ sarvasvabhāvataḥ |.

288

Mathes

Then, on the basis of the true nature, [one’s mind] becomes naked without being able to engage in any mental activity. The glorious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pas call this the true nature of mind to be seen, actualizing natural prajñāpāramitā, or receiving a [pointing-out] introduction through having been introduced to what one has not encountered before – the face of true nature itself. This is labeled “having been immersed into the natural and continuous Mahāmudrā.”56 Mi bskyod rdo rje explains that since such pointing-out introductions are common with sūtra and tantra, they differ from the Mahāmudrā of the completion stage of the Unsurpassable Yoga Tantra. The related view and meditation of this practice are then explained to be based mainly on Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle: Likewise, mere Mahāmudrā like that is not posited as the Mahāmudrā of the completion stage of the Unsurpassable Mantra[yāna]. The way of this view and meditation cannot be compared to the practice of what is common in sūtra and tantra because the great master Maitrīpa emphasized the amanasikāra cycle of not becoming mentally engaged, non-arising, and transcending the mind while he abided well by these instructions.57 It should be noted that if one understands “not becoming mentally engaged” in the sense of “non-mindfulness,” the three attributes characterizing the amanasikāra cycle, mentioned just above, are identical with the last three of Vajrapāṇi’s four practices (dharmas) pertaining to the identity of the nature of mind and the nature of phenomena. They constitute an instantaneous approach. In his *Guruparaṃparākrama–Upadeśa, Vajrapāṇi writes:

56  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dam pa’i chos dgongs pa gcig pa kar ṭī ka las drug pa rten ’brel gyi tshoms kyi ṭī ka chen, 1341: de’i tshe gnas lugs kyi steng du yid kyi byed pa ci yang ma btub par rjen cer gyis ’gro ba de la | dpal ldan dwags po bka’ brgyud pa dag sems kyi gnas lugs mthong bya ba’am rang bzhin sher phyin mngon du byas zer ba’am | gnas lugs kyi rang zhal sngar ’dris kyi mi phrad pa ltar ngo ’phrod pas ngo sprod thob bo zhes dang | phyag rgya chen po ma bcos rgya ’byams su shor zhes pa’i tha snyad mdzad pa yin la |. 57  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dam pa’i chos dgongs pa gcig pa kar ṭī ka las drug pa rten ’brel gyi tshoms kyi ṭī ka chen, 1342: de ltar na’ang de lta’i phyag chen de tsam la sngags bla med kyi rdzogs rim gyi phyag chen du ni mi ’jog go | lta sgom gyi tshul ’di ni mdo sngags thun mong ba’i nyams su len tshul zla dang bral ba zhig yin te | jo bo chen po mai tri pas yid la mi byed skye med blo ’das a ma na si’i chos skor zhes rtsal du bton te legs par gdams pa de nyid du gnas pa’i phyir |.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

289

The four dharmas (i.e., yoga practices) pertaining to the identity of the nature of mind and the nature of phenomena are mindfulness, nonmindfulness, non-arising, and transcending the mind. They are heard at one and the same time in two ways – profound and manifest. The profound is beyond studying, reflecting, and meditating. It is an expression that denotes instantaneous abiding in an equipoise that is not essentially different from the dharmadhātu of all the buddhas of the three times and sentient beings of the three realms.58 In his commentary to Saraha’s People’s Dohās (Dmangs do hā), Karma Phrin las pa (1456–1539), one of the main teachers of Mi bskyod rdo rje, explains these four dharmas, which are indicated by the four letters (e vaṃ ma yā), as the means to accomplish the supreme siddhi (i.e., Mahāmudrā) in the following way: First, by way of special instructions, I teach mindfulness, which means cutting [ordinary conceptual] mind from its root. Then, [second,] drinking the juice of not being mindful, that is, of resting in the sphere of mental non-engagement (a-manasikāra), one forgets to cling to the notion “mine.” Then, [third,] through special instructions on non-arising, which make one understand the meaning of the single syllable for non-arising, [the privative] a, one realizes that the nature of mind has never arisen. Then, [fourth,] through the special instructions on transcending the mind, [which allow one] to pass over into the ultimate, one no longer knows [even] the words or symbols for “non-arising.” This is liberation without expression in word or thought.59 58  BhPHṬAP (D 286b7–287a2; P 309b5–8): sems nyid dang chos nyid kyi ngo bo gcig la dran pa dang | dran pa med pa dang | skye ba med pa dang | blo las ’das pa chos bzhi po dus gcig pa las zab pa dang | snang ba’i tshul rnam pa gnyis kyis thos so | de yang zab pa ni thos pa dang bsam pa dang bsgom pa las ’das pa ste | dus gsum du rnam par bzhugs pa’i sangs rgyas rnams dang | khams gsum gyi sems can ma lus pa’i chos kyi dbyings kyi ngo bo tha mi dad pa’i skad cig ma gcig la mnyam pa nyid la gnas pa’i tshig bla dags so |. My translation differs from Lopez’s (1996: 202–203) only for terminological reasons. 59  Karma Phrin las pa, Dmangs do ha’i rnam bshad 101.4–10: mchog gi dngos grub bsgrub par byed pa’i thabs yi ges nye bar mtshon pa ni bzhi ste | dran pa | dran med | skye med | blo ’das so | de bzhi las dang po sems rtsa ba gcod pa dran pa’i man ngag bdag gis ston te | de nas yid la mi byed pa’i ngang du ’jog pa dran med kyi khu ba ’thungs pas nga yir ’dzin pa ni brjed par ’gyur ro | de nas gang gis a skye ba med pa’i yi ge gcig don shes par byed pa skye med kyi man ngag gis sems nyid gdod nas ma skyes par rtogs | de nas mthar thug la bzla ba blo ’das kyi man ngag gis skye med ces bya ba de’i ming dang brda ni mi shes te sgra bsam brjod med du grol ba’o ||.

290

Mathes

Karma Phrin las pa follows here Vajrapāṇi’s guru Maitrīpa, who argues at length in his Amanasikārādhāra that the privative a of amanasikāra stands for anutpāda (“non-arising”), which means emptiness. As we will see further down, in the final analysis for Maitrīpa, the letter a becomes luminosity, and manasikāra self-empowerment (svādhiṣṭhāna). In the following passage from the Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, Mi bskyod rdo rje adopts a slightly different view on this matter when discussing the common claim of his tradition that Mar pa attained sūtric and tantric Mahāmudrā realization from Maitrīpa and Nāropa respectively: The arising of Mahāmudrā realization free from elaborations based on karmic appearances and the arising of Mahāmudrā realization free from elaborations based on wisdom appearances differ greatly in terms of being supreme and inferior. In [this context] everyone, the [Bka’ brgyud pa] themselves and others, say that lord Mar pa attained accomplishment in [the presence of] both, the lords Nāropa and Maitrī[pa]. [Moreover, they say] that [Mar pa] owes accomplishing insight into emptiness, which is in common with the sūtras, to Maitrīpa and accomplishing the aspect of the means of great bliss, which is specific to the tantras, to Nāropa. However, my all-knowing master [Sangs rgyas gnyen pa] who abides as the essence of the iṣṭadevatā says in his profound secret sermon: It [just] appears that Mar pa, when staying with the noble Maitrīpa, was introduced to the realization of Mahāmudrā based on wisdom appearances and that, when staying with the noble Nāropa, was introduced into the realization of Mahāmudrā based on karmic appearances. [I understand that these] are words appropriate to keep [the meaning] hidden and secret for those who lack good fortune. This is because from the songs of the master Mar pa [we learn]: In the east, I crossed the Gaṅgā, the waters of realization. In the Cemetery of the Quaking Mountain, In the hermitage called Ravishing Beautiful Flowers (Phullahari) I touched the feet of the master Maitrī[pa]. He sang a song in praise of the profound tantras And I trained in the realization of the Dharma of Mahāmudrā. I ascertained the mode of the abiding mind And saw the ultimate essence, the uncontrived ground. Thus, “singing a song in praise [of the profound tantras]” is the definitive arising of the great reassurance on the completion stage of Illustrious Kālacakra. Therefore, this karmic appearance as such – arising as a support for the production of grasping at elaborated extremes through

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

291

the force of delusion – although it appears as a deluding phenomena, being delusion itself, it does not remain as having the abiding nature of the deluding phenomenon. The non-deluding phenomenon itself is coemergent with it. Therefore, it is similar to the practice of Mahāmudrā, the practice of union with the co-emergent of the glorious Dwags po bka’ brgyud as it was presented earlier in the context of calm abiding and deep insight in terms of the causal vehicle. Regarding precisely that, there is the description “delusion appears as wisdom” in the Four Dharmas of Dwags po by master Sgam po pa.60 In other words, Mi bskyod rdo rje is convinced that the Mahāmudrā realization Mar pa found in the presence of Maitrīpa is also tantric in nature. To what extent this represents the Kālacakra completion stage is another issue, however. As I have already shown in previous publications, Maitrīpa’s empowerment and associated completion-stage practice are based on a different sequence of the four joys – co-emergent joy (sahajānanda) being in the third position, and not in the fourth as it is in the Kālacakra system. Maitrīpa thus differs from the majority of scholars, including Nāropa, Kamalanātha, Abhayākaragupta, Raviśrījñāna and Vibhūticandra. Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes manages,

60  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 432.13–433.11: des na las snang gi steng spros bral phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa shar ba dang | ye snang gi steng du spros bral phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa shar ba gnyis la mchog dman ches che ba yin te | rje mar pas rje nā ro mai tri gnyis la dngos grub nod pa na | mai tri pa la mdo dang thun mong ba’i stong pa nyid shes rab dang | nā ro pa la sngags thun mong min pa’i bde chen gyi thabs cha’i bka’ drin thob pa yin zhes rang gzhan kun la grags kyang | bdag gi rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa yi dam lha’i ngo bor bzhugs pa dag gi gsang ba’i gtam zab mo las | jo bo mai tri pa’i drung du rje mar pas ye snang gi steng du phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa ngo ’phrod pa yin la | jo bo nā ro pa’i drung du las snang gi steng du phyag rgya chen po’i rtogs pa ngo ’phrod par gsal zhes skal med la gsang zhing sba bar ’os pa’i mchid mo ste | de’i phyir | rje btsun chen po mar pa’i mgur las | shar dngos grub kyi chu bo gangā brgal || ri rab tu ’khrugs pa’i dur khrod du || me tog mdangs ’phrog gi dgon pa ru || rje mnga’ bdag mai tri’i zhabs la gtugs || rgyud zab mo bstod pa klur blangs zhus || chos phyag rgya chen la rtogs pa sbyangs || sems dngos po’i zhugs tshul gtan la phab|| gzhi ma bcos don gyi ngo bo mthong || zhes ’byung bas bstod pa glur blangs zhus zhes pas bcom ldan ’das dus kyi ’khor lo rdzogs rim gyi dbugs chen po nges par dbyung bar mdzad pa yin no || des na las snang ’di nyid ’khrul pa’i dbang gis spros pa’i mthar ’dzin bskyed pa’i rten du shar ba de ’khrul chos su snang yang ’khrul pa nyid ltar ’khrul chos kyi gnas lugs su mi gnas par ma ’khrul ba nyid kyi chos de de dang lhan cig skyes pa nyid kyis dpal ldan dwags po bka’ brgyud kyi phyag rgya chen po lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi nyams len gong du rgyu’i theg pa’i zhi lhag gi skabs su bshad pa ltar yin la | ’di nyid kyi dbang du byas na rje sgam po pa’i dwags po chos bzhi zhes par | ’khrul pa ye shes su ’char ba zhes ’byung ba de nyid yin |.

292

Mathes

however, to synthesize Maitrīpa’s tradition with the one of Nāropa (who mainly represents Kālacakra).61 4

The Term Amanasikāra

The term that lends Maitrīpa’s cycle its name has a long history. From early on, though, the “withdrawal of one’s attention” (amanasikāra) from something has been combined with the “direction of one’s attention” (manasikāra) to something else.62 In his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, Mi bskyod ro rje thus deals with the objection that Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle excludes any form of mental engagement (manasikāra): Objection: Having taught venerable Maitrīpa’s amanasikāra cycle in particular, does this not contradict the yogas of mental engagement [and] non-engagement? [Reply:] Concerning the term amanasikāra, in accordance with the teachings of the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa, terminating mental engagement with the changing, conditioned saṃsāra, while resting in meditation one-pointedly focused on [one’s] mental engagement with unproduced non-abiding nirvāṇa, does not contradict the two yogas. This has been stated by the Illustrious One in the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī: Son of a noble family, what is the reason [the state of] the nonconceptual sphere been called amanasikāra? It is in view of [one’s] having gone beyond all characteristic signs [created by] conceptual thinking. In other words, the term amanasikāra denotes a state in which one has left all conceptual thinking behind.63 61  See Mathes 2015: 312–314. 62  See Mathes 2010: 5f. 63  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 164.16–165.4: khyad par jo bo mai tri pa’i yid la mi byed pa’i chos bskor bstan pas yid la byed mi byed kyi rnal ’byor ’gal lo snyam na | zhwa dmar cod pan ’dzin pa bzhi pa’i gsung gis a ma na si ka ra zhes pa’i sgra las drangs nas | ’khor ba ’dus byas kyi ’gyur ba’i yid byed ’gog pa dang | de lta na’ang mi gnas mya ngan las ’das pa ma byas pa’i yid byed la rtse gcig par mnyam par gzhag pa rnal ’byor [em., text: ’byor pa] gnyis mi ’gal te | rnam par mi rtog pa la ’jug pa’i gzungs las | rigs kyi bu gang gis na rnam par mi rtog pa’i dbyings la yid la mi byed pa zhes brjod | rnam par rtog pa thams cad kyi mtshan ma las yang dag par ’das na blangs pa’o || de dag gis ni rnam par mi rtog pa thams cad las yang dag par ’das pa bstan [em., text: bsam gtan] par ’gyur te | yid la mi byed pa yi sgra yis so |. The Sanskrit of the quotation from the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, is as follows (AMĀ 494.3–6): kena kāraṇena kulaputra-avikalpadhātur amanasikāra ity ucyate | sa rvavikalpanimittasamatikrāntatām upādāyeti | etena sarvavikalpasamatikrāmatā darśitā bhavaty amanasikāraśabdeneti |.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

293

Mi bskyod rdo rje has taken this passage of the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī from Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra, from which he continues to quote Maitrīpa’s explanation of amanasikāra as both an affirming and non-affirming negation. To partly summarize the long quotation, taken as an affirming negation, amanasikāra still allows for an awareness (vedana: rig pa) of essencelessness,64 while in the case of a non-affirming negation, Maitrīpa offers an interesting analysis of amanasikāra as a compound in which the middle word has been dropped: Amanasikāra means the manasikāra for which the letter a [in front of it] is the main [focus]. It is a compound in which the middle word is dropped, as in the case of a śākapārthiva, a “king [for whom] vegetables [are the main element of his diet].” Accordingly, whatever mental engagement (manasikāra) there is, all of it is “a,” which has the nature of non-origination.65 After his quotation of this grammatical analysis, Mi bskyod rdo rje shares the following comment by Rje La yag pa Byang chub dngos grub (12th century): In accordance with that, Rje La yag pa says in his commentary on Sgam po pa’s four dharmas: “As for mental nonengagement, once all mental engagement related to a perceived and perceiver is abandoned, one becomes familiar with true reality. Moreover, since [the letter] a [in front] is taken as the main [focus], one abides in the sphere in which nothing arises.”66 In other words, the adept becomes mentally engaged with, or rather abides in, non-arising, which for Maitrīpa is luminous emptiness.67 A little further down 64  Mathes 2015: 245. 65  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 165.8–11: a yig [em., text: yid] gtso bor gyur pa’i yid la byed pa ni yid la mi byed pa ste | lo ma’i rgyal po bzhin tshig dbus ma phyis pa’i bsdu [em., text: bsdus] pa’o || de dag gis ni yid la byed pa gang yin pa thams cad ni a ste skye ba med pa’i don to |. The corresponding Sanskrit is as follows (AMĀ 495.2–4): akārapradhāno manasikāro ’manasikāraḥ | śākapārthivavat madhyapadalopī samāsaḥ | etena yāvān manasikāraḥ sarvaḥ akāraḥ | anutpādātmaka ity arthaḥ |. 66  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 1, 165.12–16: ’di dang mthun par rje sgam po pa’i chos bzhi’i ’grel par rje la yag pas | yid la mi byed pa ni gzung ba dang ’dzin pa la sogs pa’i yid la byed pa thams cad spangs nas | de kho na nyid goms par byed pa’o || yang na a gtso bo’i phyir thams cad skye ba med pa’i ngang du gnas pa ste zhes dang |. 67  See Mathes 2015: 247.

294

Mathes

in his Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, Mi bskyod rdo rje gives the following summary of, and comment on, the Amanasikārādhāra: In this Indian Dharma tradition of Mahāmudrā-amanasikāra, there were noble Śavaripa and venerable Maitrīpa. From among the famous texts in the amanasikāra cycle the presence and disappearance of compounds with case endings such as amanaskāra and amansikāra are briefly explained in Maitrīpa’s Amanasikār[ādhāra]. Then [Maitrīpa] quotes the Āryajñānālokālaṃkārasūtra, which says that the mental factors of mental non-engagement are virtuous, while those of mental engagement are non-virtuous. To refute the qualm that even though [amanasikāra] is found in the sūtras, it is not so in the Mantra[yāna], he quotes Hevajratantra [I.5.1]: “Neither mind nor mental factors exist in terms of an own-being,” [and also Hevajratantra I.8.44ab]: “The whole world should be meditated upon [in such a way] that it is not produced by the intellect (manas).” As for manas [in amanasikāra], it stands here for the very body and mind that obstruct the innate buddha68 body and mind, i.e., the illusory body and luminosity. To interrupt the machinery of this body and mind, the going and coming of the immediately preceding condition of mental engagement, which creates the mistaken phenomena of eight [modes] such as looking outward, must be stopped.69 It is clear here that the second component of amanasikāra (the first one being the negation of ordinary conceptual mind) is not only an abiding in the sphere of nonarising, but the innate buddha body and mind. The Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad continues with a commentary on Maitrīpa’s final analysis of amanasikāra:

68  I.e., taking into account of the honorific forms sku and thugs. 69  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 2, 395.9–396.3: phyag rgya chen po yid la mi byed pa’i chos tshul ’di la ’phags pa’i yul na dpal sha wa ri dang rje btsun mai tri pa chen po ste | yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor du grags pa rnams las | rje mai tri pa’i yid la mi byed pa zhes pa’i bstan bcos las | yid mi byed pa dang yid la mi byed pa zhes rnam dbye’i bsdu ba yod med yin zhes mdor bstan nas | ’phags pa snang rgyan gyi mdo las | yid la mi byed pa’i chos rnams dge ba’o || yid la byed pa’i chos rnams mi dge ba’o || zhes khungs drangs nas | mdo las de lta yin kyang sngags la de lta ma yin no || zhes dogs pa spang ba’i phyir | he ba dzwa las | ngo bo nyid kyis sems med cing || sems las byung ba’ang med pa’o || gang phyir yid kyis mi bsgom par || ’gro ba thams cad bsgom par bya || zhes drangs te | yid ni gnyug ma’i sku dang thugs sgyu lus dang ’od gsal ba la sgrib byed kyi lus sems nyid la bzung ste | lus sems de dag gi ’khrul ’khor rgyun gcod byed nyid du kha phyir lta sogs brgyad kyi ’khrul chos skyed byed | de ma thag pa’i yid la byed pa’i rkyen gyi ’gro ’ong ’gog dgos so zhes |.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

295

In the [Amanasikārādhāra] it is said: Because of that, the words a, manasikāra, and so forth, refer to the inconceivable state of being luminous and [the one of] selfempowerment, [that is,] an awareness that continues as something not separate from emptiness and compassion, [i.e.,] not distinct (advaya) from [the level of] indivisible union.70 There is a profound practice of pointing out [what] deception is, namely that the immediately preceding [condition], which creates the entirety of saṃsāra, does not [truly] exist as an immediately preceding mind. This instruction by venerable Sgam po pa is found in detail in the texts of [Karma pa] Rang byung [rdo rje] (1284–1339), the Supremely Victorious One. The innate [buddha] nature, free from adventitious mental engagement is called buddha[hood]. In the Aṅgulimālīya[sūtra] it is said: Just as the mixing of water and oil is not observed, so there is no ground for the mixing of defilements and the buddha sphere, even when the latter is covered by ten million of defilements. It is inside the ten million defilements like the lamp inside a vase. Once the vase is broken, the lamp beautifully spreads its light. The teacher of buddha nature is the perfect Buddha.71 Going by this interpretation, amanasikāra stands for (a) the pointing-out instruction that mental engagement (manasikāra) does not exist insofar as it is but nonexistent adventitious stains; and (b) the luminous self-empowerment of innate buddha nature. Opposed to Gzhon nu dpal, who regards buddha nature as the mind-stream’s individual luminosity and as such not ontologically 70  My translation follows the Sanskrit. (See Mathes 2015: 247). 71  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 2, 396.3–15: ’dis [em., text: der] ni yid la mi byed pa’i gnas bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i [em., text: pa] ’od gsal ba bdag la byin gyis brlabs pa’i bdag nyid stong pa nyid dang snying rje dbyer med pa zung du ’jug pa gnyis su med pa’i rgyun yang dag par rig pa bskyed par ’gyur ro |†| zhes ’byung bas | ’khor ba mtha’ dag bskyed pa’i de ma thag yid de ma thag pa nyid du ma grub pa’i ’khrul mtshang ngo sprod pa’i zab gnad rje btsun sgam po pa’i bzhed pa rang byung rgyal ba mchog gi gsung rab rnams su rgya cher ’byung la | gnyug ma’i snying po glo bur gyi yid byed dang bral ba de nyid la sangs rgyas su brjod de | sor phreng las | dper na chu dang ’bru mar bsres pa mi dmigs pa de bzhin du sangs rgyas kyi dbyings kyang nyon mongs pa bye bas g.yogs mod kyi | nyon mongs pa dang sangs rgyas kyi dbyings ’dres par ’gyur ba’i gnas med do || nyon mongs pa bye ba’i nang na ’dug mod kyi bum pa’i nang na mar me ’dug bzhin du bum pa bcag na mar me rab tu ’bar zhing mdzes te de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po ston par byed pa ni rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas so || zhes ’byung ngo |.  † The Sanskrit of this quote is as follows (AMĀ 497.7–9): etenāmanasikārādipadair acintyaprabhāsvarasvādhiṣṭhānapadaṃ śūnyatākaruṇābhinnayuganaddhādvayavāhisaṃvedanam āpāditaṃ bhavatīti |.

296

Mathes

different from mind’s adventitious stains,72 Mi bskyod rdo rje reads into the Amanasikārādhāra his clear-cut distinction between buddha nature and adventitious stains, or rather the buddha kāyas and ordinary body and mind.73 This means that the entire repertoire of one’s psycho-physical aggregates (skandhas) consists of nothing but adventitious stains. What is covered up by them is an all-pervading but ontologically separate buddhahood.74 This strict distinction75 is already found in the works of the Third Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje, who bases it on Mahāyānasaṃgraha I.45–48, where a totally impure ālayavijñāna is distinguished from the pure dharmadhātu.76 This does not translate into an ultimate separation of the two truths (as in the case of the Jo nang pas). For Mi bskyod rdo rje, the two truths are in indivisible unity (zung ‘jug) throughout beginningless time. In his Dgongs gcig commentary, Mi bskyod rdo rje thus writes: Relative truth (dharmin) and ultimate truth (dharmatā) are united into an inseparable pair. It is not that first (when not actualized by the insight seeing reality) they were separate, and later (when they are actualized 72  Gzhon nu dpal’s favored example being the ocean water and its waves as described in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (Mathes 2008: 241, 366). 73  Mi bskyod rdo rje’s distinction thus is best illustrated by the fourth simile in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, namely a gold nugget covered in excrement (see Takasaki 1966: 272). 74  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Sher phyin mngon rtogs rgyan kyi bstan bcos rgyas ’grel, 125b1–4: “Some foolish [scholars] say that the omniscient Karma pa, the glorious Rang byung [rdo rje] maintains as the intent of the Mahāyānottaratantra (i.e., the Ratnagotravibhāga) that the dharmadhātu, insofar as it is the mind of sentient beings, inseparably possesses buddha nature. This genuine [master] does not maintain that! In his auto-commentary on the Zab mo nang don he distinguishes two aspects, i.e., purity called mind and impurity called mind. Having explained that sentient beings (sems can) are those with impure intentions (sems pa), he explains that sentient beings understood in such a way do not possess the dharmadhātu. Those sentient beings are taken as the adventitious stains, which are produced by the false imagining of being in error about the dharmadhātu.” (blun po la la zhig sems can gyi sems kyi chos dbyings la bde gshegs snying po de dbyer mi phyed pa’i tshul gyis yod pa ni theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i dgongs par thams cad mkhyen pa karma pa dpal rang byung gis bzhed pa yin no zhes zer ro || dam pa de nyid ni de ltar bzhed pa ma yin te | zab mo nang don gyi rang ’grel du dag pa la sems su brjod pa dang | ma dag pa la sems su brjod pa zhes rnam pa gnyis su dbye bar mdzad de | ma dag pa’i sems pa can de la sems can du bshad nas de lta bu’i sems can la chos kyi dbyings med par bshad pa dang | sems can de nyid chos dbyings las phyin ci log tu gyur pa’i yang dag pa ma yin pa’i kun rtog gis bskyed pa glo bur ba’i dri mar bzhag go |). 75  See also Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: vol. 1, 271–272. 76   The same passage is also quoted in Mi bskyod rdo rje’s commentary on the Dharmadhātustava (see Brunnhölzl 2007: 227–228).

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

297

by this insight) the two are mixed and united into a pair. It is, rather, that they have been inseparably united throughout beginningless time. This is for the following reason: When the hindrances of a confused mind, which clings to the [two truths] as separate, are cleared away, and [what appears as] separate is realized as non-dual, it is established that [their] unity is actualized in this [realization].77 Assuming that Mi bskyod rdo rje was himself aware of these seeming inconsistencies, one could argue that they reflect a perspectivist approach to the two truths. The ultimate analysis of the two truths as being indivisibly united (yuganaddha) thus refers to a final state of purification, in which the relative truth of adventitious stains does not occur any more. All that is left then in the ultimate sense is a restricted version of the “pure relative truth,”78 because mental engagement with impure saṃsāra, i.e., the immediately preceding condition for deception, is pointed out to not truly exist as an immediately preceding mind. The initial distinction between mental engagement with saṃsāra and unproduced non-abiding nirvāṇa must be seen as a necessary propaedeutic for the beginner, which becomes obsolete in Mi bskyod rdo rje’s final Madhyamaka ontology. It is a question of the stages on the path. In final analysis, the inseparable unity of the two truths also requires one to refrain from seeing anything else but emptiness or dharmatā in the dharmakāya. A beginner, though, needs to be told that the dharmakāya is genuine and thoughts are not. This then explains Mi bskyod rdo rje’s clear-cut distinction between the dharmakāya or buddha nature and the adventitious stains. Sgam po pa’s claim that thoughts appear as dharmakāya must also be seen as referring to the ultimate unity of the two truths. In a similar way, Maitrīpa distinguishes an impure category of thoughts from a pure one of luminosity or self-awareness, and even claims in his Pañcatathāgatamudrāvivaraṇa that a Madhyamaka tenet is 77  Mi bskyod rdo rje, Dgongs gcig chos ’khor dang rten ’brel gyi tshoms kyi kar ṭī ka, 312.17–22: chos can kun rdzob bden pa dang chos nyid don dam bden pa dbyer mi phyed pa’i zung du ’jug te sngar de nyid mthong ba’i shes rab kyis mngon du ma byas pa’i tshe so sor yod la phyis des de mngon du byas pa na de gnyis ’dres nas zung ’jug tu gyur pa ni ma yin te | gdod nas zung du ’jug pa dbyer med pa gnas pa de la so so bar ’dzin pa’i blo ’khrul pas bsgribs pa’i sgrib pa sangs shing so so ba gnyis su med par rtogs pa na der zung ’jug mngon du byas so zhes rnam par bzhag pa’i phyir te |. 78  For the Third Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje, whom Mi bskyod rdo rje follows, the relative truth of stainless forms of consciousness, i.e., mere appearance as such, can be included, together with the ultimate, in buddha nature. This is clear from Rang byung rdo rje’s autocommentary on the Zab mo nang don and also other texts, such as the commentary on the Dharmadhātustava (see Mathes 2008: 66–67).

298

Mathes

superior when established on the basis of awareness (saṃvedana).79 But when confronted with the objection that this is not Apratiṣṭhāna–Madhyamaka, he points out that no ontological status is ascribed to (self-)awareness, since it is simply dependently originated like anything else.80 5 Conclusion On the basis of the amanasikāra cycle, Mi bskyod rdo rje combines the via negationis of analytic Madhyamaka with a via affirmativa of describing nonconceptual types of realization, and relates these with Mahāmudrā experiential terms. His radical non-foundationalism finds perfect support in Maitrīpa’s Apratiṣṭhāna Madhyamaka while still allowing for ontologically unproblematic, positive descriptions of emptiness as luminosity or awareness. This project fully profits from Maitrīpa’s double interpretation of amanasikāra as a ­negation of anything conceptual and as luminous self-empowerment. Based on that, Mi bskyod rdo rje manages to uphold his clear-cut distinction between the buddha kāyas and sentient beings. In the end, however, Mi bskyod rdo rje takes the two truths as being inseparably united, for this unity does not include the impure relative of the adventitious stains, but only a restricted version of “pure relative truth.” On the topic of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Mi bsykod rdo rje comes to the defense of Sgam po pa against the critique of Sa skya Paṇḍita by referring to the Tattvadaśaka, its commentary, and Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra, but stays clear of a one-sided endorsement by warning that calm abiding and deep insight tend to be overstated as the exemplifying and actual wisdoms of tantric empowerment. Acknowledgements Improvements to my English by Michele Martin (Buddhist Digital Resource Center) and Casey Kemp (Shambhala Publications) are gratefully acknowledged. In this essay I present the first results from my FWF (“Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung”) Project “Buddha Nature Reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates” (project no. P 28003-G24). I thank Dr. Martina Draszczyk, Dr. David Higgins, and Mag. Khenpo Tamphel for their collaboration on this project. 79  The Tibetan has self-awareness (rang rig) and must have read svasaṃvedana. 80  See Mathes 2015: 99–100.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

299

Bibliography

Primary Sources (Indian)



Primary Sources (Tibetan)

AMĀ: KDN: KDNṬ: TD: TRĀ: PĀ: BhPHṬAP: SN: SNP:

Amanasikārādhāra. Ed. Mathes 2015: 489–497. Kudṛṣṭinirghātana. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 323–331. Kudṛṣṭinirghātavākyaṭippanikā. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 333–336. Tattvadaśaka. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 485–488. Tattvaratnāvalī. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 341–369. Pañcākāra. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 415–425. Bhagavatīprajñāpāramitāhṛdayaṭīkārthapradīpanāma (by Vajrapāṇi). D 3820, shes phyin, vol. ma, 286b5–295a7. P 5219, mdo ‘grel, vol. ma, 309b1–319b8. Sekanirdeśa. Ed. by Mathes 2015: 385–388. Sekanirdeśapañjikā. Ed. by Isaacson and Sferra 2014: 165–204.

Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad: sKu gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e vaṃ phyag rgya. 3 vols. Sarnath: Vajra Vidya, 2013. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Gling drung pa la ’dor ba’i dris lan. In Collected Works of the Eighth Karmapa. Vol. 3, 311–316, 3 fols. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Dgongs gcig chos ’khor dang rten ’brel gyi tshoms kyi kar ṭī ka. Vol. 4. Kathmandu: Karma Lekshay Ling Institute, 2012. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Dgongs gcig lta sgom spyod pa’i tshoms kyi kar kar ṭī ka smad cha. Vol. 2. Kathmandu: Karma Lekshay Ling Institute, 2012. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Dgongs gcig ’bras bu’i tshoms dang gsung bzhi bcu pa’i kar ṭī ka. Vol. 5. Kathmandu: Karma Lekshay Ling Institute, 2012. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Dgongs gcig sor byang sngags kyi tshoms kyi kar ṭī ka. Vol. 3. Kathmandu: Karma Lekshay Ling Institute, 2012. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i kar ṭī ka | dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Seattle: Nitartha International Publications, 1996. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje. Shing rta chen po. In Collected Works of the Eighth Karmapa. Vol. 2, 514–567, 27 fols. Karma pa VIII 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 ti dgyes par ngal gso ba’i yongs ’dus brtol gyi ljon pa rgyas pa zhes bya ba bzhugs so. A reproduction of the dPal spungs (?) block prints by Zhwa dmar Chos kyi blo gros. Rumtek Monastery: no date. Karma Phrin las pa. Dmangs do ha’i rnam bshad. In Do ha skor gsum gyi tshig don gyi rnam bshad, 1–118. Sarnath: Vajra Vidya Institute Library, 2009.

300

Mathes

’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal. Deb ther sngon po, 2 vols., Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984. Rong zom Chos bzang. Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999.



Secondary Sources

Almogi, Orna. 2010. “Māyopamādvayavāda versus Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭānavāda: A Late Indian Subclassification of Madhyamaka and its Reception in Tibet.” Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 14: 135–212. Brunnhölzl, Karl. 2007. Straight from the Heart: Buddhist Pith Instructions. Ithaca, New York; Boulder, Colorado: Snow Lion Publication. Higgins, David and Martina Draszczyk. 2016. Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way. Post-Classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha Nature. 2 vols. Vienna: WSTB. Isaacson, Harunaga and Francesco Sferra. 2014. The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproductions of the MSS (Manuscripta Buddhica 2). Naples: Università degli Studi Napoli L’Orientale. Jackson, David P. 1994. Enlightenment by a Single Means. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lopez, Donald S., Jr. 1996. Elaborations on Emptiness. Uses of the Heart Sūtra. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa’s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism). Boston: Wisdom Publications. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2010. “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (‘A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged’).” Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 13 [2009]: 5–32. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2011. “The Collection of ‘Indian Mahāmudrā Works’ (phyag chen rgya gzhung) Compiled by the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho.” Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. (PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006.) Edited by Roger Jackson and Matthew Kapstein, 89–130. Andiast, Switzerland: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2012. “The gzhan stong Model of Reality – Some More Material on its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34.1–2: 187–226. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Maitrīpa ’ s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā

301

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2016. “’bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: ‘Chinese rDzogs chen’ or the Teachings of the Siddhas?” Zentralasiatische Studien 45: 309–340. Rhoton, Jared D. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Roerich, George N. 1949–1953. The Blue Annals. 2 vols. (Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Monograph Series 7.) Calcutta: Motilal Banarsidass. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1988. “A Kar ma bKa’ brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditions of the Indo-Tibetan dBu ma (Madhyamaka).” Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Dedicata, 1249– 1280 (= [1]–[32]). Edited by G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti. (Rome Oriental Series 56.3). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Shahidullah, M. 1928. Les chants mystiques de Kāṇha et de Saraha: Les Dohākoṣa (en apabhraṃsa, avec les versions tibétaines) et les Caryā (en vieux–bengali). Paris: Adrien–Maisonneuve. Takasaki, Jikido. 1966. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. (Rome Oriental Series 33). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Chapter 10

Assimilating the Great Seal: the Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā Roger R. Jackson 1 Introduction Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419)1 is said by Dge lugs tradition to have transmitted a highly restricted Mahāmudrā (the Great Seal, phyag rgya chen po) meditation practice, which was handed down secretly from one master to another as part of what came to be known as the Dben sa or Dga’ ldan Ear-whispered Transmission (snyan brgyud).2 The Mahāmudrā element of the transmission was not publicized until around 1600, when the scholar, yogin, diplomat, and tutor to the fourth and fifth Dalai Lamas, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, or Paṇ chen Chos rgyan (1570–1662),3 who counts as either the first or fourth Paṇ chen Lama,4 composed a set of verses on what he called the “dge ldan bka’ brgyud” tradition of Mahāmudrā, entitled Highway of the Conquerors (Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam),5 followed a few years later by an auto1  Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC) # P64; for biographical material, see e.g., Thurman 1982: 3–55; Thuken 2009: 115–166. 2  On this tradition, see especially Willis 1997; Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997; Jackson 2000; Jinpa 2005. It is the major focus, as well, of Jackson 2019. 3  B DRC # P719. For biographical material on Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, see e.g., Willis 1995: 85–96; Smith 2001: 119–131; Cabezón 1995; Gardner 2009; Jampa 2013: 269–278. 4  There are two traditions among the Dge lugs for numbering the Paṇ chen Lamas: one in which the lineage begins with Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, and another in which the first Paṇ chen is Tsong kha pa’s great disciple Mkhas grub rje Dge legs dpal bzang (1385–1438; BDRC # P55), the second is Bsod nams phyogs glang (1439–1504; BDRC: P4211), and the third is Dben sa pa Blo bzang don grub (1505–1566; BDRC: P997), with Paṇ chen Chos rgyan being the fourth. Thus, the current, disputed Paṇ chen Lama would be either the eighth or (as he most often is described) the eleventh. 5  For a recent, annotated edition of the Tibetan root text, see Jinpa 2005: 499–505; see also Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 351–355; and Paṇ chen chos rgyan, Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam. For translations, see e.g., Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 97–102; Gonsalez 2014: 435–442; Jackson 2019.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004410893_012

Assimilating the Great Seal

303

commentary, Lamp So Bright (Yang gsal sgron me).6 He also wrote the earliest version of the now-standard lineage prayer to the gurus of the Dge ldan bka’ brgyud (Phyag chen brgyud pa’i gsol ’debs);7 an account of those who preceded him in the lineage, entitled Like a Treasure Inventory (Gter gyi kha byang lta bu);8 a Guru Yoga liturgy, Offering to the Guru (Bla ma mchod pa), that eventually would be associated with the Mahāmudrā practice;9 and numerous spiritual songs – scattered through his autobiography and other writings – that convey the flavor of the Great Seal.10 The question whether the “bka’ brgyud” in the name, “dge ldan bka’ brgyud,” refers to the Tibetan Buddhist order or simply means “oral transmission,” has been much debated. What is indisputable, is that the Paṇ chen drew liberally on Bka’ brgyud sources and discourses in his texts – and that his only direct disciple to write in any detail on Mahāmudrā, the A mdo lama Shar Skal ldan rgya mtsho (1607–1677), did likewise.11 After Paṇ chen Chos rgyan and Skal ldan rgya mtsho, the better part of a century passed when little was written about Mahāmudrā in Dge lugs circles. The tradition was resumed (or revived) in the eighteenth century by one of the emblematic scholars of that era, Dka’ chen (or Yongs ’dzin) Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713–1793),12 and when it was, its articulation differed in some ways from that of the earlier teaching, most notably in (a) the absence from it of many of the overtly Bka’ brgyud pa features included by Paṇ chen Chos rgyan and Skal ldan rgya mtsho and (b) its correspondingly closer conformity to Dge lugs pa sources and orthodoxies. This essay, which might be given the alternate title, “Where Have All the Bka’ brgyud Gone?” will 6  For a recent, annotated Tibetan edition of the auto-commentary, see Jinpa 2005: 509–553; see also Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Yang gsal sgron me. It is glossed in some detail in Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 167–349; a full translation is included in Jackson 2019. 7  For the Tibetan, see e.g., Jinpa 2005: 507–508. The prayer has been expanded a number of times over the centuries to reflect the addition of new masters to the lineage; the most recent versions carry it either as far as the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s senior tutor, Gling Rinpoché (1903–1983; BDRC: P4559), or include the Dalai Lama himself. 8  See Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Gter gyi kha byang lta bu. 9  For a recent, annotated Tibetan edition, see Jinpa 2005: 303–316. See also Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Bla ma mchod pa’i cho ga. For a straightforward English translation, see Lopez 1997: 376–386; for translations that include significant commentary, see e.g., Dalai Lama 1988 and Gonsalez 2014. 10   Twenty-two of these songs are translated in Jackson 2019; portions of some them, as cited in writings by Dka’ chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713–1793), are translated in Guenther 1976: 110, 119–120, 122–124. 11  B DRC: P711. See Sujata 2004; Namgyal 2011. 12  B DRC: P105. For biographical details on Ye shes rgyal mtshan, see e.g., Willis 1995: 125–130; Gonsalez 2014: 9–10.

304

Jackson

investigate the degree to which such a transformation may (or may not) have occurred, and if so, the reasons for it and its implications for understanding Dge lugs relations with the Bka’ brgyud in the premodern period. 2

The Name of the Tradition and Its Text

The line of inquiry I am pursuing here was prompted in large part by the stance of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, who has insisted repeatedly in his teachings and writings that the Mahāmudrā first promulgated by Paṇ chen Chos rgyan should be regarded as “a synthesis of Kagyü and Gelug approaches,” which “takes as its basis the oral guidelines of the great Kagyü masters of the past and supplements it with the profound techniques for gaining a decisive understanding of voidness that Tsongkhapa has uniquely presented in his great texts concerning the madhyamaka view.”13 The Dalai Lama, and those who support his position, can argue for it on a number of grounds. First: The Dge lugs and Bka’ brgyud share a common lineage of Guhyasamāja transmission, derived from the Tibetan forefather of most Bka’ brgyud lineages, Mar pa Chos kyi blo ’gros (1012–1097), which links them profoundly at the level of a vitally important unexcelled yoga tantra practice; indeed the Mantra Vehicle level of Mahāmudrā practice in Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s system is keyed to explanations of the clear-light, or luminosity (’od gsal), phase of the completion stage (rdzogs rim) of Unexcelled Yogatantra (bla na med pa’i rnal ’byor rgyud), in a scheme derived primarily from Guhyasamāja commentarial literature.14 Second: Prior to his revelation from Mañjughoṣa, Tsong kha pa received Bka’ brgyud-based Mahāmudrā instructions from a number of key human ­teachers.15 Spyan lnga Chos kyi rgyal po (1335–1407)16 and Spyan lnga Grags pa byang chub (1356–1386),17 imparted to him a full range of Bka’ brgyud teachings, especially those related to the Phag mo gru and ’Bri gung traditions, including the Fivefold (lnga ldan) Mahāmudrā. Either Jag chen Byams pa dpal (1310–1391) or his disciple Don grub bzang po (b. 14th cent.)18 instructed him in Shangs pa Bka’ brgyud practices.19 And Dbu ma pa Dpa’ bo rdo rje (b. 14th 13  Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 230; see also 169–172. 14  Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 169–170; Thuken 2009: 227. 15  On these matters, see Jackson 2015b: 81–82. 16  B DRC: P1485; see Thurman 1982: 7. 17  B DRC: P3581; see Thuken 2009: 232. 18  B DRC: P3303. 19  Smith 2001: 55. Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 123, 126–127.

Assimilating the Great Seal

305

cent.),20 who was for a time Tsong kha pa’s visionary conduit to Mañjughoṣa in matters of Madhyamaka philosophy, may have transmitted to him certain practices he learned from his own ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud master, ’Ba’ ra ba Rgyal mtshan dpal bzang (1310–1391).21 Third: Although Tsong kha pa handed down his “standard” Mahāmudrā teaching through what came to be known as the Dga’ ldan Ear-whispered Transmission, he also may have transmitted special ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud-based instructions – derived in part from Dbu ma pa and ’Ba’ ra ba – to his disciple Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po (1383–1450), who apparently took notes on them, but never published them.22 These instructions circulated, over the centuries, in groups connected to a separate Ear-whispered Transmission, the Srad, which is connected with Rgyud smad tantric college, and occasionally, as we shall see below, surfaced in the writings of commentators on the Ear-whispered Transmission.23 Fourth: In his Mahāmudrā root text and, especially, auto-commentary, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan draws on Bka’ brgyud sources more than those of any other tradition, often citing Indian texts influential in Bka’ brgyud circles (e.g., the dohās of Saraha), and quoting as well the writings of such Tibetan Bka’ brgyud masters as Mi la ras pa (1040–1123), Bla ma Zhang (1123–1193), and ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217).24 Fifth: The First Paṇ chen’s ecumenical credentials are vouchsafed by his famous declaration, in the Mahāmudrā root verses, to the effect that Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā, Rnying ma Rdzogs chen, and the “Great Madhyamaka” (dbu ma chen po) of the Dge lugs, among other traditions, Are called by many names individually, but When examined by a yogin who has mastered definitive-meaning Scriptures and reasoning and possesses Inner experience, they come down to the same intention.”25

20  B DRC: P3357. 21  B DRC: P1932. On this possibility, see Thurman 1982: 7; Thuken 2009: 307. Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 170, 230–235. 22  B DRC: P4340. 23  Dalai Lama and Berzin 230–234. 24  See Jackson 2001: 169–171, as well as the discussion below. 25  Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam: 2b [84]: so sor ming ’dogs mang na yang | nges don lung rigs la mkhas shing | nyams myong can gyi rnal ’byor pas | dpyod na dgongs pa gcig tu ’bab |. Cf. Jinpa 2005: 502; trans. e.g., Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 98, Gonsalez 2014: 436–437.

306

Jackson

Sixth: The Great Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682),26 who received the Mahāmudrā tradition directly from Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, writes critically of Dge lugs pa attempts to “push in among the Bka’ brgyud pa,”27 a point he probably would not have made had such a process not been underway – with the Mahāmudrā tradition being a prime example. Indeed, along similar lines, he suggests that the Dge ldan bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā practice should not be considered synthetic, but simply Dge lugs.28 Seventh: Perhaps most tellingly, the titles of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s root verses and auto-commentary may be read, with perfect grammatical justification, as overtly referring to a Dge lugs-Bka’ brgyud synthesis.29 I have addressed this last argument elsewhere,30 and will recapitulate it only briefly here. The full Tibetan titles of both Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s root-verses and his auto-commentary contain the ambiguous phrase dge ldan bka’ brgyud. Dge ldan, of course, is an alternate name for Dge lugs. Thus, the phrase may mean either “Dge lugs-Bka’ brgyud,” with bka’ brgyud referring to the name of a school; or, alternatively, “the Dge lugs oral transmission,” with bka’ brgyud referring not to the name of a school, but simply to a lineage of orally transmitted teachings. Obviously, the former reading suggests that Paṇ chen Chos rgyan believed his tradition to be a combined Dge lugs-Bka’ brgyud lineage, while the latter reading suggests that he considered it exclusively Dge lugs. Dge lugs commentarial tradition from the seventeenth century on is virtually unanimous in interpreting the phrase dge ldan bka’ brgyud as referring to a Dge lugs oral transmission,31 but because the First Paṇ chen did not explain the meaning of his own titles, we do not know for certain which reading – or which conception of Mahāmudrā – he might have had in mind. Indeed, it is the possible gap between Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s intention and later Dge lugs interpretations that is at the center of my concerns in this essay.

26  B DRC: P37. 27  Karmay 1988: 146. 28  Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 107, 232–233; the Dalai Lama does not cite a source. 29  Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 107, 170. 30  Jackson 2001: 165–169. 31  For details on the views of these commentators, who include Gu ge Blo bzang bstan ’dzin (1748–1813; BDRC: P308), Dngul chu Dharmabhadra (1782–1851; BDRC: P289), and Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs (b. 1791?; BDRC: P8LS12392), see Jackson 2000: 166–167.

Assimilating the Great Seal

3

307

The First Paṇ chen and the Bka’ brgyud

The First Paṇ chen Lama came of age at a time and place – late sixteenth and early seventeenth century Gtsang – where the two dominant religious orders were the Dge lugs and the Kar ma Bka’ brgyud. Political relations between them were fraught, but scholars in one order almost certainly would have been aware of the basic premises and practices of the other. Therefore, although we have no evidence that Paṇ chen Chos rgyan actually studied with Bka’ brgyud masters, he unquestionably shows familiarity with Bka’ brgyud literature. This is most evident in Lamp So Bright, his auto-commentary to his own Mahāmudrā root verses, As I have noted elsewhere,32 of the hundred or so quotations or citations in the text, around half are from Indian and half from Tibetan sources. Of those from Indian sources, nearly a quarter are from texts or persons prominent in the Mahāmudrā lineage preserved in Tibet by the Bka’ brgyud, most notably Saraha, who is cited eleven times.33 Of the citations from Tibetan sources, nearly two-thirds are from the Bka’ brgyud: Mi la ras pa is quoted nine times, Bla ma Zhang four times, Sgam po pa (1079–1153), ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po, Phag mo gru pa (1110–1170), and Gling ras pa (1128–1188) twice each, and Mar pa, Rgod tshang pa (1189–1258), Yang dgon pa (1213–1258), and an anonymous author once each. By comparison, of non-Bka’ brgyud pas, Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251) is cited seven times, Atiśa (982–1054) five times, Tsong kha pa – surprisingly – only four times, and Pha Dam pa sangs rgyas (b. 11th cent.) thrice. It is important to be clear on where in Lamp So Bright Paṇ chen Chos rgyan cites Bka’ brgyud sources. The text is broadly divided into accounts of preliminary practices, the place of Mahāmudrā within Buddhism, Mantra Mahāmudrā, and Sūtra Mahāmudrā, with the latter, more detailed section, subdivided into a survey of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā traditions, followed by instructions for calm abiding meditation, insight meditation, and post-meditation practice. References to and quotations from Bka’ brgyud sources are found in all these sections, to the point where it might be fair to say that Lamp So Bright as a whole is infused with the flavor of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s discussion of the preliminary practices leans heavily on quotations from Mi la ras pa. His analysis of Mahāmudrā’s place in Buddhism cites a long poem by Phag mo gru pa. The section on Mantra Mahāmudrā is primarily a running commentary on a number of verses from Saraha, with quotes as well from Mi la ras pa and Sgam po pa. The survey of 32  Jackson 2001: 169–170. 33  On the treatment of Saraha in Dge lugs tradition, see Jackson 2009; Jackson 2019.

308

Jackson

Bka’ brygud Mahāmudrā traditions, of course, is drawn directly or indirectly from Bka’ brgyud sources. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s instructions on calm abiding meditation are dependent in significant ways on Bka’ brgyud contemplative literature. The overview of the true nature of mind that precedes instructions on insight meditation quotes Gling ras pa and Bla ma Zhang twice each, and also cites Saraha and Tilopa. Even the main instruction on insight meditation, which relies primarily on Indian Madhyamaka sources for textual support, cites Mar pa and Phag mo gru pa once each. Finally, the account of postmeditation practice, though also dominated by Indian Madhyamaka sources, is introduced by two long quotations from Mi la ras pa that show the compatibility between appearance and emptiness, and between conventional and ultimate truths. Still, as I have observed elsewhere,34 a key point to note about Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s use of Bka’ brgyud sources in Lamp So Bright is that in his discussion of the actual meditative procedure for gaining insight – the sine qua non for liberation from saṃsāra – they recede into the background, to be replaced by the standard texts relied upon by Dge lugs pa philosophers from Tsong kha pa onward, especially the classic Madhyamaka works of Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Candrakīrti, and Śāntideva. By the same token, the analysis undertaken as part of insight meditation is framed entirely in the deconstructive style familiar from previous Dge lugs pa literature. Thus, when it comes to the soteriological linchpin of his Mahāmudrā system, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan puts in abeyance the relatively “positive” descriptions of an empty-yet-luminous mind common in Bka’ brgyud literature, which see emptiness as an affirming negation (ma yin dgag) and relies instead on orthodox Dge lugs pa assertions to the effect that the key to liberation is conceptual, then direct, realization of emptiness – which is a simple, non-affirming negation (med dgag) that is the nature of all phenomena “from form to omniscience.” Also, it is clear, from both his Mahāmudrā root verses and his autocommentary, that while appreciative of the “early Bka’ brgyud” masters whom he so often quotes, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan was critical of contemporaneous Bka’ brgyud so-called “great meditators,” who, he says, too easily confuse the experience of the mind’s empty clarity in calm abiding meditation (which is only its conventional nature) for the ultimate nature of mind, which is simply emptiness. In this sense, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan echoes certain criticisms launched against the Bka’ brgyud of his time by Tsong kha pa, as found in his Queries from a Pure Heart (Dri ba lhag bsam rab dkar) – a text on which, in fact, the First Paṇ 34  Jackson 2001: 177–180.

Assimilating the Great Seal

309

chen composed a commentary.35 Finally, it is worthy of note that when, in Like a Treasure Inventory, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan lists the masters who preceded him in the Ear-whispered Transmission that includes Mahāmudrā,36 they all are Dge lugs pa: Tsong kha pa, Rtogs ldan ’Jam dpal rgya mtsho (1356–1428),37 Ba so Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1402–1473),38 Chos kyi rdo rje (b. 15th cent.), Dben sa pa Blo bzang don grub, and the Paṇ chen’s own guru, Mkhas grub Sangs rgyas ye shes (1525–1591).39 Nevertheless, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s ecumenical credentials in general and his appreciation for the Bka’ brgyud in particular cannot be gainsaid. Further evidence is provided by one of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s lesser known but most interesting works: A Guru Yoga Practice Based on the Lord of Adepts Mi la, along with Spiritual Songs Not Included in the [Author’s] Life-Story (Grub pa’i dbang phyug mid la la brtan pa’i bla ma’i rnal ’byor dang rnam thar du ma chud pa’i gsung mgur rnams).40 As the title indicates, the text includes a guru yoga practice directed to Mi la ras pa, followed by twenty or so of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s own poems; although they are not explicitly said to have been inspired by the great Bka’ brgyud poet-yogin, their inclusion with the guru yoga text directed to Mi la provides further evidence of the First Paṇ chen’s knowledge of, and at least partial identification with, the Dge lugs pas’ great rivals in Gtsang. 4

Skal ldan rgya mtsho and the Bka’ brgyud

The standard Dge lugs biographies and lineage list – both of which were shaped to a considerable degree by Ye shes rgyal mtshan in the eighteenth century – include two major disciples who received the Mahāmudrā transmission from Paṇ chen Chos rgyan: Sgrub chen Dge ’dun rgyal mtshan (1532–1607), who was the Paṇ chen’s teacher before he became his pupil, and the Paṇ chen’s contemporary, Drung pa Brtson ’grus rgyal mtshan (1567–1650).41 These two are said to have instigated separate branches of the Mahāmudrā lineage in Gtsang and A mdo, respectively.42 Neither of them, however, seems to have written on Mahāmudrā. Indeed, the only direct disciple of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan to write 35  On Queries, see e.g., Jinpa 1999, Thuken 2009: 154. 36  See Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Gter gyi kha byang lta bu. 37  B DRC: P2077. 38  B DRC: P432. 39  B DRC: P97. 40  Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Mid la rnal ’byor. 41  B DRC: P3434 and P1858, respectively. 42  See e.g., the chart in Gyatso 1982: 11.

310

Jackson

on Mahāmudrā appears to have been Shar Skal ldan rgya mtsho (1607–1677), a native of A mdo who does not figure in the standard lineage list.43 He lived most of his life in Rong bo, but spent a decade in his youth in central Tibet, residing at Dga’ ldan Shar rtse and learning from a range of masters, including Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, from whom he received full ordination in 1627. It is unclear whether Skal ldan rgya mtsho received Mahāmudrā instruction from Paṇ chen Chos rgyan; it seems more likely he learned the practice from three of his own gurus in A mdo: his brother Chos pa Rin po che (1581–1669), Tshul khrims rgya mtsho (1587–1664), and Rgyal sras Blo bzang bstan ’dzin (b. 17th cent.).44 These men, who also had studied in central Tibet, introduced Skal ldan rgya mtsho to the First Paṇ chen’s Mahāmudrā writings, and also helped inspire in him a lifelong admiration for the life and songs of Mi la ras pa, whose example he would imitate later in life, as he adopted the ways of a peripatetic poet-yogin. Of the hundred or so writings in Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s collected works, four are devoted to the Dge lugs Mahāmudrā tradition, two of which I will discuss here.45 In addition, a number of his songs directly or indirectly refer to the Great Seal. Quotations from Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s Ocean of Instructions on the Profound Teaching on Dge ldan Mahāmudrā (’Jam pa’i dbyangs skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las dge ldan phyag chen zab khrid gdams ngag rgya mtsho nas btus pa) consists of notes written by a disciple and edited by the master for oral ­presentation.46 It roughly follows the order of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s root verses, Highway of the Conquerors. It is notable for its detailing of ritual preliminaries to Mahāmudrā practice and its thorough presentation of analytical approaches to insight meditation and of the follow-up to meditation. Among the analytical techniques it recommends are searching within and apart from the aggregates to see if a self is to be found; applying Candrakīrti’s famous sevenfold reasoning with regard to the ways in which a chariot – and by implication, the self – might exist; utilizing the “royal reasoning” that establishes the equivalence between dependent arising and emptiness; employing the “diamond slivers” to determine whether things are produced from themselves, from something 43  See above, note 11. 44  B DRC: P714, P4084, and P721, respectively. 45  The two I will not discuss are (1) the Phyag chen gyi ’khrid yig (Guidebeook to Mahāmudrā), found in Skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Kha 1–9a [457–473] (Reb kong: Rong po dgon chen, 199–), and also found, under the title Dge ldan phyag rgya chen po’i nyams ’khrid, in Jinpa 2005: 555–568, and (2) Phyag chen brgyud ’debs (Appeal to the Mahāmudrā Lineage), found in Skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Kha 1–3 [397–401] (Reb kong: Rong po dgon chen, 199–). 46  Skal ldan rgya mtsho, Phyag chen zab khrid.

Assimilating the Great Seal

311

other, both, or neither; and understanding – and experiencing – emptiness as analogous to space. Typically, the section on the follow-up to meditation stresses the importance of seeing everyday appearances as illusion-like, supporting this advice with numerous quotations from Indian texts and Tibetan masters. Notable among the Indian texts quoted are the Ātijñāna Sūtra, the Ka dpe, and the Ratnagotravibhāga, all of which were important to Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition, and notable among the Tibetan masters cited are Mar pa, Mi la ras pa, and Phag mo gru pa, all key figures in Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā lineages. Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s An Experiential Teaching on Mahāmudrā in the Geden Oral Transmission (Dge ldan bka’ brgyud phyag rgya chen po’i nyams khrid)47 follows the order of Paṇ chen Chögyen’s two Mahāmudrā texts – especially Lamp So Bright – focusing most of its attention on instructions for calm abiding and insight meditation. In its treatment of calm abiding, it cites a number of the same sources and examples as the Paṇ chen’s auto-commentary – and these, as we have seen, show marked Bka’ brgyud influences. When it comes to insight meditation, Skal ldan rgya mtsho recommends, at least partly in line with Bka’ brgyud techniques, investigating the way an inherently existent mind might possibly exist, in terms of shape, color, relation to the aggregates, and so forth. The meditation proceeds with a careful analysis of the modes of appearance and existence of various entities and concepts, including the mind, and issues in the classically Dge lugs pa realization that, however they may appear, none of them exists as anything more than a mere nominal designation. This realization then is experienced as a non-discursive, non-intentional, space-like meditation. At this point, Skal ldan rgya mtsho raises the question of the sort of negation involved in experience of the mind’s natural emptiness. He cites a teaching apparently given by Tsong kha pa to Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po, to the effect that if a beginner meditates properly on the mind’s emptiness as a non-affirming – or absolute – negation, it is possible that afterward, when momentary, conventional events are once again under scrutiny, the correct understanding of emptiness may be lost and nihilism may ensue.48 The upshot – not stated explicitly by Skal ldan rgya mtsho – seems to be that it may be necessary at first to regard the mind’s emptiness as an affirming negation, that is, as an absence in which certain positive qualities – such as empty clarity or luminosity, or perhaps just dependently arisen conventionalities – are naturally entailed. He goes on to quote the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā and Ratnakūṭa sūtras, as well as a poem by Mar pa, to the effect that the mind’s 47  Skal ldan rgya mtsho, Phyag chen nyams khrid. 48  Skal ldan rgya mtsho, Phyag chen nyams khrid: 10a [449].

312

Jackson

nature is both emptiness and luminosity, which cannot easily be separated. All this has a distinctly Bka’ brgyud ring to it. In his concluding discussion of the follow-up to meditation, Skal ldan rgya mtsho asserts that “in our system, meditation on Mahāmudrā is not different from meditation on emptiness, because Mahāmudrā is not different from emptiness, and because the natural emptiness of any and every dharma is explained as Mahāmudrā”49 – a statement sufficiently ambiguous that his exact stance on the question of negation remains open to debate. Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s poems, so ably studied by Victoria Sujata,50 also contain language and terms reminiscent of the Bka’ brgyud, but so as to keep my analysis brief, I will cite only a single example: When you see the real nature of mind, you bar the door of saṃsāric birth; The Dharma Body arises within, but you must seek it again and again. Deep primordial emptiness exists pervading everything; When you see a sight like that, the mind on its own is blissful and splendid.51 5

A Brief Digression on Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub

There is one other great Dge lugs pa figure of the early seventeenth century who – though not part of the Mahāmudrā lineage – shows a more than surface interest in the Bka’ brgyud, namely, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s close contemporary and friend, Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub, or ’Khon ston pa (1561–1637).52 His father educated him well in Rnying ma and Bka’ brgyud, but he ended up pursuing Dge lugs pa monastic training, rising eventually to be abbot of Se ra byas monastery and, like Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, a tutor to both the Fourth and Fifth Dalai Lamas. Unfortunately, few of Khon ston pa’s writings survive, but one that does, The Wish-fulfilling Gem of the Ear-whispered Transmission: An Instruction-letter Introducing the Generally Pervasive View (Snyan brgyud yid bzhin nor bu lta ba spyi khyab tu ngo sprod pa’i khrid yig),53 focuses on the nature of mind, and how to realize it, in language drawn from the three great 49  Skal ldan rgya mtsho, Phyag chen nyams khrid: 11b–12a [452–453]. 50  See Sujata 2004; Sujata forthcoming. 51  Cf. Sujata 2005: 71–73. 52  B DRC: P647. For biographical information, see Dalai Lama et al. 2011: 33–48. 53  Khon ston pa, Lta ba khrid yig; trans. Dalai Lama et al. 2011: 63–139.

Assimilating the Great Seal

313

contemporaneous Tibetan discourses on the view: Mahāmudrā, Rdzogs chen, and Great Madhyamaka (i.e., Dge lugs). The text, which probably was composed in 1609, is structured as a meditation manual. Its lengthy first section leads the practitioner through a series of contemplations, beginning with a standard list of common and uncommon preliminary practices, then proceeding to an analysis of the root basis of mind and the identification of its coemergent primordial nature, supported by copious citations from Indian and Tibetan texts. There follows a detailed description of the successive practices of calm abiding, insight, and post-meditative awareness – all with the nature of mind as the focal point. Then comes a brief discussion of Mahāmudrā as ground, path, and result, followed by a more extended analysis of Mahāmudrā view, meditation, and conduct, of the experiences entailed by the Four Yogas of Mahāmudrā54 and of the relation between those yogas and the five paths and ten bodhisattva levels of Mahāyāna soteriology. The second, and final, major section of the Wish-fulfilling Gem is a brief exposition of Tsong kha pa’s views on the harmonious relation between the empty, ultimate nature of things and their conventional arising through dependent origination; this is followed by a typical Dge lugs analysis of arguments for the absence of self in either persons or phenomena. The Wish-fulfilling Gem presents itself as a non-sectarian (ris med) teaching. In the introductory section, Khon ston pa specifies that it is derived from teachings on “the general and pervasive view” that he had received as part of an Ear-whispered Transmission “taught prior to the transmissions of the uncommon instructions of the seminal essence” (snying thig),55 thereby giving it a specifically Rnying ma provenance. He lists the ancient Rnying ma masters first in the verses of homage, quotes Padmasambhava, Klong chen pa, and Rnying ma tantras several times in the course of the instructions, and specifies in the colophon that he received the teaching from his own Rnying ma teacher, Nyi zla sangs rgyas. Despite its Rnying ma roots, however, the Wish-fulfilling Gem is predominantly Bka’ brgyud in tone: its structure closely approximates that of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā manuals produced in the sixteenth century,56 54   Single-pointedness (rtse gcig), Non-elaboration (spros bral), One Taste (ro gcig), and Non-meditation (sgom med). 55  Dalai Lama et al. 2011: 64. 56  These would include Dwags po Bkra shis rnam rgyal’s (1512–1587) Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer (Moonbeams of Mahāmudrā, trans. Lhalungpa 1986; Dakpo 2019), ’Brug chen Padma dkar po’s (1527–1592) Phyag chen zin bris (Notes on Mahāmudrā, trans. e.g., Roberts 2014: 103– 123); and the Ninth Kar ma pa Dbang phyug rdo rje’s (1556–1603) trilogy of Mahāmudrā works: the extensive Nges don rgya mtsho (Ocean of Definitive Meaning, trans. Callahan 2001), the mid-length Phyag chen ma rig mun sel (Mahāmudrā Eliminating the Darkness of

314

Jackson

the vast majority of Tibetan authors it cites are Bka’ brgyud (Bla ma Zhang and Mi la ras pa are the most oft-quoted), and its terminology is generally far closer to that of Mahāmudrā discourse than of Rdzogs chen, containing as it does relatively little of the idiosyncratic language of the Great Perfection. In short, though they draw on multiple traditions, the meditation instructions in the Wish-fulfilling Gem bear a distinctively Bka’ brgyud stamp. At the same time, while it suggests a harmony between Dge lugs and Bka’ brgyud (and, for that matter, Rnying ma), it does not synthesize them in the way that Paṇ chen Chos rgyan did in his classic Great Seal texts, which articulated a recognizably Dge lugs version of Mahāmudrā meditation that nevertheless drew on the texts and practices of Bka’ brgyud traditions. This may explain why neither Khon ston pa nor his writings ever found their way into the mainstream of the Dge lugs Mahāmudrā tradition. 6

The Role of the Fifth Dalai Lama

Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s most illustrious disciple, the “Great Fifth” Dalai Lama, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682), is one of the towering figures of Tibetan history.57 With the aid of the Qosot Mongol chieftain, Gushri Khan (1582–1665), he secured hegemony over most of Tibet in 1642, ushering in the regime – the Dga’ ldan pho brang – that would rule much of the plateau, with only brief interruptions, until the 1950s. He unified Tibet politically as no ruler had since the imperial period, and did so to the considerable advantage of the Dge lugs order, from which he had received his monastic vows and much of his education. He also was enthusiastic about various Rnying ma traditions, which he studied and practiced assiduously. With their important centers in border regions and the east (A mdo and Khams), the Rnying ma were a lesser presence in Dbus-gtsang, and besides, were generally not much involved in “national” politics. The Bka’ brgyud, on the other hand – especially the Black Hat Karma pas – had wielded considerable influence in both Gtsang and Khams, and it was Gushri Khan’s annihilation of their power that assured the Dalai Lama’s suzerainty over Tibet. Some Bka’ brgyud monasteries were taken over by the Dge lugs, and the order was “de-politicized” in central Tibet for many generations. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan was one of the Great Fifth’s principal tutors. It was he who oversaw the Dalai Lama’s novice and full ordinations, transmitted Ignorance, trans. Berzin 1978; Dakpo 2019), and the brief Chos sku ngo sprod (Pointing Out the Dharmakaya, trans. Dahl 2009). 57  See e.g., Shakabpa 1984: 100–124; Mullin 2001: 185–237; Schaeffer 2005; Karmay 2014.

Assimilating the Great Seal

315

countless teachings to him, and served him in various diplomatic capacities, right up to the time of the Paṇ chen’s death, in 1662. It is clear from the Great Fifth’s autobiography that he had immense respect for Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, and indeed it was he who led the search for the Paṇ chen’s reincarnate successor, helping thereby to solidify the Paṇ chen-Dalai connection that would be so important to modern Tibetan history. At the same time, though, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s connection to Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s Mahāmudrā teaching appears to be complicated. He acknowledges the importance of the Great Seal to his tutor when, in his secret biography of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, he reports that the Paṇ chen enjoyed visions of Saraha and the immortal Dge lugs Mahāmudrā adept Chos kyi rdo rje, and that on one occasion he saw Maitreya together with his own root guru, Mkhas grub Sangs rgyas ye shes, who was dressed as a great adept. When he appealed to them, rays from Maitreya’s heart melted into Sangs rgyas ye shes, who appeared to assume a rainbow body – at which point Paṇ chen Chos rgyan “understood the dependent arising that accomplishes the benefit of beings on the basis of the authentic, definitive Mahāmudrā.”58 In his autobiography, the Great Fifth reports that he received teachings from Paṇ chen Chos rgyan on the Dben sa Ear-whispered Transmission – hence Mahāmudrā – in 1654, though it would be surprising if he had not heard the tradition from his guru earlier in his education.59 In the Flowing River Ganges (Gang ga’i chu rgyun), the Dalai Lama’s record of teachings he had obtained, he records his familiarity with the Dge lugs Mahāmudrā tradition, but adds, quite critically, “Surely, it would be good if the Gelukpas kept to what Gelukpas do; what’s the point of pushing in amidst the Kagyüpa?”60 Along similar lines, and as noted earlier, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama records his great predecessor as having clearly expressed the opinion that the phrase dge ldan bka’ brgyud in the subtitle of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s root text on Dge lugs Mahāmudrā should be understood to refer not to a Dge lugsBka’ brgyud synthesis, but to a Dge lugs “oral transmission.”61 In other places, the Fifth Dalai Lama expresses some disdain for Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā – or at least for practitioners during his lifetime. In his autobiography, for instance, he particularly singles out the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud for their unwarranted pretensions to understanding Mahāmudrā, and comments that “this was the time when Mahāmudrā, the great voidness, was becoming extinct within its own establishment.”62 At the same time, critical of the Bka’ brgyud as the Great 58  Blo bzang rgya mtsho, Dad pa’i shing rta: 7a [340]. 59  Karmay 2014: 335. 60  Karmay 1988: 146. 61  Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 107, 232–233. 62  Karmay 2014: 461; cf. 204, 245, 356.

316

Jackson

Fifth may have been – and we cannot forget the political dimension of his relation to them – he does reject the authenticity of a Treasure text, attributed to Padmasambhava, that excoriates Bka’ brgyud pas as “a flock of demon emanations,” the Bka’ brgyud as a “false religion,” and Mahāmudrā as a “stupid meditation” that leads beings “through the wrong path.”63 Nevertheless, the Fifth Dalai Lama never seems to have evinced much affinity for Mahāmudrā, and it is unsurprising that he is not included in the lineage of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s successors in the transmission. By way of a coda, it is tempting to suggest that the Great Fifth’s hostility to the Bka’ brgyud and his critique of Dge lugs pas’ “pushing in” among them may partially explain the relative quiescence of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s Mahāmudrā tradition in the century between the Dge lugs pa defeat of the Kar ma pas and the maturity of Ye shes rgyal mtshan – but in the absence of clear evidence, I will leave it for now in the realm of speculation. 7

Ye shes rgyal mtshan and the Eighteenth Century Revival

As already noted, the Dge lugs Mahāmudrā tradition continued after the passing of the First Paṇ chen. His disciples and their successors duly received the transmission and passed it on to others. Indeed, what had, until Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, been a gcig brgyud – a lineage transmitted by its holder to only a single disciple – became considerably more widespread in the wake of the Paṇ chen’s publication of its foundational texts. At the same time, between the mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries, relatively few Dge lugs pas wrote about Mahāmudrā. Granted, the great ’Jam byangs bzhad pa (1648–1721) produced notes on and an outline of Saraha’s People Dohākośa (Dmangs do ha), keyed to tantric themes;64 Phur bu mchog Ngag dbang byams pa (1682– 1762) wrote a short commentary on an intriguing set of Mahāmudrā-tinged verses attributed to Tsong kha pa;65 and the Seventh Dalai Lama Skal bzang rgya mtsho (1708–1757) composed poetry infused with Great Seal themes and expressions.66 At the same time, though, other holders of the transmission, 63  Karmay 2014: 381. 64  ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje, Do ha mdzod kyi mchan ’grel (Annotations on the Dohākoṣa), in The Collected Works of ’Jam-dbyangs-bśad-pa’i-rdo-rje, vol. 4, produced from prints from the Bkra-śis-’khyil blocks by Ngawang Gelek Demo (New Delhi: 1972); for discussion, see Jackson 2009: 123–125; Jackson 2019. 65  This is the ’Jam dpal dbyangs kyis rje bla ma la dngos su gnang ba’i gdams pa mdor bsdus kyi ṭi kka gnad don gsal ba (A Commentary Briefly Clarifying the Meaning of the Instruction Directly Given to Rje Bla ma by Mañjughoṣa), in Collected Works by Geluk scholar Ngawang Jampa (1682–1762) from Sera Monastery, 4 volumes; vol. 1: 241–258 (New Delhi: Ngawang Sopa, 1973–1974). 66  For a translation, see Mullin 1982.

Assimilating the Great Seal

317

including the Second Paṇ chen Lama Blo bzang ye shes (1663–1737),67 wrote little or nothing about Mahāmudrā, and the First Paṇ chen’s seminal works remained uncommented upon, if not unstudied, during this period. With the advent of Dka’ chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713–1793),68 however, Dge lugs Mahāmudrā’s century of relative dormancy came to an end. A native of the Skyid rong area of southern Gtsang, Ye shes rgyal mtshan spent much of his life in his native province, pursuing his advanced studies at Bkra shis lhun po, and founding a small monastery in the Nepal-Tibet border region, which was his preferred domicile. Renowned as both a prolific scholar and dedicated yogin, he was called to Lhasa late in life to serve as a tutor to the Eighth Dalai Lama Byams spel rgya mtsho. Ye shes rgyal mtshan counted among his teachers three recognized holders of the Dben sa Ear-whispered Transmission: the Second Paṇ chen Lama, Phur bu mchog, and Sgrub dbang Blo bzang rnam rgyal (1670–1741)69 – the last of whom seems to have been his primary instructor in Mahāmudrā and other practices of the Ear-whispered Transmission. Ye shes rgyal mtshan focused intently on these practices during his retreats, and eventually composed a passel of texts on them, including ten works directly or indirectly bearing on the Great Seal – the most, so far as I am aware, of any Dge lugs pa author. Three are instruction-texts for the practice of Dge lugs Mahāmudrā: – The Bright Lamp of the Excellent Path of the Ear-whispered Transmission: A Letter of Instruction on Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid yig snyan brgyud lam bzang gsal ba’i sgron me).70 – The Source of All Attainments: A Profound Teaching on the View of the Dge ldan Ear-whispered Transmission (Dge ldan snyan brgyud kyi lta khrid zab mo dngos grub kun ’byung).71 – Advice of Mañjughoṣa Lama, which Teaches Clearly the Key Points of the Special Instruction on Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi gnad gsal bar ston pa ’jam dbyangs bla ma’i zhal lung).72 Two are texts on Madhyamaka that draw on the poetry of members of the Ear-whispered Transmission: 67  B DRC: P106. 68  See above, note 12. 69  B DRC: P107. 70  For a full reference, see Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Gsal ba’i sgron me. Since this is the only text by Ye shes rgyal mtshan I will discuss here, only this is included in the reference list at the end of the essay; bibliographic information on the Ye shes rgyal mtshan texts listed subsequently may be found in the footnotes. 71  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Ma 1–26 [27–77] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005) and also in Jinpa 2005: 569–576. 72  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Pa 1–8a [353–367] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005).

318

Jackson

– The Advice of Blo bzang [grags pa]: An Uncommon Instruction on the View of the Profound Madhyamaka (Zab mo’i dbu ma’i lta khrid thun mong min pa blo bzang zhal lung).73 – The Source of All Attainments: A Very Secret Short Letter Teaching the Key Points of the View (Lta ba’i gnad ston pa’i yig chung shin tu sang ba dngos grub kun ’byung. In Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum).74 The other five are guru yoga texts that are explicitly linked to the practice of Mahāmudrā: – A Guidebook on Offering to the Guru: A Treasury of Ear-whispered Transmission Special Instructions That Distinguishes the Secret Key Points (Bla ma mchod pa’i khrid yig gsang ba’i gdad rnam par phye ba snyan rgyud man ngag gi gter mdzod).75 – The Source of All Attainments: Words of Supplication Related to Ganden Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i smon tshig dngos grub kun ’byung).76 – The Magic Key that Opens the Hundred Treasures of the Ear-whispered Transmission: A Summary of the Guru Yoga Preliminary to Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i sngon ’gro bla ma’i rnal ’byor gyi bsdus don snyan brgyud mdzod brgya ’byed pa’i ’phrul gyi lde mig).77 – The Cluster of Attainments: The Essence of Guru-Deity Yoga (Lha ma lha’i rnal ’byor gyi snying po dngos grub kyi snye ma).78 – The Mahāmudrā Lineage Prayer (Phyag chen brgyud pa’i gsol ’debs).79 By far the most important of these ten texts is The Bright Lamp of the Excellent Path, a 122-folio masterwork, written at the request of Ye shes rgyal mtshan’s great disciple, Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717–1786),80 that provides both a history of the tradition, told through the lives of its lineage-holders, and a 73  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Ma 1–17a [161–193] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005). It is translated in Guenther 1976: 104–127. 74  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Pa 1–7a [339–351] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005) and also in Jinpa 2005: 569–576. 75  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Pa 1–232 [1–463] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005); trans. Gonsalez 2014. 76  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Tsa 1–3a [445–449] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005). 77  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Pa 1–7 [267–280] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005). 78  Found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum, Ma 1–7a [185–197] (Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang, 2005). 79  This text is not found in Ye shes rgyal mtshan’s gsung ’bum. It is, however, generally accepted in Dge lugs circles that he expanded Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s prayer (see above, note 7) so as to incorporate lineage-holders between the First Paṇ chen and himself. 80  B DRC: P182.

Assimilating the Great Seal

319

highly detailed set of instructions on the preliminaries to, and actual practice of, Mahāmudrā, along the lines laid out by Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. In the interest of hewing to my theme, I will forego outlining the contents of the text, and will simply summarize its key contributions to the development of Dge lugs Mahāmudrā discourse. First: The title of the text, with its reference to “Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā,” signals a shift in the name of the tradition. Whereas Paṇ chen Chos rgyan and Skal ldan rgya mtsho referred to it as coming from the dge ldan Oral Transmission (bka’ brgyud), Ye shes rgyal mtshan invokes the name of the first Dge lugs monastery and, not perhaps coincidentally, the nominal seat of the Dalai Lama’s government in Lhasa. After Ye shes rgyal mtshan, the tradition would most often be referred to as the Dga’ ldan Ear-whispered Transmission (dga’ ldan snyan brgyud) or the Dben sa Ear-whispered Transmission (dben sa snyan brgyud). Second: Although Paṇ chen Chos rgyan had written the fundamental verses of supplication to the Ear-whispered Transmission gurus, Ye shes rgyal mtshan expanded these to include teachers between the First Paṇ chen’s and his own time. This list would later be expanded further by Pha bong kha Rin po che (1878–1941) and furthere updated by a number of more recent teachers.81 Ye shes rgyal mtshan also provided biographies of the lineage holders, both in The Bright Lamp of the Excellent Path82 and in his voluminous account of the lives of the Lam Rim lineage gurus.83 Third: While Paṇ chen Chos rgyan had set Mahāmudrā practice within the context of guru yoga, and had composed Bla ma mchod pa, he did not explicitly link the two texts, whereas Ye shes rgyal mtshan did so in a number of works, and over the course of time, Bla ma mchod pa came to be regarded as a quintessential Dge lugs Mahāmudrā text, which could be interwoven seamlessly with the practices described by the First Paṇ chen, such that the pūjā could serve as a preliminary to the meditation, or the meditation could be inserted at appropriate points in a performance of the pūjā.84 Fourth: Although he did not entirely ignore the Bka’ brgyud sources and practices cited by Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, Ye shes rgyal mtshan downplayed them significantly, and when he did retain an important source, such as the songs of Saraha, he relegated them to the sphere of Mantra Mahāmudrā, hence 81  For translations of the updated version, see Gyatso 1982: 227–234; Willis 1995: 101–106; Gonsalez 2014: 445–454; Jackson 2019. 82  A translation of this section is included in Jackson 2019. 83  The Lam rim bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar (Taipei: Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, n.d.); the chapters on the early Mahāmudrā lineage-holders are translated in Willis 1995: 32–130. 84  See Jackson 2015a: 101–103.

320

Jackson

making them irrelevant to the main practice with which the First Paṇ chen’s basic texts were concerned. This pattern would be followed as well by most, if not all, later commentators on the tradition.85 Fifth: In his treatment of calm abiding meditation,86 Ye shes rgyal mtshan follows Paṇ chen Chos rgyan in describing some techniques traceable to the Bka’ brgyud, but he pays far more attention than the Paṇ chen (who does refer to them in passing) to the classic techniques – originating with Asaṅga and emphasized in Tsong kha pa’s Lam rim chen mo – that lead the meditator through nine stages of increasing concentration, while abandoning five faults, applying eight antidotes, and so forth. After Ye shes rgyal mtshan, this emphasis on the standard account would come to dominate Dge lugs pa conceptions of Mahāmudrā calm abiding. Sixth: Where Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, at the outset of the insight section of Lamp So Bright, incorporated some Bka’ brgyud sources into his general discussion of the nature of mind and drew on Bka’ brgyud sources as well in his discussion of post-meditative experience, Ye shes rgyal mtshan’s discussion of insight87 focuses entirely on the sources emphasized by Tsong kha pa and his successors: among sūtras, he places special emphasis on the Perfection of Wisdom literature and the Samādhirāja, and among śāstra-writers he most often cites Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Candrakīrti, and Śāntideva – the “usual suspects,” we might say, in any Dge lugs pa presentation of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka. By the same token, the techniques of analysis he prescribes for realizing the nature of mind are a typical list: seeking a truly existent self or mind both among and apart from the aggregates and elements; or as arisen from self, other, both, or neither; or as within the compass of dependent arising; and so forth. This, too, would become standard in later Dge lugs pa presentations of Mahāmudrā meditation. Finally, one major point from Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s root verses that Ye shes rgyal mtshan neglects to discuss is the “ecumenical” claim that all the great Tibetan systems of meditation come down to a single intention. We cannot suppose that his silence on the matter indicates disagreement, but it is interesting to note that a number of later Dge lugs pa writers, starting with the Third Paṇ chen Lama Dpal dan ye shes (1738–1780),88 question whether Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s statement can be taken at face value, or was instead made “with a special purpose” – since it is hard to fathom how a true Dge lugs pa could, in the end, endorse systems based on a notion that the mind’s ultimate nature is 85  For discussion, see Jackson 2009. 86  Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Gsal ba’i sgron me: 298–338. 87  Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Gsal ba’i sgron me: 338–447. 88  B DRC: P168.

Assimilating the Great Seal

321

empty in the sense of an affirming negation, which annuls its saṃsāric qualities but implies the persistence of its natural luminosity and the presence within it of a range of buddha-qualities.89 Ye shes rgyal mtshan inaugurated an era of prolific discussion of Mahāmudrā among Dge lugs pas. Late-eighteenth and nineteenth-century central Tibetan masters such as Gu ge Blo bzang bstan ’dzin (1748–1813), Gung thang bzang Dkon mchog bstan me’i sgron me (1762–1823), Dngul chu Dharmabhadra (1772– 1851), and Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs smon lam (b. 1791?), all wrote detailed commentaries on Paṇ chen chos rgyan’s Highway of the Conquerors and/or Lamp So Bright,90 and many other early modern lamas commented on various aspects of the Ganden Ear-whispered Transmission in general and Mahāmudrā in particular. For the most part, their explications hewed closely to the orthodox approach instituted by Ye shes rgyal mtshan, in which the tradition is unambiguously understood as Dge lugs, and Bka’ brgyud sources and perspectives are marginal or absent. There were, however, some interesting exceptions in A mdo. The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems (Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long) of Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737–1802),91 for instance, is not a commentary on Dge lugs Mahāmudrā, but Thu’u bkwan does make it clear in his great history of Asian religions that he sees strong affinities between the philosophical view held by the emblematic early Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā masters and that of the Dge lugs, which in both cases he sees as Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, and that he regards the Bka’ brgyud pa masters as unquestionably liberated.92 Two later A mdo lamas, A khu Shes rab rgya mtsho (1803–1875) and Cho ne bla ma Blo

89  See Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 124–125, and the discussions in e.g., Gung thang bzang (1762–1823), Bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng: 55; and Ke’u tshang, Dge ba’i lam bzang: 59: 1–2. 90  These are, respectively: Gugé Yongzin Losang Tenzin, Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ’grel rnams kyi ’grel bshad mchog mthun dngos grub kyi bang mdzod, in The Collected Works of Gu-ge yoṅgs-’dzin Blo-bzaṅ-stan-’dzin alias Gdoṅ-grug-grub-pa’i-rdo-rje, vol. 5 (Ca): 1–227 [1–455] (New Delhi, 1976); Gung thang Dkon mchog bstan pa’i sgron me, Dge ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid kyi zin bris zhal lung bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng, in The Collected Works of Guṅ-thaṅ Dkon-mchog-stan-pa’i sgronme, ed. Ngawang Gelek Demo (Gedan Sungrab Minyam Gyunphel Series, vol. 35), vol. 3: 563–619 (New Delhi, 1972); Dngul chu Dharmabhadra, Zab lam phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyal ba’i gzhung lam gyi steng nas zab ’khrid gnang skabs kyo zin bris ’khrul ba kun sel, in Collected Works (gsuṅ ’bum) of Sngul chu Dharmabhadra, vol. 8: 3–57 (New Delhi: Tibet House, 1981); Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs smon lam, Dge ldan snyan brgyud kyi bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i zin bris rnam grol kun tu dge ba’i lam bzang, in Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs smon lam gyi gsung ’bum, vol. II: 7–149 (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1984). 91  Thu’u bkwan, Shel gyi me long; trans. Thuken 2009. 92  See, especially, Thuken 2009: 140–155.

322

Jackson

gros rgya mtsho (b. 1816)93 also show considerable sympathy for Bka’ brgyud approaches to Mahāmudrā. A khu shows his sympathies in two texts on how to combine Offering to the Guru with Mahāmudrā, noting, for instance, the importance of the Five Maitreya Texts for understanding Mahāmudrā and reporting on the secret Mahāmudrā transmission allegedly passed from Tsong kha pa to Gung ru rgyal mtshan bzang po.94 In his much-loved spiritual songs, Cho ne bla ma sings frequently of the natural luminosity and purity of the mind, in language quite reminiscent of that of the Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā masters.95 Cho ne bla ma, in turn, may have reflected the influence of an earlier poetic master, Zhabs dkar Tshogs drug rang grol (1781–1851),96 who though hard to categorize, did have some Dge lugs affiliations, and certainly was open to the ideas and practices of a number of traditions.97 Whether there is a tendency toward greater orthodoxy among central Tibetan Dge lugs pas and toward greater ecumenism among A mdo bla mas is a question best taken up at another time. 8

Conclusion: What, if Anything, Changed?

However the later tradition may have played out in this or that part of Tibet, there seems little doubt, that Ye shes rgyal mtshan made some subtle but discernible alterations to Dge lugs Mahāmudrā, and that among these was to eclipse, at least partially, the Bka’ brgyud sources and practices utilized by Paṇ chen Chos rgyan, as well as by Skal ldan rgya mtsho. This begs the question, however, whether this process of “de-Bka’-brgyud-ization” is tantamount, as my title suggests, to a “Dge lugs pa-ization” of Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s Mahāmudrā. It is true that Ye shes rgyal mtshan, and most commentators after him, saw the practice as thoroughly Dge lugs, and closely aligned interpretation of the First Paṇ chen’s foundational texts with an orthodoxy that, by the eighteenth century, was for the most part firmly set in place. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan had lived in a different era, under far different political and religious circumstances. In 1600, the Dge lugs was still in its formative phase, and still on the rise as a force in Dbus-Gtsang. The Bka’ brgyud was powerful in many parts of the plateau, 93  B DRC: P123 and P8LS13329, respectively. 94  B  la mchod phyag chen dang sbrags pa’i khrid kyi zin bris srid zhi gdung sel bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun, in A khu shes rab rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Ga 1–43a [Vol. 3: 185–354] [Lha sa: Zhol phar khang, 1998–1999?] and Bla mchod phyag chen dang sbrags pa’i khrid kyi zin bris, in A khu shes rab rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Ga 1–95a [Vol. 3: 335–440] [Lha sa: Zhol phar khang, 1998–1999?]. 95  A considerable number of his songs are translated in Jinpa and Elsner 2000. 96  B DRC: P287. 97  See e.g., Ricard 1994; Sujata 2011: 145–159.

Assimilating the Great Seal

323

and every bit as intellectually and spiritually vital as the Dge lugs. Hence, it is unsurprising that a scholar like Paṇ chen Chos rgyan would deal with the political and religious realities of his time and place. Whatever his reasons for incorporating Bka’ brgyud elements into his Mahāmudrā texts – perhaps a desire to build bridges to the Dge lugs pas’ great rivals, perhaps an attempt to “colonize” their best known and most prestigious concept, perhaps simply an attempt to replicate a teaching that had been handed down from Tsong kha pa and his own root guru – they are an important element of those texts. But are they essential? I observed earlier that for all the Bka’ brgyud references in his seminal Mahāmudrā works, especially Lamp So Bright, when it came to the practice of insight meditation, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan was resolutely Dge lugs pa in approach, citing sources, articulating ontology, and suggesting modes of analysis that are clearly traceable to Tsong kha pa and other authorities within the order. I also noted that (like Tsong kha pa before him) Paṇ chen Chos rgyan was not above launching polemics against Bka’ brgyud meditators, and observed as well that the Ear-whispered Transmission that included the Mahāmudrā teaching was exclusively made up of Dge lugs pas. Even if Paṇ chen Chos rgyan was, as often claimed (and we do have evidence for this from Highway of the Conquerors), an especially “non-sectarian” kind of Dge lugs pa, who was open to the spiritual treasures found in other Tibetan traditions, we have no reason to believe that, in the final analysis, he would not (a) stress the superiority of Tsong kha pa’s view of emptiness and the specific realization necessary for liberation and (b) regard the great figures of other traditions as having upheld – albeit not verbatim – the position arrived at by Tsong kha pa. In this sense, while he may not have been as religiously exclusivist as many Dge lugs pas, past and present, he was almost certainly not a pluralist – admitting equal legitimacy to all points of view – but some species of inclusivist – accepting the provisional validity of other views, but in the end subsuming them to his own. In short, we may assert with some confidence that Ye shes rghyal mtshan did not “Dge lugs pa-ize” Paṇ chen Chos rgyan’s Mahāmudrā tradition – for the simple reason that, in the ways that matter most, it was Dge lugs pa all along. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Blo bzang rgya mtsho. Dad pa’i shing rta: Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (Dalai Lama 5). Khyab bdag rdo rje chang mkhan chen chos kyi rgyal po blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan gyi gsang ba’i rnam thar dad pa’i shing rta. In Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum Nya 1–9 [328–345]. Dharamsala: 2007.

324

Jackson

Gung thang bzang. Bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng: Gung thang Dkon mchog bstan pa’i sgron me. Dge ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid kyi zin bris zhal lung bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng. In Zab lam snyan brgyud phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi phyogs bsgrigs rgyal ba’i lam bzang gsal ba’i sgron me, 39–88. Losel Literature series, vol. XXXV. Distt. Karwar, Karnataka: Drepung Losel Ling Educational Society, 1999. Jinpa, Thupten, ed. 2005. Dpal dge ldan pa’i lugs kyi lam rim dang snyan brgyud kyi chos skor. Bod kyi gtsug lag gces btus pod phreng 6. New Delhi: Institute of Tibetan Classics. Ke’u tshang. Dge ba’i lam bzang: Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs smon lam. Dge ldan snyan brgyud kyi bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i zin bris rnam grol kun tu dge ba’i lam bzang. In Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs smon lam gyi gsung ’bum, vol. II: 7–149. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1984. Khon ston pa. Lta ba khrid yig: ’Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub. Snyan brgyud yid bzhin nor bu lta ba spyi khyab tu ngo sprod pa’i khrid yig. In Sngags rdzogs dbu ma’i skor gyi dpe dkon thor bu’i rigs phyogs sgrigs. Bla rung sgar: Gser ljongs bla ma rung lnga rig nang bstan slob sgwa chen mo, 2005. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. Gter gyi kha byang lta bu: Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i zab lam brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa mdor bsdud gter gyi kha byang lta bu. In Collected Works (gSuṅ ’bum) of Blo bzaṅ chos kyi rgyal mtshan, the First Paṇ chen bLa ma of bKra śis lhun po [Bkra shis lhun po edition]. Ka 1–10 [565–584]. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeva, 1973. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. Bla ma mchod pa’i cho ga, in Collected Works (gSuṅ ’bum) of Blo bzaṅ chos kyi rgyal mtshan, the First Paṇ chen Lama of Bkra śis lhun po [Bkra shis lhun po edition]. Vol. I: 777–830. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeva, 1973. Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. Mid la rnal ’byor: Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. Grub paʼi dbang phyug mid la la brtan paʼi bla maʼi rnal ʼbyor dang rnam thardu ma chud paʼi gsung mgurrnams. In Collected Works (gSuṅ ’bum) of Blo bzaṅ chos kyi rgyal mtshan, the First Paṇ chen bLa ma of bKra śis lhun po [Bkra shis lhun po edition]. Ka 1–18 [729–764]. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeva, 1973. Paṇ chen chos rgyan. Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam: Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i phyag chen rtsa ba rgyal ba’i gzhung lam. In Collected Works (gSuṅ ’bum) of Blo bzaṅ chos kyi rgyal mtshan, the First Paṇ chen bLa ma of bKra śis lhun po [Bkra shis lhun po edition]. Nga 1–6 [81–89]. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeva, 1973. [See also Jinpa 2005: 499–505; Dalai Lama and Berzin 1997: 351–355.] Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. Yang gsal sgron me: Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che’i bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ba rgyas par bshad pa yang gsal sgron me. In Collected Works (gSuṅ ’bum) of Blo bzaṅ chos kyi rgyal mtshan, the First Paṇ chen bLa ma of bKra śis lhun po [Bkra shis lhun po edition]. Nga 1–31 [95–156]. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeva, 1973. [See also: Jinpa 2005: 509–553.]

Assimilating the Great Seal

325

Skal ldan rgya mtsho. Phyag chen nyams khrid: Skal ldan rgya mtsho. ’Jam pa’i dbyangs skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las dge ldan bka’ brgyud phyag rgya chen po’i nyams khrid rje blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i gsung gis bskul ba. In Skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum. Kha 1–12a [431–454]. Reb kong: Rong po dgon chen, 199–. Skal ldan rgya mtsho. Phyag chen zab khrid: Skal ldan rgya mtsho. ’Jam pa’i dbyangs skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las dge ldan phyag chen zab khrid gdams ngag rgya mtsho nas btus pa. In Skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum. Kha 1–14 [403–430]. Reb kong: Rong po dgon chen, 199–. Thu’u bkwan. Shel gyi me long. Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma. Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long. Bod kyi gtsugs lag gces btus, vol. 25. Delhi: Bod kyi gtsug lag zhib dpyod khang (Institute of Tibetan Classics), 2007. Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Gsal ba’i sgron me: Ye shes rgyal mtshan. Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid yig snyan brgyud lam bzang gsal ba’i sgron me. In Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum. Tsa 1–122 [201–443]. Delhi: Bod kyi dpe deb khang.



Secondary Sources

BDRC: Buddhist Digital Resource Center. https://www.tbrc.org/#!footer/about/newhome. Last accessed 4 August 2017. Berzin, Alexander, trans. 1978. Wang-ch’ug Dor-je, the Ninth Karmapa. The Mahamudra Eliminating the Darkness of Ignorance. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Cabezón José Ignacio. 1995. “On the sGra pa Rin chen pa’i rtsod lan of Paṇ chen bLo bzang chos rgyan.” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 49.4: 643–669. Callahan, Elizabeth, trans. 2001. The Ninth Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje. Mahāmudrā: The Ocean of Definitive Meaning. Seattle: Nithartha International. Dahl, Cortland, trans. 2009. The Ninth Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje. Pointing Out the Dharmakaya. Hopkins, MN: Tergar International. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. 2019. Moonbeams of Mahāmudrā, with Dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance by Wangchuk Dorje, the Ninth Karmapa. Translated, annotated, and introduced by Elizabeth M. Callahan. Boulder: Shambhala Publications. Dalai Lama [XIV]. 1988. The Union of Bliss and Emptiness: A Commentary on the Lama Choepa Guru Yoga Practice. Translated by Thupten Jinpa. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Dalai Lama, Khönton Peljor Lhündrub, and José Ignacio Cabezón. 2011. Meditation on the Nature of Mind. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Dalai Lama [XIV] and Alexander Berzin. 1997. The Gelug/Kagyü Tradition of Mahamudra. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Gardner, Alexander. 2009. “The Fourth Paṇ chen Lama, Lobzang Chökyi Gyeltsen.” Treasury of Lives. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Lobzang-ChokyiGyeltsen/9839. Last accessed 4 August 2017.

326

Jackson

Gonsalez, David, trans. 2014. Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen. Manjushri’s Innermost Secret: A Profound Commentary of Oral Instructions on the Practice of Lama Chöpa. Seattle: Dechen Ling Press. Guenther, Herbert V. 1976. Tibetan Treasures on the Middle Way. Berkeley: Shambhala. Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. 1982. Clear Light of Bliss: Mahamudra in Vajrayana Buddhism. London: Wisdom Publications. Jackson, Roger R. 2001. “The dGe ldan bka’ brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā: How Much dGe ldan? How Much bKa’ brgyud?” in Changing Minds: Contributions to the Study of Buddhism and Tibet In Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins. Edited by Guy Newland, 155–192. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications. Jackson, Roger R. 2009. “Archer Among the Yellow Hats: The Uses of Saraha in Geluk Tradition.” Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 10: 103–131. Jackson, Roger R. 2015a. “Borrowed Texts, Fluid Genres, and Performative License: Reflections on a dGe lugs pa Offering Ritual.” In Tibetan Literary Genres, Texts, and Text Types: From Genre Classification to Transformation. Edited by Jim Rheingans, 89–109. (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 37.) Leiden; Boston: Brill. Jackson, Roger R. 2015b. “Did Tsong kha pa Teach Mahāmudrā?” Zentralasiatische Studien 44: 79–97. Jackson, Roger R. 2019. Mind Seeing Mind: Mahāmudrā and the Geluk Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Jampa, Gyumed Khensur Lobsang. 2013. The Easy Path: Illuminating the First Panchen Lama’s Secret Instructions. Edited by Lorne Ladner. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Jinpa, Thupten. 1999. “Tsongkhapa’s Qualms about Early Tibetan Interpretations of Madhyamaka Philosophy.” The Tibet Journal 24.2: 3–28. Jinpa, Thupten, and Jaś Elsner, trans. 2000. Songs of Spiritual Experience: Tibetan Buddhist Poems of Insight and Awakening. Boston and London: Shambhala. Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. 1988. The Great Perfection: A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Karmay, Samten G., trans. 2014. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Chicago: Serindia Publications. Lhalungpa, Lobsang P., trans. 1986. Takpo Tashi Namgyal. Mahamudra: The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation. Boston and London: Shambhala. Lopez, Donald S., Jr. 1997. “A Prayer to the Lama.” In Religions of Tibet in Practice. Edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 376–386. Princeton Readings in Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mullin, Glenn H., trans. 1982. The Seventh Dalai Lama, Kalzang Gyatso. Songs of Spiritual Change. Ithaca: Gabriel/Snow Lion. Mullin, Glenn H. 2001. The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers.

Assimilating the Great Seal

327

Namgyal, Tsering. 2011. “The First Rongwo Drubchen, Shar Kelden Gyatso.” The Treasury of Lives. http://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Shar-Kelden-Gyatso/9753. Last accessed 4 August 2017. Ricard, Matthieu, trans. 1994. The Life of Shabkar: The Autobiography of a Tibetan Yogin. Albany: State University of New York Press. Roberts, Peter Alan, trans. 2014. The Mind of Mahamudra: Advice from the Kagyü Masters. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2005. “The Fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Lopsang Gyatso.” In The Dalai Lamas: A Visual History. Edited by Martin Brauen, 65–91. Chicago: Serindia Publications. Shakabpa, Tsepon W.D. 1984. Tibet: A Political History. New York: Potala Publications. Smith. E. Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Tibetan Plateau. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Sujata, Victoria. 2004. Tibetan Songs of Realization: Echoes from a Seventeenth-century Scholar and Siddha in Amdo. Leiden: Brill. Sujata, Victoria. 2011. Songs of Shabkar: The Path of a Tibetan Yogi Inspired by Nature. Cazadero, CA: Dharma Publishing. Sujata, Victoria. 2019. Journey to Distant Groves: Profound Songs of the Tibetan Siddha Kalden Gyatso. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications. Thuken Losang Chökyi Nyima. 2009. The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems: A Tibetan Study of Asian Religious Thought. Translated by Geshe Lhundub Sopa et al. Edited by Roger R. Jackson. (Library of Tibetan Classics, vol. 25.) Boston: Wisdom Publications. Thurman, Robert A.F., trans. 1982. The Life and Teaching of Tsong Khapa. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Willis, Janice D. 1995. Enlightened Beings: Life Stories from the Ganden Oral Tradition. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Index A khu Shes rab rgya mtsho 321, 322n94 A mdo 8, 303, 309–10, 314, 321–22 A wa dhū ti pa btsun pa bsod nams 185n4 Abhayākaragupta 244n23, 291 Abhidharma 237n3, 260 Abhidharmasamuccaya 242, 257 Abhisamayālaṃkāra 222, 222n55, 271n8, 280, 280n32 abhiṣeka. See empowerment abhūtaparikalpa (unreal imaginings) 242, 242n17, 248 actual gnosis. See don gyi ye shes ādibuddha (primordial buddha) 191, 191n33 Advice of Blo bzang [grags pa]: An Uncommon Instruction on the View of the Profound Madhyamaka (Zab mo’i dbu ma’i lta khrid thun mong min pa blo bzang zhal lung) 318 Advice of Mañjughoṣa Lama, which Teaches Clearly the Key Points of the Special Instruction on Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi gnad gsal bar ston pa ’jam dbyangs bla ma’i zhal lung) 317 affirming negation (ma yin dgag) 211n20, 222, 226, 231, 293, 308, 311, 321 amanasikāra 7, 14, 17, 124, 207n7, 209n11, 211, 211n20, 214, 217, 239n9, 269–70, 276–77, 277n22, 279, 281–83, 283n40, 290, 292–95, 298 amanasikāra texts, cycle of 90, 269–70, 273, 276, 280, 283, 285–86, 288, 292, 294, 298 Amanasikārādhāra 269, 277n22, 282, 290, 293–96 Amoghavajra 126n17, 129–30, 130n31 Anaṅgavajra 93, 99n14, 105, 105n24–25, 108–9, 109n31, 110n32–33, 111n35, 112–13, 119n49 Aṅgulimālīyasūtra 295 apratiṣṭhāna (non-abiding, non-foundation)  7, 206, 206n5, 207n7, 209, 239n9, 269–70, 279, 281, 292, 297 Apratiṣṭhāna (Non-abiding, Nonfoundationalist) Madhyamaka 6, 7, 206,

206n4, 206n6, 208n10, 209–11, 217n35, 228, 230, 239–40, 254, 269, 278, 298 Āryadeva 91n4, 95n9, 104, 308, 320 Ātijñāna Sūtra 311 Atiśa 154, 212, 227, 278, 307 Avadhūtipa 207n7 avaśiṣṭa. See remainder āveśa 127 Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī 283, 283n40, 285, 292, 292n63, 293 ’Ba’ ra ba Rgyal mtshan dpal bzang  305 Ba so Chos kyi rgyal mtshan 309 Bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng 321n89–90 Bka’ brgyud (pa) 1, 3–4, 6, 8, 10–13, 17, 91, 95n8, 96–98, 101, 103, 106–8, 112, 117–18, 119n49, 120, 143–46, 149n22, 151, 155–56, 159, 161, 170, 177, 181, 201, 201n65, 208, 212, 239n7, 269–70, 283, 287, 290, 303–9, 311–16, 319–23 Bkra shis dpal ’byor, Sangs rgyas mnyan pa, First 208 Bla ma khams pa’i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis  261n65 Bla ma mchod pa 145, 303, 319 Bla ma Zhang brtson ’grus grags pa (Zhang tshal pa) 98–99, 99n14, 100, 100n15, 263–64, 305, 307–8, 314 Bla mchod phyag chen dang sbrags pa’i khrid kyi zin bris 322n94 Bla mchod phyag chen dang sbrags pa’i khrid kyi zin bris srid zhi gdung sel bdud rti’i chu rgyun 322n94 Black Hat Karma pas 314 blessing consecration 115–17 bliss 12, 95n8, 107, 171–72, 172n7, 182n28, 186–87, 190, 193, 193n36, 194–96, 198, 198n58, 199–200, 215, 215n30, 290 bliss and emptiness 4, 123, 214, 228n77, 270–71, 275 Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. See Paṇ chen Lama, First, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan

330 Blue Annals (Deb ther sngon po) 94, 96, 142, 143n3, 146, 146n11, 147, 152n45, 153, 153n49, 158n62, 159, 159n65, 284 Bodhisattvabhūmi 242 ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud (pa) 172, 174 ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod (’Bri gung chos mdzod) 91n3, 92, 94, 96, 96n9, 97, 107, 118 ’Bri gung chos mdzod. See ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po (’Jig rten mgon po, ’Jig rten gsum mgon) 101n17, 170–72, 172n7, 173–76, 177n20, 178–79, 181–82, 208n10, 223, 223n58, 251, 305, 307 ’Bri gung Kun dga’ rin chen 92, 92n6, 94, 106 Bright Lamp of the Excellent Path of the Ear-whispered Transmission: A Letter of Instruction on Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid yig snyan brgyud lam bzang gsal ba’i sgron me) 317 ’Bro Shes rab 195, 195n44, 197–99 ’Brug chen, Second, Kun dga’ dpal ’byor, 148n21, 159, 159n68 ’Brug chen, Fourth, Padma dkar po 94, 98, 103n21, 106–8, 108n28, 109–14, 114n82, 117, 117n46, 148n21, 313n56 ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud (pa) 106, 148n21, 305, 315 bsam gtan 176 bsam gtan gyi dngos gzhi 176 Bsod nams phyogs glang 302n4 buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha) 189, 212, 215, 225, 231, 238–39, 242, 246, 248–50, 251n40, 254, 259, 260, 271n8, 285, 295–96, 296n74, 297, 297n78, 298 buddha wisdom (buddhajñāna) 74–75, 261 Buddhagupta/Buddhaguhya 126, 130 buddhahood 1, 8, 74n32, 82n44, 136, 138, 179–80, 189, 190n24, 191–92, 200–1, 219n42, 231, 241, 246, 254, 259–62, 279–81, 285–86, 296 buddhajñāna. See buddha wisdom Buddhapālita 277 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit 23, 26–27 Bye ma lung pa Chos kyi seng ge 152

Index calm abiding (śamatha, zhi gnas) 1, 4, 8, 144, 175, 205, 208, 212, 212n22, 218–19, 231, 271, 274n17, 279, 291, 298, 307–8, 311, 313, 320 Candrakīrti 17, 239, 243–44, 244n25, 245–47, 256–57, 270, 277, 284, 308, 310, 320 Candraprabha 17, 74 Caturmudrānvaya 7, 95n9, 103n21, 123, 128, 194n39, 269, 282, 282n37, 283 Catuṣpīṭha 143, 149, 149n23, 151, 151n38, 161 celibacy 178 cessation of mind (cittanirodha) 237, 237n3 Cho ne bla ma Blo gros rgya mtsho 321–22 Chos grags ye shes. See Zhwa dmar pa, Fourth, Chos grags ye shes Chos kyi grags pa. See Zhwa dmar pa, Fourth, Chos grags ye shes Chos kyi Gtsang pa rgya ras pa 106 Chos kyi rdo rje 309, 315 Chos pa Rin po che 310 Chos sku ngo sprod (Pointing Out the Dharmakāya) 314n56 cig car 107 Cittamātra (Mind Only) 225n65–66, 227, 238–39, 242–43, 251–53, 255, 258, 270 cittanirodha. See cessation of mind Cittavajrastava (Nāgārjuna) 227 clear light, (prabhasvaratā, ’od gsal; luminosity) 5–7, 14, 95n8, 135, 170, 170n1, 173, 181, 186, 186n8, 187n12, 190, 191n32, 201n66, 204n2, 211n20, 212n22, 218, 218n42, 219–20, 220n50, 221–22, 228, 231, 239, 259, 261–62, 262n69, 263, 272–73, 276, 284, 287, 290, 294–95, 297–98, 304, 311–12, 321–22 Cluster of Attainments: The Essence of Guru-Deity Yoga (Lha ma lha’i rnal ’byor gyi snying po dngos grub kyi snye ma) 318 coemergent joy 272, 291 coemergent wisdom 6 Collection on Reasoning 189 completion phase, completion stage, stage of perfection (rdzogs rim, utpannakrama)  7, 10, 123–24, 144, 149–50, 150n34, 173, 179–80, 185n3, 186n8–9, 208, 215–16, 281, 288, 290–91, 304

Index completion stage. See completion phase concordant cause (niṣyanda) 194, 194n39, 195, 199 consort (mudrā) 6, 103, 109–10, 136, 185n2, 186, 187–88, 190, 194, 196, 198, 200, 215 creation stage, creation phase (utpattikrama)  7–8, 10, 135n47, 144, 146, 150, 180, 200, 208, 208n9, 215–16, 281, 287 Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems (Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long) 321 Cūḷasuññatasutta 240–41 Dalai Lama, Eighth, Byams spel rgya mtsho  317 Dalai Lama, Fifth, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (Great Fifth, the) 4, 8, 142, 143n3, 150, 160, 302, 306, 312, 314–16 Dalai Lama, Fourteenth, Bstan ’dzin rgya mtsho 8, 303n7, 304, 315 Dalai Lama, Fourth, Yon tan rgya mtsho 302, 312 Dalai Lama, Seventh, Skal bzang rgya mtsho 316 Dben sa Ear-whispered Transmission (dben sa snyan brgyud) 302, 315, 317, 319 Dben sa pa Blo bzang don grub 302n4, 309 Dbu ma dgongs pa rab gsal 247 Dbu ma pa Dpa’ bo rdo rje 304–5 Dbus-gtsang 314, 322 Deb ther sngon po. See Blue Annals deep insight, insight meditation, superior insight (vipaśyanā, lhag mthong) 1, 4, 8, 175, 205, 208, 212, 212n22, 218–20, 231, 271–72, 274n17, 279, 291, 298, 307–8, 310–11, 323 definitive meaning of mahāmudrā 5–6, 134, 185, 187–88, 193, 201, dependent arising 243, 255–56, 310, 315, 320 devotional Mahāmudrā 175 Dga’ ldan Ear-whispered Transmission (Dga’ ldan snyan brgyud) 302, 305, 319, 321 Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā 319 Dga’ ldan pho brang 314 Dga’ ldan Shar rtse 310 Dge ba’i lam bzang 321n89, 321n90 Dge ldan Bka’ brgyud 302–3, 306, 315 Dge ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i rtsa ’grel rnams kyi

331 ’grel bshad mchog mthun dngos grub kyi bang mdzod 321n90 Dge ldan phyag rgya chen po’i khrid kyi zin bris zhal lung bdud rtsi’i thigs phreng 321n90 Dge ldan phyag rgya chen po’i nyams ’khrid 310n45 Dge ldan snyan brgyud kyi bka’ srol phyag rgya chen po’i zin bris rnam grol kun tu dge ba’i lam bzang. See Dge ba’i lam bzang Dge lugs (pa) 1, 8, 231, 238, 238n5, 246–47, 250, 257–58, 302, 302n4, 303–7, 307n33, 308–17, 318n79, 319–23 Dge slong Don yod grub pa 92, 92n7, 94, 98–99, 99n14, 100, 100n16, 101–4, 106, 108, 112, 117n46 Dgongs gcig 4–5, 170, 172–73, 174n11, 175–176, 177n18, 177n20, 178–79, 182n28, 251n40 Dgongs gcig ’grel pa 5, 250–51, 254, 256–57, 263, 263n74, 264, 275, 279, 282, 287, 296 Dharmadharmatāvibhāga 13, 284–85 dharmakāya (dharma body) 76, 76n35, 132n37, 137, 174–75, 182n28, 189–90, 190n24, 208n9, 212n22, 216, 218n42, 221, 224, 231, 270–71, 271n8, 279, 287, 297, 312 dharmamudrā 4, 123–25, 133, 134n42, 171–72, 187, 194n39, 208n9 dhyāna, actual practice of 176, 176n17 disciplined conduct 176–77, 179–80 Distinguishing the Three Vows (Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba, Sdom gsum rab dbye) (Sa skya Paṇḍita) 91, 97, 97n10, 98, 100, 101n17, 103, 103n21, 104, 104n23, 117, 117n46, 227, 227n70, 227n72, 228n74, 228n76, 229n78, 281 Dngul chu Dharmabhadra 278n26, 306n31, 321, 321n90 Do ha mdzod kyi mchan ’grel (Annotations on the Dohākoṣa) 316n64 dohā trilogy (Do hā skor gsum) 94–96, 98n11, 213 Dohākoṣagīti 96n9 dohās 117, 240, 273, 289, 305 Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan 186n10, 246–47, 256n55 Ḍombīheruka 93, 99n14, 148   Don grub bzang po 168, 304

332 don gyi ye shes 172, 214 dpe’i ye shes 172 dream yoga 173 drod rtags 171 Drung pa Brtson ’grus rgyal mtshan 309 Dud sol ma 4, 142, 145–47, 150–51, 151n38, 160, 160n71, 160n74, 162  Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta 228n77, 251n40, 262n69 Dwags po Bka’ brgyud (pa) 17, 155, 204–6, 209–11, 218, 219n42, 220, 223, 227–28, 263, 282, 288, 291 Dwags po Bkra shis rnam rgyal  97n11, 113n39, 313n56 ’dzem du ’gro 177 eight antidotes in meditation 320 empowerment (abhiṣeka) 6, 8, 10, 11, 108–10, 144–45, 156, 172–73, 180, 186, 188, 190, 193, 193n36, 194–95, 196n47, 198–200, 212, 269, 273, 275, 277n22, 279, 281, 283, 290–91, 295, 298 emptiness (śūnyatā) 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, 75–76, 81, 177, 177n19, 186, 186n8, 186n10, 187, 187n12, 188–89, 200–1, 207n7, 211, 211n20, 214, 219, 219n42, 224–25, 225n65–66, 226, 228, 228n77, 231, 237–42, 242n17, 243, 243n21, 244n25, 245, 245n28, 246–48, 250, 252–57, 257n59, 258, 263, 270–71, 273–77, 283, 286, 290, 293, 295, 297–98, 308, 310–12, 323 emptiness and appearance 6, 186, 188, 190–91, 194, 200–1, 308 emptiness of one from the other (itaretaraśūnyatā) 245 Empty of Other (gzhan stong) 1, 5, 7, 186, 186n9–10, 200, 220, 220n50, 231, 237–38, 238n5, 246–47, 254–55 Empty of Own-nature (rang stong) 1, 7, 231, 237–38, 247, 254, 257, 277 Essence Mahāmudrā 1, 10, 144 exegetical lineage (bshad brgyud) 147, 151, 155 Experiential Teaching on Mahāmudrā in the Dge ldan Oral Transmission (Dge ldan bka’ brgyud phyag rgya chen po’i nyams khrid) 311

Index fierce heat (gtum mo) 5, 170, 170n1, 171–73, 175–76, 176n17, 180, 182, 205 first defeat (parājika) 178 First Paṇ chen bla ma. See Paṇ chen Lama, First, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan five faults in meditation 320 Five Maitreya Texts 209, 275, 285, 322 five paths 313 Fivefold Mahāmudrā (phyag chen lnga ldan)  5, 172, 174–75, 177–78, 180–82, 304 Flowing River Ganges (Gang ga’i chu rgyun)  315 formal canon 90n2, 103 Four Cycles of Illuminating Lamps, The (Gsal sgron skor bzhi) 5, 186 four empowerments (dbang bzhi) 10, 172 four seals (caturmudrā) 12, 123, 171 Four Yogas of Mahāmudrā 112, 313 gcig brgyud 316 General Presentation of the Sūtras (Chos grags ye shes) 222 Gilgit manuscripts 11n4, 18n18, 20–25, 25n29, 26, 28, 34, 83 Gling ras pa 307–8 Gnas gsar bka’ ‘gyur 26 gnosis ( jñāna). See wisdom Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes 132, 137 Gnyan Dpal dbyangs 132, 136 Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge 94, 98–99, 100n15, 103, 103n21, 104–5, 105n25, 106, 108, 112 Gong dkar 4, 142, 159, 159n66, 160–61, 161n77 Gong dkar ba Kun dga’ rnam rgyal 147, 159, 159n66, 160 ‘Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal 7, 16n15, 85, 94, 159, 274, 274n17, 275, 284, 295 Great Fifth, the. See Dalai Lama, Fifth, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho Great Madhyamaka 272, 305, 313 Great Perfection (rdzogs chen) 5, 135, 136n52, 137, 139, 189, 201, 263, 305, 313–14 ground, path, and result 180, 313 groundless ground 7, 240, 258–59, 264 Grub snying gi skor 3, 91, 94–96, 117 Gsang phu ne’u thog 153

Index Gtsang 156–57, 307, 309, 314, 317, 322 gtum mo. See fierce heat Gu ge Blo bzang bstan ’dzin 306n31, 321 *Guhyagarbha (Gsang ba‘i snying po) 134, 134n43–44, 135–36, 136n51, 139 Guhyasamāja 143, 145, 153, 304, Guhyasiddhi 93, 99n14, 107–8, 108n28, 109, 118, 119n49, 120, 187–88, 191, 193, 193n36, 201 Guidebook on Offering to the Guru: A Treasury of Ear-whispered Transmission Special Instructions That Distinguishes the Secret Key Points (Bla ma mchod pa’i khrid yig gsang ba’i gdad rnam par phye ba snyan rgyud man ngag gi gter mdzod) 318 Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po 305, 311, 322 Gung thang bzang Dkon mchog bstan me’i sgron me 321, 321n89 guru attendance 174 guru devotion 5, 101n17, 174, 178, 181 guru yoga (bla ma’i rnal ’byor) 142, 175, 303, 309, 318–19 Guru Yoga Practice Based on the Lord of Adepts Mi la, along with Spiritual Songs Not Included in the [Author’s] Life-Story (Grub pa’i dbang phyug mid la la brtan pa’i bla ma’i rnal ’byor dang rnam thar du ma chud pa’i gsung mgur rnams) 309 Gushri Khan 314 gzhan stong. See Empty of Other Hevajratantra 100–4, 108, 147, 147n13, 148, 148n19, 149, 156, 211n20, 282, 294 Hidden Meaning of Luminosity (’Od gsal gyi sbas don) 221 Highest Yogatantra (Unexcelled Yogatantra)  6, 91, 143, 145–46, 150, 304 Highway of the Conquerors (Rgyal ba’i gzhung lam) 8, 302, 310, 321, 323 illusory body 173, 198, 294 indivisible union (yuganaddha) 206, 206n10, 209, 210n15, 285, 295, 297 Indrabhūti 93, 99n13, 112–13, 120, 215 inferential analysis 277 inner channels 171, 212n22 insight meditation. See deep insight

333 itaretaraśūnyatā. See emptiness of one from the other Jag chen Byams pa dpal 304 ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa 316 ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse dbang po 156, 161n76 ’Jam dpal dbyangs kyis rje bla ma la dngos su gnang ba’i gdams pa mdor bsdus kyi ṭi kka gnad don gsal ba (A Commentary Briefly Clarifying the Meaning of the Instruction Directly Given to Rje Bla ma by Mañjughoṣa) 316n65 ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas)  4, 92n5, 145, 220, 286 ’Jig rten gsum mgon. See ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po ’Jig rten mgon po. See ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po Jñāna. See wisdom Jñānakīrti 7, 274, 274n17, 298 Jñānālokālaṃkārasūtra 283 jñānamudrā 187–88 Jñānasiddhi 90n3, 93, 99n14, 100–1, 104, 107, 109, 112–15, 115n43, 116–19, 119n49 Jo nang (pa) 1, 5, 200, 225, 231, 238, 238n5, 246–47, 250, 255, 256n55, 258, 296 Ka dpe, 311 Kālacakra 5–6, 185, 185n3, 186n8–10, 189, 191, 191n32–33, 193–95, 195n44, 196–98, 198n58, 199, 199n62, 200–1, 290–92 Kālacakra Tantra 91n3, 152, 185, 187, 187n12, 192–93 Kamalanātha 291 Kar ma Bka’ brgyud (pa) 204, 238, 259, 307 Kar ma pas 314, 316 Kar ma Bkra shis chos ‘phel 286 karmamudrā 123–25, 133n39, 171–72, 187–88, 188n16, 194n39, 208n9, 215, 215n30, 216 Kaśmirī Śaivism 198 Karma pa, Eighth, Mi bskyod rdo rje 6–8, 208, 210n18, 212–13, 215, 223, 223n58, 228n77, 237n4, 238–40, 243, 251–52, 253n49, 255–57, 261–63, 269–71, 271n8, 272–80, 282, 284, 284n45, 285, 287–91, 293–94, 296, 296n74, 297, 297n78, 298

334 Karma pa, Ninth, Dbang phyug rdo rje  313n56 Karma pa, Seventh, Chos grags rgya mtsho  85, 91, 92n6, 93, 106, 119 Karma pa, Third, Rang byung rdo rje 220, 296, 297n78 Ke’u tshang Blo bzang ’jam dbyangs, 306n31, 321, 321n90 Khams 152, 157–58, 314 Khams pa Shes rab rdo rje 152 Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub (’Khon ston pa) 312–14 ’Khon ston pa. See Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub Khri byang Rin po che, Third 303n7 Khrims khang Lo tsā ba Bsod nams rgya mtsho  146, 146n11, 151n38, 159, 159n67, 204n2 Klong chen pa 313 knowledge ( jñāna) 237. See also wisdom. Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas. See ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas Kudṛṣṭinirghātana 8, 269, 285 Kukuripa 150 La yag pa Byang chub dngos grub 293 Laghukālacakra Tantra 187 Lam rim bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar  319n83 Lam rim chen mo 320 Lamp Illuminating Mahāmudrā, The (Phyag rgya chen po gsal sgron) 5, 185 Lamp So Bright (Yang gsal sgron me) 8, 92, 94–95, 303, 307–8, 311, 320–21, 323 Laṅkāvatārasūtra 17, 245, 275, 296n72 Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje 318 lhag ma. See remainder lhag mthong. See superior insight lhan cig skyes sbyor 171 Lhasa 154, 317, 319 Like a Treasure Inventory (Gter gyi kha byang lta bu) 303, 309 luminosity. See clear light Madhyamaka. See Middle Way Madhyamakāvatāra 243, 250, 270 Madhyamakopadeśa 227, 227n73 Madhyāntavibhāga 242, 246, 283–84

Index Magic Key that Opens the Hundred Treasures of the Ear-whispered Transmission: A Summary of the Guru Yoga Preliminary to Dga’ ldan Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i sngon ’gro bla ma’i rnal ’byor gyi bsdus don snyan brgyud mdzod brgya ’byed pa’i ’phrul gyi lde mig) 318 Mahāmāyā 143, 149n23, 150, 160n74, 161 Mahāmudrā Lineage Prayer (Phyag chen brgyud pa’i gsol ’debs) 318 mahāmudrāsiddhi 101 Mahāyānasaṃgraha 20, 271n8, 296 Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 219, 219n45 Mahāyānaviṃśikā 269, 287 Maitrīpa 4, 6–8, 10, 14, 17, 85, 90, 95n8, 96n9, 97, 98n11, 123, 143, 148, 161, 201n65, 206, 206n4, 208–10, 210n15, 211, 211n20, 212, 214, 228, 228n76, 239, 239n9, 242n17, 269–70, 273, 275, 275n17, 276–77, 277n22, 278–83, 285–88, 290–94, 297–98 man ngag. See pith-instructions maṇḍala 8, 105, 105n25, 106, 109, 124, 129, 131, 133, 135, 135n47, 147, 147n14, 148–51, 193n36, 195, 197, 200, 286–87 Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho 98, 113, 117n46 Mañjughoṣa 304–5 Mañjuśrīyaśas 187 mantra 125, 126n18, 127–28, 130–32, 133n39, 214, 214n27. See also secret mantra mantra path. See Mantrayāna mantra system 11, 12, 90, 97, 98, 228n76 Mantra Mahāmudrā 144, 286, 307, 319 Mantra Vehicle. See Mantrayāna Mantrayāna 90n3, 189, 206, 240, 246, 259–60, 263, 270–71, 274n17, 279–83, 284, 288, 294, 304 Mar pa (Lo tsā ba) Chos kyi blo gros 4, 17, 95n8, 142–43, 143n3, 145–48, 148n21, 149–51, 153, 155n55, 156, 158, 161, 171, 177, 201n65, 212, 214, 269n3, 270, 280, 283, 290–91, 304, 307–8, 311 Māra 79–81 meditation 1, 4, 8, 20, 74, 83, 98n11, 112, 143, 161, 198, 205, 209, 210n18, 212n22, 214, 216–18, 219n45, 220, 226, 228, 228n74,

Index 229, 229n77–78, 231, 240–42, 271, 276, 281, 288, 292, 302, 307–8, 310–14, 316, 319–20, 323 meter 26–28 Middle Way (Madhyamaka) 6–7, 99n14, 206, 206n5–6, 207, 209, 210n15, 211, 217n35, 218, 218n38–39, 219, 227–28, 228n74–75, 230, 238–40, 243, 246, 247n32, 249, 251–55, 257–59, 263–64, 269–70, 272–73, 275, 277–79, 283–84, 297–98, 304–5, 308, 313, 317, 320–21 mind as such (sems nyid) 207n8, 208, 208n9, 213, 258 Mind Only. See Cittamātra mind, nature of 4, 7, 10, 124, 246, 254, 258–59, 261–63, 287–89, 308, 312–13, 320 mindfulness 207n7, 209, 289 misplaced denial 277–78 Mkhas grub Sangs rgyas ye shes 309, 315 Mkhas grub rje Dge legs dpal bzang 302n4 Mnga’ ris Paṇ chen Padma dbang rgyal 160 mudrā 11, 103, 124–26, 126n17, 127, 127n21, 129, 131, 133–34, 135n47, 137–38, 172n7, 185n2, 187–88, 198, 200, 208n9, 216, 228, 228n77 Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 187, 269n1 Nāgārjuna 4–5, 20, 97, 123, 187, 189, 194n39, 208n9, 219, 239–40, 249, 252, 256, 269, 269n1, 270, 270n4, 276–77, 282, 282n37, 308, 320 Nāmasaṅgīti 150–53 Nāropa 4, 143, 149, 151, 155, 157, 159, 177, 198, 201n65, 214, 228, 270, 275, 280, 290–92 natural awareness (tha mal gyi shes pa) 212, 218, 218n41, 231, 258 natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa) 10, 144, 212n22, 270, 282 navagrantha (nine texts) 18 Nayatrayapradīpa 281 Nepal 1, 18, 23, 149, 317 Newar 18, 151 Nges don rgya mtsho (Ocean of Definitive Meaning) 313n56 nihilism 7, 180, 240, 251, 251n41, 255, 264, 311 nimitta 13, 13n10, 14–15, 242n17 nine stages of concentration 320

335 Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī 13 non-abiding. See apratiṣṭhāṇa non-affirming negation (med dgag) 293, 308 non-arising (skyes med) 246n28, 288–90, 293 non-elaboration (spros bral) 313n54 non-foundation. See apratiṣṭhāṇa non-meditation (sgom med) 313n54 non-mindfulness (dran med) 288 non-sectarian (ris med) 313, 323 nonduality (gnyis med) 5, 185n2, 186, 188, 191, 252 nonvibration (niḥspandataḥ) 198–200 Nyi zla sangs rgyas 313 ’od gsal. See clear light Oḍḍiyāna 90, 90n3, 118 Offering to the Guru (Bla ma mchod pa) 303, 319, 322 omnipotent white medicine (dkar po chig thub) 271 one taste (ro gcig) 11, 11n5, 220, 313n54 Padmasambhava 138, 138n57, 153, 313, 316 Paṇ chen Chos kyi rgyal mtshan. See Paṇ chen Lama, First, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan Paṇ chen Chos rgyan. See Paṇ chen Lama, First, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan Paṇ chen Lama, First, Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan (Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, First Paṇ chen bla ma, Paṇ chen Chos rgyan) 8, 92, 94–95, 95n8, 302, 302n3–4, 302n5, 303–10, 312, 314–17, 318n79, 319–20, 322–23 Paṇ chen Lama, Second, Blo bzang ye shes  317 Paṇ chen bla ma, Third, Dpal dan ye shes  320 Pañcākāra 269, 286 Pañcakrama 187–88 Pañcatathāgatamudrāvivaraṇa 297 Paramādibuddha Kālacakra Tantra 185, 185n3, 187, 192 pāramitā 12–13, 206n6, 224, 274n17, 279–80, 285 pāramitānaya 7–8, 12, 210

336 Pāramitāyāna 144, 274n17, 279–81, 283–84 paratantra (relative) 242–43, 245–47 parikalpita (imagined) 243, 245, 245n28, 246–47 passion for the mahāmudrā (mahāmudrāanurāgāt) 193, 196, 198–200 path of means, path of methods (thabs lam)  5, 135n48, 144, 173–74, 174n10, 175–77, 182 People Dohā 94, 213. See also People’s Dohās, People Dohākoṣa People Dohākoṣa (Dmangs do hā) 316 People’s Dohās 289. See also People Dohā, People Dohākoṣa perfect nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva)  243, 247 perfection of liberality 177 Perfection of Wisdom literature 320 Pha bong kha Rin po che 319 Pha Dam pa sangs rgyas 307 Phag mo gru Bka’ brgyud 304 Phag mo gru pa 5, 95n8, 144, 170, 176, 176n17, 182, 208n10, 223, 223n58, 272, 274n17, 307–8, 311 Phug brag manuscript 11, 22–26, 29 Phur bu mchog Ngag dbang byams pa  316–17 Phyag chen brgyud ’debs (Appeal to the Mahāmudrā Lineage) 310n45 Phyag chen brgyud pa’i gsol ’debs 303, 318 Phyag chen gyi ’khrid yig (Guidebook to Mahāmudrā) 310n45 phyag chen lnga ldan. See Fivefold Mahāmudrā Phyag chen ma rig mun sel (Mahāmudrā Eliminating the Darkness of Ignorance) 313n56 Phyag chen rgya gzhung. See Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung Phyag chen zin bris (Notes on Mahāmudrā) 313n56 Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer (Moonbeams of Mahāmudrā) 313n56 Phyag rgya chen po’i mang ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod 94, 98 Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung 85, 91–92, 92n5–6, 93–94, 95n9, 96–97, 107, 118–19

Index Phyogs las rnam rgyal, Karma phrin las, First 208 pith-instructions (man ngag, upadeśa) 1, 115, 148n19, 205, 209, 210n15, 212, 212n22, 231, 274n16 pointing-out (ngo sprod) instructions 8, 172, 286 post-meditation practice (rjes thob) 249, 307 practical canon 90, 90n1–2, 92n6, 96, 103, 106, 119 practice lineage (bsgrub brgyud) 155, 170n1 Prajāpatī 194, 195n41, 197–98, 198n58, 199, 199n62, 201 prajñā (as a consort) 191, 194n39, 198–99 prajñājñānābhiṣekha 172 prajñāpāramitā 18, 282–83, 288 Prajñāpāramitā (goddess) 186, 201 Prajñāpāramitāstotra 191 Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi 93, 99n14, 105, 107–8, 108n29, 109–10, 111n35, 112–13, 118, 119n49 *Prāsaṅgika (Consequentialist) Madhyamaka  5, 188, 200, 206n5, 209, 224, 225n63, 239, 249, 254, 259–60, 320, 321 Prātimokṣa vows 180 pratisenā 190–91, 191n32 Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā 187 preliminary practices (sngon ’gro) 307, 313 pūjā 319 Puṇḍarīka 187, 191n31 Qosot Mongols 314 Queries from a Pure Heart (Dri ba lhag bsam rab dkar) 308 Quotations from Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s Ocean of Instructions on the Profound Teaching on Dge ldan Mahāmudrā (’Jam pa’i dbyangs skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las dge ldan phyag chen zab khrid gdams ngag rgya mtsho nas btus pa) 310 Rāmapāla 209n11, 239n9, 278, 283, 283n40 Rang byung rdo rje. See Karmapa, Third, Rang byung rdo rje rang stong. See Empty of Own-nature Ras chung pa 214

Index Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) 187, 189, 201, 222–23, 223n57–58, 242, 249, 260, 274n17, 285, 296n74, 311 Ratnakūṭa 311 Raviśrījñāna 291 Rdo rje shes rab 5, 175–76, 176n17, 177, 177n19, 179, 181, 182n28 Rdog/Rngog Āryadeva 154 Rdog/Rngog Nyi ma seng ge/Mu ni 154 rdzogs chen. See Great Perfection rdzogs rim. See completion phase rdzu ’phrul. See supernatural displays realization of emptiness 3, 3n17, 177, 241, 256, 308 realization of Mahāmudrā 97, 100–1, 108, 113, 117, 119n49, 171, 174, 178, 181, 182, 188, 192, 201, 290 realization of the true nature of mind, of mind’s uncontrived essence 1, 10, 192, 208, 208n9 realization of thoughts as dharmakāya 216, 270–72 relics 156, 156n58, 157, 161 remainder (avaśiṣṭa) 6, 237, 237n4, 238–43, 243n22, 244–49, 249n38, 250–51, 253, 253n50, 254–60 renunciation 179 resolve for awakening 175, 178–79 Rgod tshang pa 274n17, 276, 307 Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa 175, 307 Rgyal sras Blo bzang bstan ’dzin 310 Rgyal tshab Dar ma rin chen 249 Ri bo khyung lding 154, 154n54, 157 Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho 247 Rig ’dzin Chos kyi grags pa, 172 ripening consecration (smin dbang) 114, 114n42, 115, 117 rjes gnang 112 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab 153, 250 Rngog Bsod nams bstan ’dzin 142, 160 Rngog Byang chub dpal 143n3, 147n12, 148n21, 151n38, 155n55, 158–59, 159n65–69, 160, 168 Rngog Chos kyi rgyal mtshan 158, 168 Rngog Chos rdor. See Rngog Chos sku rdo rje Rngog Chos sku rdo rje (Rngog Chos rdor)  143, 147–48, 148n21, 149–53, 153n49, 154–56, 161, 168

337 Rngog Don grub dpal 158, 158n64, 159, 168 Rngog Gtsang tsha Kun dga’ rdo rje 156–57, 157n61, 168 Rngog Gzi brjid grags pa 157, 168 Rngog Legs pa’i shes rab 153 Rngog Mdo sde/Zhe sdang rdo rje 148, 153, 155, 155n57, 156–57, 168 Rngog Rgyal tsha Ra mo 156–57, 169 Rngog Rgyal tsha Rdo rje seng ge 148n21, 156–57, 169 Rngog Rin chen bzang po 158, 158n62, 168 Rngog Tradition of Guhyasamāja (gsang ’dus rngog lugs) 153 Rngog/Rdog Byang chub ’byung gnas 154 Rnying ma 1, 135, 135n48, 145, 160, 206n6, 305, 312–14 Rong bo 310 Rong zom pa Chos kyi bzang po 237n2, 239n9, 278, 278n26, 279 roots of the virtues of means (thabs kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba) 176 Rtogs ldan ’Jam dpal rgya mtsho 309 rūpakāya 76, 132n37, 189–90, 190n25, 201 Rwa Chos rab 193n37, 195, 195n44–45, 196–97, 199 Sa skya Paṇḍita 3, 6–7, 91, 97n10–11, 98, 98n11, 101, 101n17, 102n19, 103n21, 106, 117, 117n46, 227, 231, 231n66, 271–72, 274n17, 281, 281n35, 298, 307 Sahajavajra 4, 10–14, 16–17, 17n16, 18, 85, 274n16–17, 283–84 *Sahajayoga 171 Śākyamitra 126n17, 127, 127n21, 128, 131–32 samādhi 19, 19n19, 19n21, 20, 74, 74n31, 133, 175, 212 Samādhirājasūtra 3, 10–11, 13–15, 16n15, 17, 19–22, 25–26, 85, 252, 257, 274, 274n16 Samantabhadra 137, 177n19, 191 Samantaśrī 195, 197 Śamatha. See calm abiding samaya 105n25, 109–10, 126, 128–32, 134n42 samayamudrā 4, 123–26, 126n14, 127, 127n21, 128, 128n23, 129–33, 133n39, 138–39, 171, 172n7, 208n9, 216 saṃjñā 3, 13n10, 18, 21, 274n16 sample gnosis (dpe’i ye shes) 172

338 saṃsāra 78–79, 175, 177–79, 181, 182n28, 188, 191, 201, 205, 207n7, 216, 220–22, 255, 292, 295, 297, 308 sandhi 26–28 Sangs rgyas gnyen/mnyan pa 208, 290 Sangs rgyas rdo rje 98, 115–17 Sankrityayana, Rahula 20 Śāntibhadra (Kukuripa Junior) 150 Śāntideva 308, 320 Saraha 4–5, 93–95, 95n8–9, 96, 99n14, 117, 124n6, 172, 187, 201, 201n65, 211, 213, 213n26, 214, 214n27, 227–28, 240, 269–70, 273, 276–77, 289, 305, 307, 307n33, 308, 315–16, 319 Saroruhavajra 93, 95n8, 148, 148n19  Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha 105, 124, 126n17 Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā 311 Sautrāntika 218n36, 218n38, 280 Śavareśvara 214 Śavaripa 269, 294 Schøyen collection 20, 23 Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba. See Distinguishing the Three Vows Sdom gsum rab dbye. See Distinguishing the Three Vows Se ra byas 312 secret mantra 12, 99n13, 106, 170n1, 206n6, 207, 207n8, 279, 280 Sekanirdeśa 96n9, 209, 270, 274n16, 278, 281, 283 Sekoddeśa 192, 195, 195n44, 197n51, 199 self-empowerment 7, 269, 277n22, 283, 290, 295, 298 semblant bliss 194, 196, 200 seminal essence (snying thig) 313 Seven Maṇḍalas of the Rngog, The 4, 142, 146 sexual intercourse 172, 215 Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen 1, 5–7, 17, 95n8, 144, 155, 170–71, 182, 201n65, 206–7, 210, 212, 212n22, 213–14, 216, 218n41–42, 220, 220n48, 223, 223n58, 231, 270–71, 271n8, 272–74, 274n16, 279, 291, 293, 295, 297–98, 307 Sgam po Spyan snga Bkra shis rnam rgyal 4, 170, 170n1 Sgrub chen Dge ’dun rgyal mtshan 309

Index Sgrub dbang Blo bzang rnam rgyal 317 Shangs pa Bka’ brgyud 304 Shar Skal ldan rgya mtsho 8, 303, 310–12, 319, 322 Shing rta chen po 273, 276–77, 284n45 sign of warmth 171, 182 simultaneously and self-arisen gnosis  171–72 single-pointedness (rtse gcig) 313n54 Śiva 198, 198n58 Six Doctrines of Nāropa. See Six Yogas of Nāropa  Six Yogas of Nāropa (Six Doctrines of Nāropa) 4, 143–44, 148, 161, 170, 173, 175 six-branch yogas 185n3 Sixty Verses on Mahāmudrā (Phyag rgya chen po drug bcu pa) 4, 204–5, 208–9, 221, 230, 232 skandha 13, 74n32, 77–78, 209n11, 239n9, 278, 296 Sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad 210n18, 262, 269, 277, 280, 283, 286, 290, 292, 294 Skyid rong 317 Smṛtijñānakīrti 151–52, 152n45 snyan brgyud 302, 319 Snying po skor drug 90, 91n4, 94–95, 95n9, 100n15, 107, 118 Somanātha 195, 197 Source of All Attainments: A Profound Teaching on the View of the Dge ldan Ear-whispered Transmission (Dge ldan snyan brgyud kyi lta khrid zab mo dngos grub kun ’byung) 317 Source of All Attainments: A Very Secret Short Letter Teaching the Key Points of the View (Lta ba’i gnad ston pa’i yig chung shin tu sang ba dngos grub kun ’byung. In Ye shes rgyal mtshan gsung ’bum) 318 Source of All Attainments: Words of Supplication Related to Ganden Mahāmudrā (Dga’ ldan phyag rgya chen po’i smon tshig dngos grub kun ’byung) 318 spontaneous appearance 5, 186 Spre’u zhing 4, 142, 154n54, 157–61, 161n77, 162 Spyan lnga Chos kyi rgyal po 304

339

Index Spyan lnga Grags pa byang chub 304 Srad transmission 305 stage of perfection. See completion phase Suhṛllekha 187, 191 Śūnyatā. See emptiness super-perceptions 180 superimposition 206, 206n4, 217n35, 231, 239n9, 276–78 superior insight. See deep insight supernatural displays (rdzu ’phrul) 176, 180–81 supreme unchanging bliss (paramākṣarasukha)  186 Sūtra Mahāmudrā 1, 3–4, 7–8, 10–11, 144, 201n65, 270–71, 276, 279, 285–86, 298, 307 Svātantrika Mādhyamika 188, 218n38 system of mantra. See mantra system tantric gzhan stong (sngags kyi gzhan stong)  5, 186, 186n9–10, 200 tantric mahāmudrā 4, 10, 269, 273, 290 Tāranātha 90n3, 145, 148, 150, 186 Tathāgatagarbha 189, 242, 246, 254, 259 Tathagatagarbha. See buddha nature Tathāgatagarbhasūtra 26, 296n73 Tattvadaśaka 7, 11–14, 85, 210n15, 269, 274n16, 283–85, 298 *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā 3, 13, 16, 16n15, 17–18, 85, 274, 274n17 Tattvaratnāvalī 206, 269, 280 Tattvāvatāra 7, 274, 274n17, 298 ten bodhisattva levels 13, 313 thabs kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba (roots of the virtues of means) 176, 177 thabs lam (path of means/methods)  135n48, 144, 173, 214, 214n28 Thar pa gling 160, 160n71 third empowerment 172, 195, 198 thod brgal 107 Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma  186n10, 321 true nature of mind 10, 288, 308 Tshar chen Blo gsal rgya mtsho 142, 151  Tshul khrims