A reply questions concerning mind and primordial knowing

A reply to questions concerning mind and primordial knowing

An annotated translation and critical edition of Klong chen pa’s Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan

by David Higgins

Introduction

The Sems dang ye shes kyi dri lan (hereafter Sems ye dris lan) is a short treatise contained in Klong chen rab ’byams pa’s (1308-1363) Miscellaneous Writings gSung thor bu) that is devoted to clarify­ing the central rNying ma distinction between sems and ye shes. Composed at the behest of Klong chen pa’s foremost student and biographer Chos grags bzang po (14th c.), it offers a concise but very lucid response to the latter’s questions) concerning this distinction. As the author argues here and in much greater detail elsewhere, a distinction between rectifying and non-reifying modes of cognition is indispensable for making sense of Buddhist soteriology both in theory and practice. The point of

the distinction, simply stated, is to facilitate the progressive disclosure of primordial knowing (ye shes) which occurs to the extent that the habitual self-identifications with the particular configurations of mind (sems) subside. On this account, the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice is precisely the de identification with the reifying activities of mind that both distort and conceal primordial modes of being and awareness (expressed as the inseparability of sku or dbyings and ye shes) that constitute our fundamental nature.

The Sems ye dris lan synthesizes and builds on arguments for the mind/primordial knowing distinction advanced in the author’s Shing rta chen po (Great Chariot-, here­after Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel), a lengthy auto-commentary on the Sems nyid ngal gso (Relaxing in Mind itself), the first of the root texts in the author’s Ngal gso skor gsuni (Trilogy on Relaxation). The result is a penetrating and systematic investigation into the na­ture and scope of the distinction that calls attention to its far-reach­ing implications for understanding and directly realizing rNying ma view (Ita ba) and meditation (sgom pa).

A survey of Klong chen pa’s extant writings confirms that the accounts of the sems/ye shes difference found in the Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel and Sems ye dris lan predate Klong chen pa’s reception of the rDzogs chen sNying thig (Heart Essence) teachings and consti­tute preliminary and exoteric treatments of a topic that would pre­occupy the author throughout his lifetime, one that he repeatedly characterized as “extremely important” (shin tu gal po che) but also as “very difficult to understand” (rab tu rtogs dka’). Following the author’s own classification of his works, it is possible to broadly distinguish two textual and doctrinal contexts within which he elaborates the difference between mind and primordial knowing:

(1) Exoteric, elucidations of the sems/ye shes distinction in the ear­ly Sems nvid ngal gso 'grel and Sems ye dris Ian draw upon a wide range of Mahayana sutras with emphasis on texts ascribed to the third turning (dharmachakra) such as the Ratnagotravibhaga, Madhyamaka works such as the Madhyamakavatara and epistemological (prama-navada) treatises such as the Pramanaviniscaya. Although Klong chen pa, in these early works, cites a number of Indian Buddhist tan­tras in support of the distinction, the only rNying ma tantras he cites are the *Guhyagarbha Tantra and other tantras from the Mayajala cycle and certain tantras of the Mind Class(sems sde), most importantly the Kim bved rgyal po. What interests us in the author’s early 'bridg­ing’ works is his systematic reading and reframing of traditional Mahayana doctrine in light of a sharply drawn distinction between unconditioned and conditioned modes of consciousness. In so doing, he not only illuminates a distinction which he considered implicit, though often to the point of ambiguity, within the broad range of Mahayana and Vajrayana sources he draws upon. He also adumbrates a series of related arguments for the indispensability of the mind/primordial knowing distinction for the proper understanding and appli­cation of Buddhist doctrine.

(2) Esoteric: the scope of Klong chen pa’s handling of the sems/ye shes distinction broadens dramatically from the time of his introduc­tion by his root guru Ku ma ra dza/tsa (Skt. Kumararaja, Tib. gZhon nu rgyal po 1266-1343), who he met in his twenty-seventh year (i.e. 1334), to the teachings of the Heart Essence (snying thig) or Esoteric Guidance class (man ngag gi sde) of rDzogs chen teachings, particu­larly as systematized in the seventeen tantras. Henceforth, the author’s rigorous elucidation of the distinction in a great variety of systematic treatises, poetic works and commentaries will centre around the very detailed elaborations of the semslye shes and kun gzhi/chos sku distinctions presented in these and a number of related tantras. The mind/primordial knowing distinction in particular forms the doctri­nal nucleus of a wide range of distinctive rDzogs chen teachings that include:

(1) onto-cosmogenic theories concerning the ground of being (gzhi) and its phenomenal manifestation (gzhi snang);

(2) contempla­tive practices aimed at direct recognition of Mind’s nature (particu­larly Khregs chod instructions);

(3) theories and practices concerned with the elicitation of 'embodied ye shes,’ viz. ye shes as residing within and animating the subtle structure of gnostic lamps (sgron ma), energy channels, currents, and potencies (rtsa, rlung, thig le) that make up the energy body (rdo rje’i lus) (and which figure importantly in the Thod rgal teachings);

(4) death and dying traditions concerned with realizing primordial knowing in the intermediate state (bar do); and (5) non-gradual conceptions of the path and goal-realization.

Viewed in relation to Klong chen pa’s esoteric treatments of the mind/primordial knowing distinction, Sems ye dris lan should thus be regarded as a relatively early contribution to a complex subject that he would return to again and again in his writings. By situat­ing the distinction within the broader framework of Buddhist doc­trine and praxis, Klong chen pa is able to employ it as a kind of hermeneutical key for understanding the nature and import of the Buddhist path in its entirety, a path consisting in the progressive disclosure of primordial knowing. Thus the chief importance of the Sems ye dris lan lies in its concise and systematic overview of the formative elements of classical rNying ma doctrine from a scholar ­practitioner who did more than anyone to define its character and determine its direction.

In literary form, the Sems ye dris lan is a classic example of the Response to Questions (Dris lari) genre of Tibetan scholastic literature. Though we have no way of knowing the precise ques­tion or questions to which Klong chen pa composed this response, a short passage from the Chos ’byung of sMyo tshul mkhan po (1932-1999) indicates that the proper understanding and realiza­tion of the mind/primordial knowing distinction was a matter of central concern to both student and teacher - one that played a formative role in their spiritual relationship:

Chos grags bzang po developed an unshakeable faith in the great Omniscient One. When Klong chen pa questioned him about the differ­ence between mind and primordial knowing, his erudition... earned the master’s praise. Klong chen pa in turn gave extensive answers to his student’s questions about mind and primordial knowing and dis­cussed the classification of ground, path and goal. With this, the un­contrived conviction that his guru was truly a buddha arose in Chos grags bzang po, and he bowed at Klong chen pa’s feet, begging to be taken under his care.

Like many of the author’s other works, the subject matter of the Sems ye dris lan is thematically structured according to the three basic categories of ground, path and goal. The first section sets out to elucidate how primordial awareness is ever-present as the ground of being (gzhi) - our abiding, existential condition (gnas lugs, yin lugs) - despite its being obscured by adventitious cog­nitive-emotional defilements. The next section proceeds to clarify how this implicit mode of being and awareness is disclosed through a path (lam) of familiarization with it in which non ideational forms of meditation play a crucial role. The third and final section dis­cusses how goal-realization (’bras bu), the full disclosure of pri­mordial awareness (ye shes) and its spiritual embodiments (sku), occurs once the discursive proliferations of mind and mental fac­tors have ceased.

The work was composed at a relatively early period of the au­thor’s literary career, probably during the author’s eight year tenure at the seminary (bshad grwci) of gSang pu (famous for its rigorous curriculum of Buddhist logic and epistemology) where Klong chen pa took up residence at age nineteen. It was here that he first met Chos grags bzang po who would become his foremost disciple and successor in maintaining the rDzogs chen snying thig lineage. On the basis of textual analysis and comparison, the Sems ye dris lan can be chronologically placed some time after Klong chen pa had completed at least the first part of his trilogy entitled Ngal gso skor gsum, namely the Sems nyid ngal gso and its two auto-commentaries, and before his introduction by his root teacher Kumaradza to the sNying thig system. The place of its composition, as we learn from the colophon, is Gangs ri thod dkar (‘Snow Capped Mountain’), site of the cave hermitage Orgyan rdzong where the majority of Klong chen pa’s writings were committed to writing. The hermitage is located about 500 meters above Shug gseb, today a flourishing nunnery with about 250 inhabitants that is a two hour road journey from gSang pu monastery and on a slope overlooking the sKyid chu river valley.

The Sems ye dris Ian's clear and concise formulation of what would become an increasingly central focus of the author’s later works - the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned modes of being and awareness (kun gzhi vs chos sku and sems vs ye shes) - provides a valuable early summation of the author’s views on the following topics:

1) The nature of Mind and primordial knowing

2) Buddha nature and hermeneutics of the three turnings (dhar- macakra)

3) Meditation and the Buddhist path

While each of these topics merits detailed investigation, my mod­est aim here is to shed some light on the historical-doctrinal back­ground against which these points are formulated in the Sems ye dris lan. Those familiar with classical rNying ma exegesis will find little new here, though it strikes me as somewhat suprising that Klong chen pa’s treatments of these topics have garnered so little critical attention outside of the rNying ma tradition itself. It is therefore hoped that this annotated translation will serve as a preliminary introduction to these subjects and as an incentive to further research.

1.1 The nature of mind and primordial knowing

The distinction between mind and primordial knowing is a cor­nerstone of classical rNying ma doctrine and provides a valuable key to understanding its complex soteriology. As I have elsewhere examined Klong chen pa’s central philosophical arguments for the distinction, and also shown how it builds on typologically similar distinctions found in a number of Buddhist and Brahmanical philo­sophical schools,1 will only touch briefly on a few central points here. The basic argument, adumbrated in a number of the author’s works, is that the entire edifice of Buddhist doctrine becomes in­coherent in theory and amiss in practice when one fails to (a) rec­ognize the primacy of a primordial, non-dual mode of awareness and to (b) distinguish it from the subjectivizing and objectifying reifications of mind which are seen as both deriving and deviating from it. It is a distinction, in phenomenological terms, between (a) the self-manifesting (rang snang) of experience itself (sems nyid, ye shes) and (b) derivative representations of and self-identifications

with particular intentional contents thereof (sems). These latter ac­tivities are regarded both as self-reifying (making of self-manifes­tation something it is not) and self-concealing (failing to see it as it is). It is in this sense that rDzogs chen texts speak of dualistic mind (sems) as intimately associated (mtshungs par Idan pd)™ with igno- In Buddhist epistemology, the relation of association (samprayukta : mt­shungs pa r Idan pa) has been defined in a number of ways. It has been analyzed as a mereological relation between wholes and parts (ekadesaikadesibhava), an example being a body and its limbs, or as a semantic relation between universals and a specific instances (samdnyavisesabhava), as in the example of a forest and its individual trees. For a discussion of these and other aspects of samprayukta, see Eltschinger 2009: 66. Both the above senses imply a priority relation of something primary and generic (e.g. citta) to something ancillary and specific (e.g. the caittas). The rDzogs chen qualification of ig­norance as ‘fundamental’ - as in the expression “mind is associated with fundamental ignorance (sems ni rtsa ba ma rig pa dang mtshungs par Idan pa)" (see n. 20) - is important

as it suggests that ignorance be viewed as the whole or universal of which mind can be regarded as a part or specific in­stance. This appears to be supported by rDzogs chen statements to the effect that mind entails this fundamental ignorance. “Ignorance pervades mind,” says Klong chen pa, “but it does not pervade open awareness.” (Theg mchog mdzod pt. 1 1042. If.). On this view, mind is pervaded by ignorance which is in turn pervaded by open awareness. This asymmetrical entailment relation sets the rDzogs chen view of ignorance apart from Buddhist Abhidharma and pramanavada interpretations of ignorance as one among many mental factors associated with the mind. A related point of divergence is

that the Abhidharma account of ignorance interprets the privative a- in the specific sense of an antonym or opposite, akin to the opposites friend (mitra) and enemy (amitra). Thus we read in AK 3.28cd (pp. 88-89): “The non-friend or enemy (amitra) is the opposite (vipaksa) of a friend and not

(1) the not-friend, that is to say, anyone other than a friend, or

(2) the absence of a friend.” Along these lines, ignorance is neither

(1) non-knowledge (i.e. different from knowledge) nor

(2) the absence of knowledge but rather “the opposite of clear rance (ma rig pa, avidya), a fundamental condition of ontological forgetfulness in which one remains oblivious to open awareness (rig pa, vidya).19 Following the traditional Indian philosophical un­

knowledge (vidyd), a real, separate factor (dharmantara) It is further said to be “a cause or condition (pratyaya) of the samskaras, from which it follows that it is not a mere negation.” See Mejor 2002. In the rDzogs chen account, ignorance is suboordinate to rig pa, a derivative and delusive mode of cogni­tion that marks a basic failure to recognize rig pa, one’s basic nature. This relation of structural asymmetry expressed in the rDzogs chen dictum "ma rig pa depends on rig pa but rig pa does not depend on ma rig pa" precludes construing the relation as one of simple opposition (as is done in AK 3.28).

See Theg mchog mdzod pt. 1 1037.4: “Mind (sems) is closely associ­ated with fundamental ignorance ([[rtsa ba [ma rig pa]]): it is simply samsara as defiled phenomena, similar to clouds insofar as it obscures the sun of pri­mordial knowing. Primordial knowing (ye shes) is closely associated with dharmakaya.

Similar to the sun, it is undefiled and does not coexist with the reflective thought patterns of mind.” sems ni / rtsa ba ma rig pa dang mtshungs par Idan pa dri ma dang bcas pa’i chos 'khor ba rang ka ma ye shes kyi nyi ma sgrib pas sprin dang ’dra la / ye shes ni I chos kyi sku dang mtshungs par Idan pa dri ma med cing sems kyi dran bsam dang lhan cig mi gnas pa nyi ma Ita bu stell I employ the term ‘ignorance’ as a translation of avidya (Tib. ma rig pa) with some of the reservations Matilal has raised in his analysis of this concept (1980). One possible source of coirfusion that Matilal draws attention to is the negative interpretation of the English term ‘ignorance’ as a complete lack or absence of knowledge. I submit, however, that

‘ignorance’ is seldom actually used in this strong sense. The more usual weaker sense of ignorance is deficient knowledge. For example when we say of the Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 U.S. federal election that she is ignorant, we do not imply that she has no knowledge at all but that the knowledge she does possess is in crucial respects deficient, distorted or misguided. The Indian logical argument that a simple absence cannot exert any conditioning influence applies here as well; i.e. the candi­date’s ignorance would in this case be perfectly harmless. Thus ‘ignorance’ in ordinary language very often implies culpability. This clarification aside, Matilal is quite right in pointing out that ‘ignorance’ taken in the stronger sense (e.g. when used with reference to infants, animals or cognitively im­paired humans) makes a poor translation of avidya, a term which, in Indian philosophical contexts, implies not a simple lack of knowledge but a kind of knowledge that is erroneous and deluded. This weaker sense is supported by grammatical glosses of the term that take the privative prefix a- (=nah) in avidya not as a non-affirming (explicit) negation but as an affirming (implicit)

negation. (This grammatical interpretation is borne out in the Tibetan trans- derstanding of ignorance as both (a) not seeing things as they are (‘innate ignorance’ lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa : sahaja avidya) and (b) (mis)taking them for something they are not, viz. independ­ently existing entities (‘reifying ignorance,’ kun tu hrtags pa’i ma rig pa : parikalpita/vikalpita avidya), the author specifies two basic types of ignorance (Sems ye dris lan 381.2): Thus, the non-recognition of one’s abiding condition is the ‘funda­mental ignorance’ (rtsa ba 'i ma rig pa).

From the context of what is the ground or seed or founding basis for the development of this in­cipient error, the [ensuing] upwelling of hypostates based on dualistic beliefs constitutes the ‘reifying ignorance’ kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa).

Klong chen pa takes up and criticizes a number of Indo-Tibetan views that are deemed to arise from the failure to distinguish mind and primordial knowing: (a) One view popular in 8th and 9th century Indian Mahayana circles and criticized or defended by scholars of practically all Tibetan schools from as early as the 9th, among them the famous translator Ye shes sde (9th c.), Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (11th c.), and sGam po pa bsod nams rin chen (1079-1153), pro­poses that all knowledge (Skt. jhdna = Tib. ye shes)

ceases on the level of Buddhahood. (b) Another view that strongly influenced early Indian Buddhist soteriological and contemplative systems maintains that the cessation of mind ([[cittanirodha) leads to the goal of an insensate, unconscious state devoid of all mental activity. (c) A related Indo-Tibetan view which Klong chen pa considered a se­rious misunderstanding of the *Prasangika Madhyamaka tradition of Nagarjuna and Candrakirti understands the goal of all spiritual practice to consist in a vacuous state of sheer emptiness devoid of anything whatsoever. Klong chen pa argues that such views com­monly proceed from a failure to distinguish the invariant structure of pre-reflective non-dual awareness from the reflective superim­positions of subject and object deriving from it. A central theme running through many of Klong chen pa’s works, the Sems ye dris lan included, is that one becomes aware of consciousness simpliciter to the extent that the reifying and distorting self-identifications with its contents subside. This radical clearing of dualistic tenden­cies and attendant familiarization with the implicit awareness from which they have arisen is known as the path. As Klong chen pa states in his Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel:

When the turbulence of mind and its mental factors have come to rest, Mind itself - luminous primordial knowing - arises from within. We describe the progressive familiarization with this [[[primordial]] know­ing] as the path of awakening.

1.2 Hermeneutics of the three turnings and buddha-nature

Given Klong chen pa’s emphasis on the primacy of primordial knowing and his description of the path as the clearing of what obscures it, it is not surprising that in his interpretation of the so- called three turnings of the wheel of the dharma (dharmacakra), the meditative practices of de-identification formulated in second turning teachings on emptiness and no self are considered to be of merely provisional meaning (drang don) or in need of further in­terpretation. On the other hand, those third turning teachings that emphasize one’s natural condition (yin lugs), primordial knowing, buddha-nature are taken as definitive (nges don)f In his Sems nyid Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel vol. 1, 130. gang gi tshe sems dang sems las byung ba 'i rnyogpa zhi ba na sems nyid ’odgsal ba ’i ye shes khong nas ’char ba ste / de nyid goms par byed pa byang chub kyi lam zhes brjod de //

It is worth noting that many rNying ma scholars including Rog Shes rab ’od (1166-1244), Mi pham rnam rgyal (1846-1912) and, more recently, Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che (1910-1991) and bDud ’joins rin po che (1904-1987) have maintained that the last two turnings are both of definitive ngal gso ’grel, Klong chen pa outlines his position on the three turnings:

Those who put on false airs and who are blind-folded by the golden veil of wrong views turn their back on the intended meanings of sutras and tantras that are of definitive meaning. They declare that what is of quintessential meaning is of provisional meaning and that the main import [of the teachings] is that the ‘effect’ [goal-realization] occurs only if one trains in its ‘causes’ [such as the two accumulations]. Hey handsome one, wearing your lotus garland, you truly do not under­stand the intentions that were conveyed in the three turnings of the Buddha-word. You are certainly attached to the extreme of emptiness! In this regard, the first turning of the Buddha-word was intended for those who were neophytes and who were of lower capacity. Thus in order to have them turn away from samsara by taking the four truths in terms of things to be be abandoned [[[suffering]] and its cause] and their antidotes [the cessation of suffering and the path], [the first turn­ing] was a skillful means for them to gain complete liberation from what is to be abandoned. The middle [turning] was intended for those who had thoroughly cleared away [these impediments] and who were of medium capacity. Thus it taught sky-like emptiness together with the eight examples such as illusion as skillful means to free them

meaning, a view consonant with the rNying ma emphasis on the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness (snang stong dbyer med). See Wangchuk 2005. Klong chen pa’s sGyu ma ngal gso (in Ngal gso skor gsum vol. 2) elabo­rates on the eight examples {dye. upamdna) to illustrate the emptiness of all phenomena:

(1) dream (rmi lam, s vapna),

(2) magical illusion (sgyu ma, may a),

(3) reflected image (mig yor, pratibhdsa),

(4) mirage (smig rgyu, manci),

(5) moon’s reflection on water ([[chu’i[zla ba]], udakacandra),

(6) echo (brag ca, pratisrutka),

(7) Gandharva city (dri za'i grong khyer, gandharvanagara),

(8) apparition (sprulpa, nirmana). Varying lists of such examples are found throughout Buddhist literature from the Pali canon (where they illustrate the lack of self in persons) through Mahayana and Vajrayana literature (where they are used to

illustrate emptiness of all phenomena). On early Buddhist and Mahayana sources, see Lamotte 1944-1980, vol. I, 357 n. 1. The eight examples presented in Klong chen pa’s sGyu ma ngal gso match the ten elab­orated in Mahaprajndparamitdsastra 11.1 (Lamotte 1944-1980, vol. I, 357), excluding shadow (chaya) and space (akdsa) and having reflected image (mig yor = pratibhasa/prodbhasa) instead of mirror reflection (pratibimba). Some references to the examples in Madhyamaka literature are noted by Tillemans 1990, vol. 1, 289, n. 437. Klong chen pa’s sGyu ma ngal gso together with its from the fetter of becoming attached to these antidotes. The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfilment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self (dtmari) of the Hindu extremists because (a) these people in their ignorance speak of a “self" that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation super­imposed on reality; (b) they take it as something measurable; and (c) they do not accept it is a quality of spiritual embodiment and primor­dial knowing (skit dang ye sites). But even this preoccupation with "no self’ (andtnict) and ‘emptiness’ (sunyata) [concerns what are] merely correctives to [the beliefs in a] self and non-emptiness but which are not of definitive meaning.

Indian and Tibetan theories of the three dharmacakras reflect var­ying attempts to hierarchically distinguish stages of the Buddha’s teachings in line with corresponding levels of intellectual-spiritual acumen and maturation in his audience. Klong chen pa’s interpreta­tion of the three turnings regards the first two turnings as remedial steps intended to clear the way for an undistorted understanding of one’s natural condition On this account, the Buddhist emptiness and no self doctrines were initially formulated within a religio-philosophical climate rife with speculations concerning the existence of a creator God, permanent true self or selves and an unknowable absolute reality. Against this background, the Buddha’s discourses concerning andtma (no self) and sunyata (emptiness) were offered as corrective measures with the express aim of invalidating and eliminating wrong views and extreme conclusions, particularity those based on the proclitivity to take things as enduring and inde­pendently existing. The doctrine of ‘no self’ was expounded both as 1) a sectarian critique of various Hindu and Jain beliefs in a self - i.e. beliefs that there is a permanent, singular, self-sufficient individuating principle that underlies and anchors the swirling flux of experience and survives death, and 2) as a psychological account of how the coarser elements of our ‘sense of self’ - those rooted in the sense we have of being a psychic unity that transcends ac­tual experience - constitute fabrications or superimpositions added to our most basic experience of things and beings around us. The doctrinal belief in self can be seen to depend on the psychological sense of self; and both are undermined by realizing that things and persons lack any inherent independent nature.

Now the target of Klong chen pa’s critique of reificationism is not only the first order reification of ‘selves’ (viz. identities of things and persons) but also the second order reifications of those very means (e.g. teachings on emptiness, no self) used to under­mine first order reifications.30 The point being that spontaneously This is brought out more clearly in the Grub mtha ’ mdzod 654.3: “If we classify [the authentic teachings] by way of temporal phases, the wheel of the Buddha-word was turned in three successive stages. Among these, there arose three teachings: at the time of the neophyte, by primarily showing the stages of rejecting what is to be abandoned and accepting the antidotes in order to protect the mind from the emotional affliction that bind it due to the automomous [functioning of] subject and object, the teachings of the four noble truths [were given]. In the middle, in order to negate the habituation to these very antidotes, the teachings on the lack of inherent characteristics [were given].

And finally, the teachings on ascertaining ultimate reality [were given] that revealed how our basic nature is present just as is.” dus kyi sgo nas dbye na bka ’ ’khor lo rim pa gsum du bskor ba rnams so I de ’ang las dang po pa ’i tshe gzung dzin rang rgyud pas beings pa ’i nyon mongs pa las sems bsrung ba’iphyir spang gnyen blang dor byedpa’i rim pa gtso bor ston pas present unfabricated buddha-nature - understood as self-occuring primordial knowing replete with inborn qualities - comes to the fore only to the extent that all such reifications have subsided. So, far from being comparable to the ontologized self of Hindu and Jain speculations, buddha-nature is precisely what remains when dualistic superimpositions, especially the habitual sense of a self anchoring our everyday experiences, subsides. Buddha-nature consists in the indivisibility of awareness and its expanse (dbyings dang ye shes ’du bral med pa) and of luminosity and emptiness (snang stong dbyer med). Klong chen pa interprets buddha-nature theories from a rDzogs chen perspective, emphasizing the spontaneous, unfabricated char­acter of the cognitive and ethical qualities

associated with spiritual awakening while strenuously avoiding the re-reification of what be­comes apparent precisely when reifications have ceased. In a nut­shell: soteriological practice connects beings with transsubjective (though not transhuman) sources of morality and meaning but these turn out to be empty of any inherent independent nature. Thus in his many works, Sems ye dris lan included, buddha-nature is held to be synonymous with Mind itself (sems nyid) luminous primor­dial knowing (’od gsal ba’i ye shes), the original ground of being (gdod ma’i gzhi) and, in his bridging works, the actual all-ground (don gyi kun gzhi) as distinct from all-ground of myriad habitual tendencies (bag chags sna tshogs kyi kun gzhi)^ Yet such experi- bden pa bzhi'i chos kyi mam grangs dang / bar ba gnyen po la mngon par zhen pa dgag pa’i phyir mtshan nyid med pa dang / tha ma gshisji Itar gnas bstan pa don dam rnam par nges pa’i chos kyi rnam grangs gsum du byung ba yin // Works such as the Sems nyid ngal gso 'grel, Yid bzhin mdzod ’grel and Sems ye dris lan, to give a few notable examples, employ a distinction be­tween the conditioned all-ground of myriad habitual tendencies (bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi) and the actual or de facto all-ground (don gyi kun gzhi), a distinction found in the extended

• Guhyagarbhatantra and other tan­tras. However, in his purely sNying thig writings - e.g. Theg mchog mdzod, Tshig don mdzod, Chos dbyings mdzod ’grel, and many works belonging to the sNying thig yab bzhi collection - the three or four types of all-ground (kun gzhi) classified in the seventeen tantras and related works are in all cases associated with ignorance and dualistic mind and radically distin- ences are understood to be utterly empty of intrinsic nature (rang gi ngo bo stong pa nyid), beyond the mentalistic-linguistic horizon (spros bral), inexpressible in thought or language (sgra bsam br­jod du med pa), non-existent (med pa), uncontrived (ma bcos pa). Klong chen pa’s purely sNying thig writings specify the correla­tion of buddha-nature with open awareness (rig pa) as its cognitive aspect and with primordial knowing (ye shes) as its expressive and embodied dimensions, both of which make their presence felt as the natural luminosity that pervades body and mind (as elicited in the four gnostic lamps or sgron ma bzhi and evoked in the four vi­sions or snang ba bzhi).

In short, the Sems ye dris lan clarifies the central place that the constellation of doctrines concerning buddha-nature ([[tathagata-[garbha]]), spiritual affiliation (gotra) and spiritual potential (dha- tu) is accorded within rNying ma soteriology. The importance of buddha-nature doctrine, particularly as articulated in the Ratnagotravibhaga (RGV), cannot be overestimated. In the Sems ye dris lan, the Ratnagotravibhaga is the first and last text quoted and the one most often quoted. Its importance is also indicated by its frequent occurrence in the related Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel which quotes the Ratnagotravibhdga, sometimes at considerable length, in at least sixty instances. Although Ratnagotravibhdga is gener­ally classified in Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism as a Mahayana treatise, its interpretations of Buddha nature and of the path as a three-stage (impure, pure-impure, and completely pure) revelation thereof served in many of Klong chen pa’s works as a thematic bridge between Mahayana, Mantrayana and rDzogs chen discourses.

In his Yid bzhin mdzod autocommentary, Klong chen pa outlines the basic Mantrayana-based soteriological framework of ground, path and goal in terms of an endotelic clearing process (as con­trasted with the teleological path of cause and effect described in the cause-oriented *Laksanayana), one that makes clearly evident guished from dharmakaya (chos sku) and the ground (gzhij itself. Needless to say, Klong chen pa’s interpretations of kun gzhi and other salient topics of Buddhist soteriology vary considerably in accordance with the different doctrinal frameworks being presented, criticized or defended. one’s inherent spiritual potential (khams) as it is already primordially present:

Thus, in the cause-oriented [[[vehicle]] of] characteristics it is claimed that the sugatagarbha, our spiritual potential, exists merely as a seed and that buddhahood is attained by making it grow through the two accumulation [of merits and knowledge] as conditions. It is therefore called a cause-determined vehicle because it is held that cause and effect follow [sequentially] one after the other.

In the Mantra [[[vehicle]]], the spiritual quintessence (garbha, snying po) is spontaneously and naturally present in sentient beings lacking in none of its extensive inborn qualities. It constitutes the ground where clearing occurs (sbyang gzhi) which is like the shining sun. The ob­jects to be cleared (sbyang bya) are the eight modes of consciousness together with their all-ground which constitute samsara and cover [this sun] like clouds. When the obscurations have been progressively cleared away, like clouds dissolving [in the sky], through cultivating the empowerments and the creation and completion stages (bskyed rim dang rdzogs rim) which make up the clearing process (sbyong byed), temporary qualities are actualized. It is held that thereafter, the actual all-ground (don gyi kun gzhi), i.e. the goal where obscurations are cleared away (sbyangs 'bras), is disclosed as it is in all its luminos­ity, like the sun. At this time, since the defilements that were there previously no longer exist, and since even the name of the all-ground with its habitual tendencies is gone, the [enduring] reality shines forth without any distinction between an earlier and a later [[[state]]]. As the Hevajratantra [II, iv, 69]: states:

Sentient beings are actually buddhas though [their true nature is] shrouded by adventitious obscurations. When these obscurations clear, they are indeed buddhas.32 Yid bzhin mdzod ’grel 1169.4: de yang rgyu mtshan nyid las khams bde bar gshegs pa’i snyingpo sa bon du yodpa tsam rkyen tshogs gnyis las gong du ’phel bas sangs rgyas thobpar dodpa’iphyir rgyu’i thegpa zhes bya ste I rgyu ’bras snga phyir khas len pa i phyir ro / sngags kyi snying po de sems can thams cad la rang chas Ihun grub tu yon tan rgya chen ma tshang ba med par yodpar sbyang gzhi’i nyi ma dra ba nyid la I sbyang bya ’khor ba ’i rang bzhin tshogs brgyad kun gzhi dang bcas pa sprin Ita bus bsgribs pa nyid / sbyong byed dbang dang bskyed rdzogs bsgoms pas sprin sei ba Itar rim gyis sbyangspas gnas skabs kyi yon tan grub nas / sbyangs ’bras don gyi kun gzhi nyi ma Itar gsal ba ci bzhin pa mngon du ’gyur bar ’dod de I de tshe sugar gyi

1.3 Meditation and the path of disclosure

We have seen that Klong chen pa’s understanding of the Buddhist path as a clearing process (sbyong byed) that progressively reveals one’s abiding nature - viz. Mind itself, self-occuring primordial knowing, buddha-nature - is fundamental to his soteriological sys­tem. This view of the path presupposes three things we have briefly touched upon:

(a) that one’s true nature, equated in rDzogs chen with consciousness simpliciter - the simple taking place of pres­ence - is an invariant structure, an absolute flow to borrow a term from Husserl’s analysis of time consciousness within which re­flective differentiations arise and subside;

(b) that this pre-reflective dimension of consciousness is nonetheless something strangely elusive, distorted and concealed as it is by the reifying habits of thought which identify with particular experienced contents as selves over against independently existing objects; and

(c) that the path is therefore both a process of de-identifying with superimposi­tions and disclosing the implicit mode of being and awareness that they conceal.

While we can scarcely do justice here to the complex variety of meditation practices outlined in rNying ma texts, it will be useful for our purposes to distinguish between the basic kinds of medita­tion typically presented. For sake of brevity, we will confine this typology to forms that are presented in the Sems ye dris lan. These can be subsumed under two basic sets of distinctions pertaining to the presence or absence of transitivity and conceptuality in medita­tion. These tend to overlap in complex ways in a given meditation session:

Typology of meditation in the Sems ye dris lan

(1) Transitivity (A) Transitive (B) Intranstive

(2) Conceptuality (A) Ideational (B) Non-ideational

(1 A) Transitive meditation is one which takes any given thought or object (real or visualized) as its focal point and uses it as a support for either (a) focusing the mind one-pointedly in order to to still all mental activities [transitive non-ideational meditation] or (b) gain­ing intellectual insight into the nature of things/beings [transitive ideational meditation]. (IB) Intransitive meditation practices aim at abandoning everything with which the mind is normally occu­pied in order to realize a lucid, objectless state in which the mind, deprived of its habitual recourse to objects, comes to rest in its natural condition. It is a state in which “one ceases to be actively occupied with the objects of consciousness in order to become con­scious of consciousness itself (which usually remains “hidden” be­hind what it is conscious of).” (Fasching 2008: 464).

(2A) Ideational meditation refers to a particular subtype of tran­sitive meditation in which “the meditator holds an idea or a group of ideas in the forefront of awareness, and uses them to stimulate a directed course of intellectual activity.”37 Meditation on imperma­nence is a case in point where the idea is not only to understand intellectually (bsam pa) the fact that nothing lasts but to internalize it (nyams su len, sgom pa) to the point where it completely trans­forms one’s attitudes, motivations and ways of being and acting in the world. As parenthetically noted in the preceding paragraph, transitive meditation can be ideational or non-ideational depend­ing on whether the aim is to gain a kind of insight into the nature of things/beings that positively transforms attitudes and motiva­tions in ways conducive to spiritual attainments [ideational] or to disclose the nature of Mind itself [non-ideational]. Many Tibetan spiritual traditions advocate alternating between the two. (2B) Non-ideational meditations are generally also intransitive and like­wise devoted to leaving the mind denuded of its familiar objects, activities and points of reference. No longer able to ‘lose itself’ in objects and ideas, mind gives way to its original clear and empty condition. The texts also occasionally present transitive forms of non-ideational meditation which attend to certain objects (for ex­ample, the cloudless sky or a nonsensical word such as hasaraki38) not simply to focus and calm the mind but to thwart and ultimately break through its habitual proclivities to fixate on and try to make sense of things by means of concepts.

A rNying ma meditation session will typically begin with transi­tive-ideational forms of meditation and proceed to intransitive-non- ideational ones. In the Sems ye dris lan, for example, one begins

Fontana 2007: 154. See, for example, Chos dbyings mdzod ’grel 344.4. with the transitive-ideational practices of cultivating refuge and bodhicitta. One then proceeds to visualize a chosen deity, a transi­tive meditation in which the mind’s ideational activity subsides in the experience of the deity’s luminosity. This leads to immersion in a state free from mentalistic-linguistic proliferations in which one recognizes the lucid and empty nature of Mind itself. Needless to say, on the understanding that the aim of soteriological practice is to lay bare one’s natural condition or primordial knowing, the types of meditation favoured in higher rDzogs chen contemplative instructions are non-ideational and intransitive. As Klong chen pa describes it (Sems ye dris lan 387.3): “By letting your eyes gaze unfixedly toward the centre of the sky, a limpid non-conceptual state of awareness arises. At this time, since mind has stopped, the two types of apprehension lack any objective reference, the two types being the apprehension of the outward apparent object as a real entity and the apprehension of the inner mind as a real entity.”

The high status accorded those forms of meditation lacking any intentional and thematic focus is understandable in light of the cen­tral rNying ma distinction between mind and primordial knowing. Put succinctly, ideational meditation is bound up with mind while non-ideational meditation is bound up with primordial knowing. Meditation involving ideation is the type favoured by gradualist Indo-Tibetan Buddhist traditions. It has also, incidentally, been the type emphasized in the Western Christian tradition, as noted by Naranjo and Ornstein (1972). By contrast, non-gradual Indo- Tibetan traditions (exemplified by Indian Buddhist Siddha tradi­tions and Tibetan bKa’ brgyud and rNying ma schools) have tradi­tionally regarded meditation without ideation as a precondition for the experience of (or rather that is) self-occuring primordial aware­ness. This approach to meditation reflects the phenomenological- psychological insight that intransitive pre-reflective self-awareness is structurally prior to, and a condition for the possibility of, all intentional ideational mental processes and therefore remains inac­cessible to them.

2. Translation

Reply to Questions Concerning Mind and Primordial knowing: Instructions for Investigating Mind and Primordial knowing

Praise to All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas

I bow in homage to the Victors with their sons, an ocean Whose depth of sensitivity and caring cannot be fathomed In which the turbulence of mind and mental factors is stilled [Within] the clear oceanic expanse of their non-dual Mind.

The essential meaning of the eighty-four thousand ways of teaching, The unerring intention of the sutra and tantra genres, Is summarized in terms of the distinction between mind and primor­dial knowing.

Having investigated its meaning, I shall write about the stages of its cultivation.

[Introduction]

The perfectly realized Buddha turned the wheel of the doctrine in three successive stages. Concerning the first discourse teachings on the four noble truths: these were primarily intended for the pro­gression of neophytes and those of weak, inferior intelligence. p78] They clearly conveyed the skillful means for internalizing [these truths] through the stages of things to be abandoned [i.e. the truths of suffering and is cause] and their antidotes [i.e. truths of cessa­tion and the path]. Concerning the middle discourse teachings on the absence of defining characteristics: these were primarily in­tended for the stage of progress of those with some training and middling capacity. They conveyed with the antidote of teachings on the absence of intrinsic essence that those things taken as ‘selves’ [or identities] are unoriginated. Amongst the final discourse teach­ings of definitive meaning: these primarily conveyed in extenso the teachings on how one’s existential condition is present for the stage of progress of those belonging to the vehicle of complete fulfilment and who were of sharpest capacity.

The first [[[discourse]]] taught a path for turning away from the characteristics of samsa ra that are to be abandoned. The middle taught the elimination of intellectual obscurations based on the fact that the natures one apprehends [and believes in] amongst what is to be eliminated are without intrinsic essence. The last disclosed our existential condition as the vital quintessence (yin lugs snying po).

Having thus clearly distinguished the meaning of what was taught on the basis of gradations in capacity and stages in how one progresses, one internalizes them [accordingly]. Here, the first stage is an impure condition because of its possessing defilement. [The next] is a partly pure, partly impure condition correspond­ing to the degrees to which defilements are purified by way of the path. [The last] is a condition of total purity divested of all defile­ments. With regard to these three [[[conditions]]], they have each been elucidated according to the gradation of (1) ground, (2) path and (3) goal. P79] Among discourses corresponding to the final stage of promulgation, the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.47] states

According to the phases of being impure.

Partly pure and partly impure, and completely pure,

One speaks of a sentient being, a Bodhisattva

And a Tathagata [[[Thus-gone]]].

‘Ground’ refers to the presence in oneself of luminous primordi­al knowing during the time of being a sentient being. ‘Path’ re­fers to the four [phases] of Accumulation, Integration, Seeing and Cultivation during the time of being a Bodhisattva. ‘Goal’ refers to the final attainment of the inborn qualities such as the strengths at the time of being a Tathagata. Since Mind itself (sems nyid) in its luminosity within mind-governed beings (sems can) is such­ness possessing defilements, it is described as “quintessence of the Tathagata,” “one’s virtuous disposition,” “Mind itself,” and “lumi­nosity.”

[Part One: Ground]

Section One: A discussion of the meaning of “ground.” The nature of reality in its primordial luminosity is unconditioned and spon­taneously present. From the perspective of its emptiness, since it cannot be posited as any substance or characteristics and also can­not be negated as ‘samsara’ or 'nirvana' and so forth, it is free from all limitations of discursive elaborations like the sky. From the perspective of its clarity, it is spontaneously and primordially imbued with the natural expression of the spiritual embodiments (sku) and their primordial gnoses (ye shes), and is luminous like the orbs of the sun and moon. These two facets abide primordially as the nature of reality as a unity without fusion or separation. As is stated in the sNying po rah tu bstan pa’i mdo [Mahdyanabhi- dharmasutra\\ psoj

The beginningless element (dhatu)

Is the basis of all phenomena.

Because it exists, [it allows for] all forms of life

As well as the attainment of nirvana.

And from the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra [9.22]:

The often quoted passage is from the Mahayana Abhidharma Siltra. Although no longer extant, this important siitra is quoted at RGVV 72.13-14: anadikaliko dhatuh sarvadharmasamdsraxah I tasmin sati gatih sarvdnir- vanadhigamo ’pi ca // See also RGVV 1.155 (J 1.152) See Takasaki 1966: 290. The Tibetan translations of RGVV have dbyings instead of khams (both being accepted translations of dhatu). See Mathes 2008: 71. It is interesting that Klong chen pa here and elsewhere (e.g. Sems nyid ngal gso 'grel 312.6;

although in his sGyu ma ngal gso 'grel, Ngal gso skor gsum vol. 2, 597.1 it is erroneously ascribed to the Lankdvatarasutra) refers to the text as sNyingpo rab tu bstan pa 'i mdo, a designation which may be a nod to his contemporary, Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339) whose similarily titled sNying po bstan pa (Full title: [[De bzhin gshegs pa’i snyingpo bstanpa zhes bya ba’i bstan beos; in Rang byung rdo rje gSung 'bum, vol. 7, 282) presents (on 283.2 f) the above Mahayanabhidharmasiltra passage as the second of its three opening stanzas which consist of three well-known quotations concerning Buddha nature. Rang byung rdo rje is known to have been both student and teacher of Klong chen pa and

both were at one time disciples of the renowned rDzogs chen master Ku ma ra dza. All that remains of their correspondence is a let­ter written by Klong chen pa posing critical questions to Rang byung rdo rje about the idea of a First Buddha (dang po’i sang rgyas), an idea espoused in the Mahjusrinamasdmgiti and Kalacakra and taken up in the Rang byung rdo rje’s Zab mo nang don and autocommentary. Klong chen pa here ap­pears to be following the lead of the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra (MSA) which had similarly questioned the idea. The letter entitled rGyal ba Rang byung rdo rje la phul ba 'i dri yig is found in gSung thor bu (A ’dzom ’brug pa ed.) vol. 1, 363-377. For a French translation, see Arguillere 2007.

Although not different before or after...

Suchness remains pure.

And [the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.51cd] states:

As it was before, so it is after -

Such is the nature of invariance.

As the Rinpo che rgya mtsho’i rgyud observes:

Tathagatagarbha in its primordial luminosity is Like a jewel, perfectly replete with all qualities. And, like the undefiled sky and the orb of the sun, 42 It is spontaneously present as kaya[s] and jnana\s\.

Thus we have ascertained by way of the view Qta ba) that primor­dial knowing in its luminosity constitutes the ever-present ground of being. These days, most ‘spiritual friends’ and all ‘great medita­tors’ are in agreement in taking an utter emptiness devoid of any­thing whatsover as the ground. This does not agree with the import of Buddhist discourses [of the third turning] that are of quintessen­tial meaning. The goal, i.e. buddhahood endowed with all inborn qualities, does not arise by virtue of experiencing a ground that is simply nothing at all. [Why?] Because the three aspects of ground, path and goal are misconstrued and because buddhahood being an actualization of the goal of emancipation is unconditioned and endowed with spontaneously present qualities. Therefore, these [[[views]]] and the view of the peak of worldly existence would seem to be the same. Here [in our tradition], this unconditioned and spontaneously present luminosity is precisely what we call the ‘ground.’psij From the dimension of this very ground, by failing to recognize one’s existential condition (yin lugs') as it is, there is ignorance (ma rig pa). When one thereby goes astray into the [[[duality]] of an] ap­prehended object and apprehending subject, one circles around (samsara) in the three realms. As is stated in the Mayajala [i.e. *Guhyagarbhatantra 2.15]:

E ma ho! From the *sugatagarbha

Individual divisive concepts manifest due to karma.

Thus, the non-recognition of one’s abiding condition is the ‘funda­mental ignorance’ (rtsa ba ’i ma rig pa). From the context of what is the ground or seed or basis of the development of this incipient errancy, the [ensuing] upwelling of hypostates based on dualistic beliefs con­stitutes the ‘reifying ignorance’ (kun tu brtags pa 'i ma rig pa). When from these two [modes], there arise all the different phenomenal categories of sentient beings comprising the lower three wretched destinies, the middle human realm, and higher divine realms, then due to the potentialities imprinted in the form of various habitual tendencies on the all-ground, one experiences the joys and sorrows of one’s own vision, the heights and depths of samsara, like the turn­ing of a water mill. The Ratnagunasancayagathci [28.5ab] states: Sentient beings, lower, middle and higher, however many,

Are all declared by the Buddha to arise from ignorance.

primordial abiding condition, luminous Mind itself. Here, *sugatagarbha refers to luminous Mind itself which abides as the very essence of the three kayas which are neither conjoined nor disjoined... In the sGyu 'phrul rgyas pa (Tk vol. 14, 67.6f.) its meaning is the actual all-ground that is uncon­ditioned (’dus ma byas don gyi kun gzhi)\ ‘It is not the all-ground of divi­sive conceptualizing/ But the actual ground without intrinsic nature./ That is called the expanse of phenomena,/ Primordial knowing of suchness.//’... When errancy occurs due to any given conditions, since divisive concepts of individual sentient beings occur of their own accord, this great metropolis of samsara manifests like a self-appearing dream by virtue of causally effica­cious karma.” brtse ba ’i rang bzhin gyis e ma ho brjod nas / gdod ma ’i gnas lugs sems nyid ’odgsal ba bde gshegs snyingpo’i ngang las 'khrul lo I de’ang bde gshegs snying po ni sems nyid ’od gsal ba sku gsum du 'bral med pa ’i ngo bor gnas pa de nyid yin te /... sgyu ’phrul rgyas pa las / mam rtog kun gzhi ma yin pa / rang bzhin med pa don gyi gzhi I de ni chos kyi dbyings zhes bya / de bzhin nyid kyi ye shes so // zhes pa dang / ’dus ma byas don gyi kun gzhi’i don nyid /... rkyen gang gis ’khrul na sems can rang rang gi mam par rtogpa rang shar du byung bas rgyas byas pa ’i las kyis ’khor ba 'i grong khyer chen po ’di rang snang rmi lam Itar sprul so //

See critical edition in Dorje 1987: 188.

Full title: Prajhaparamitaratnagunsa Mayagatha (Tib. 'Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa sdud pa tshigs su bead pa, in D Toh. no. 13, shes phyin, vol. KA, 2.1). For Sanskrit and Tibetan recensions of the text, see Obermiller 1937 and Yuyama 1976. The relevant passage Ratnaguna Sam- cay agatha 28.5ab in Sanskrit reads: yavanta sattva mrdu-madhyam’-ukrsta loke / sa.rve a-vidya-prabhava sugatena uktah // See Yuyama 1976: 110;

Although the three realms continue separately, the *sugatagarhha without being adversely affected, remains pervasively present in all sentient beings. As the Srimala-devisimhanada-sutra states:

All beings are totally pervaded by tathagatagarbha?7

And as is stated in the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.27]:

All embodied being are always imbued with the buddha-quintessence Because the spiritual body of perfect buddhahood radiates, p82] Because suchness is undifferentiated, and

Because the spiritual affiliation is present. Moreover, during the phase of sentient beings, the tatadgatagarbha is obscured by [[[dualistic]]] mind and remains defiled. As is stated in the Mdydjdlcr. As water present in the centre of the earth Is always naturally uncontaminated. So one’s spiritual potential obscured by mind, Is naturally present within all sentient beings. And as the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.112-113] describes it: Were there an inexhaustible treasure Underground beneath a poor man’s house, Neither would he know of its presence, Nor could the treasure tell him "here I am.” Likewise, as all beings have failed to realize The most precious treasure contained within their minds -

Their true nature, immaculate without anything added or removed. Thus they continually experience the manifold miseries of impover­ishment. In this context, the tathagatagarbha is comparable to the orb of the sun while the all-ground together with its habitual tendencies - the whole complex of mind and its mental factors within the mind­streams belonging to the three realms - is comparable to clouds.

Some fools who boast about their erudition [claim the follow­ing]: It is untenable [to maintain that] mind and its mental factors are obscurations because

(A) one produces the mind [of awaken­ing, i.e. bodhicitta] and because

(B) Mind itself which is luminous is one’s spiritual potential (khams).

Therefore, [we reply that] it would symptomatic of not comprehending the import of the sutras and tantras to say that mind is accepted as being one of the medita­tive absorptions {samadhi) [belonging to] the facets of non-concep- tual awakening. [Our argument is as follows:] (A) With regard to ‘producing the mind’ [of awakening], is this not also a conceptual­izing that involves accepting [some things]

and rejecting [others] in the context of samsara [and hence obscured]? If so, it would ultimately have to cease. (B) But if one were to speak about Mind itself [in this way] then this would be inappropriate because it can­not be established given that there is neither produced nor producer [i.e. no causality]. It seems [here] that one has not properly distinguished between mind (sems) and Mind itself (sems nyid). Since ‘mind’ involves conceptual and analytic factors of mind-streams belonging to the three realms, it is that which grasps erroneous superimposed as­pects together with the all-ground [comprising] the eightfold cog­nitive ensemble. As the Satyadeva Vibhaga maintains:

‘Conceptualization’ consists of mind and mental factors

Having superimposed aspects that constitute the three realms. ‘Mind itself’ is luminous primordial knowing, the tathagatagarbha. Thus it is when mind ceases or no longer functions that Mind itself, luminous primordial knowing, shines forth in individual intuitive awareness. As the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita [5b.l—2] states: That mind is not [[[dualistic]]] mind because mind’s nature is luminous. [Objection:] But doesn’t great Mind (sems chen po) exist on the level of buddhahood? [Reply:] This refers to great primordial knowing (ye shes chen po). It agrees completely with descriptions of the ‘great passions’ as [[[Wikipedia:expressions|expressions]] of] primordial gnoses that are found in the tantras. In short, ps4] mind together with its mental factors belonging to the three realms and subject to habitual tendencies transmitted since beginningless time are shown to have the two obscurations [intel­lectual and emotional] as their nature and to be produced. And thus they are explained as something to be eliminated and that must be stopped.

Moreover, it is claimed that to now depend upon a method that [itself] does not depend on the state of Mind itself in its luminosity is comparable to a cloud adrift in space. As the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.55-57] states:

Earth is supported by water, water by air,

And air is supported by space.

But space is supported neither by

The elements of air, water nor earth.

Likewise our psycho physical aggregates, sensory elements and sensory capacities

Are supported by actions and inflictive emotions.

Actions and afflictive emotions are supported completely by

The inappropriate mentation.

Inappropriate mentation is in turn supported by

The purity of mind

The nature of Mind, however, is not

Supported by any of these phenomena.

As the Pramanavarttika [2.208cd] states:

This mind is by nature luminosity.

The defilements are adventious.

This statement agrees with this [[[rNying ma]]] approach insofar as ‘the nature of Mind,’ ‘the basic nature of Mind,’ ‘Mind itself’ and ‘the naturally pure expanse’ and ‘the abiding condition as the na­ture of things’ have one and the same meaning.

Mind, on the other hand, consists of three conditional states by virtue of its classification in terms of the three realms: (A) a one-pointed conceptless [[[state]] in the realm of formlessness], (B) a simple clarity [[[state]] in the realm of aesthetic forms] and (C) a conceptual [[[state]] in the desires realm].ps5] Thus these phenomena of samsara that depend on mind and appear mistakenly due to ha­bitual tendencies are unreal, deceptive, a childish delusion, com­pounded, hollow, insubstantial, and without essence, [like] a bubble about to burst [or] a plantain. They are therefore illustrated by way of eight examples53 such as magic, a reflected image and so forth. They constitute a distortion, a visual anomaly, apparent yet noth­ing as such. Being devoid of abiding nature throughout the time of their appearing, they cannot withstand intellectual analysis. They are mere appearances to conventional, erroneous [[[cognitions]]] like the visions of one who has ingested [the hallucinogenic] dhatura. Meanwhile one must recognize [these phenomena] as appearances due to taking the apprehended object and apprehending subject to be real.

he luminous vital quintessence should be understood as fol­lows: it is ultimate reality, it is enduring, stable, without transition or change, utterly calm and non-deceptive. The very essence of primordial knowing, the ground just as is from time immemorial until the end, is free from all limitations of discursive elaborations and, like the unobscured orb of the sun, remains the same in nature - it has not been shrouded, is not now shrouded and [will remain] unshrouded by the defilements of all phenomena belonging to mind and its mental factors.

[Part Two: Path]

Section Two: How to make an experience of the path. Having real­ized the presence of the quintessence of buddhahood within one­self, one meditatively cultivates this state. By way of the Paramita system, one cultivates it after generating \bodhi\citta. By way of Mantra|vana|, ps6] one additionally brings about maturation by means of the empowerments and brings about freedom by means of the oral instructions. Here [in our system], the method of inter­nalizing it as a single essence is thus in harmony with the sutras. In this regard, once comfortably seated, one takes refuge and develops \bodhi\citta. After having clearly visualized in an instant the deity of one’s predilection, [while seated in a posture] endowed with the seven qualities of Vairocana, one becomes evenly com­posed in the expanse of this clear, vivid and vast state of open awareness which does not conceptualize anything, does not grasp anything, and is not identified by the mind as any apparent object. One thus relaxes in the experience of luminosity. As it is extolled by Arya Nagarjuna in his *Madhyamakaratnasukosa-.

Don’t conceptualize anything and don’t grasp anything! Relax freely in its nature without making it something contrived. This uncontrived state is the precious treasury of the unborn. It is the road travelled by all the Victors of the three times. And as the Heruka Galpo Tantra declares: Devoid of thought is Mind itself as vast as space. Mind itself is space beyond all thoughts.

Concerning this Mind itself [vast as] space and devoid of thought, There is no apprehension in space nor anything apprehended.

So at this time, when mind and all its mental factors have ceased, the non-conceptual primordial knowing is present as the essence of personal self-awareness. As a scripture [i.e. Prajnaparamitastotra by Rahulahhadra\ states:

Devoid of what can be expressed in language and thought, such is Prajnaparamita. ps7] Unborn, unceasing, the essence of space itself, It is the scope of primordial knowing as individual self-awareness. Praise to the Mother of all Victors of the three times.

In this context, ultimate truth is declared to be beyond the domain of the mind and intellect. What this implies is that when mind ceas­es and one transcends intellect, that primordial awareness which has been present in oneself is [revealed as] the very nature of real­ity (dharmata) like the shining sun when it is free from clouds. As for settling into the composure state: at a time when there is a cloudless sky which enhances the process of separating the essence from the dregs [i.e. open awareness from obscuring thoughts], sit with your back to the sun. By letting your eyes gaze unfixedly to­ward the centre of the sky, a limpid non-conceptual state of aware­ness arises. At this time, since mind has stopped, the two types of apprehension lack any objective reference, the two types being (a) the apprehension of the ‘outer’ apparent object as a real entity and (b) the apprehension the ‘inner’ mind as a real entity. When therefore one no longer conceptualizes entity or non-entity, there is a calm in which any third alternative type of apprehension apart from those two would [also] be without objective reference. The Bodhicaryavatara [9.34] states: When neither entity nor non-entity

Is present before the mind. At that time, since there is also no other representation, Lacking any obejctive reference, it remains thoroughly calm. As the ManjusrTndmasamgTti [58b] states: [He is] to be individually intuitively known - unwavering... A Doha states: [3ssj

Relax simply in self-clarity [like] water and a lamp [reflected in it]. Or as Kaudalika [i.e. Kotalipa] puts it: Meditating by way of mind is not meditation. But not meditating is also not meditation. Beyond meditating and not meditating, The very absence of mentation is Mahamudra!

On this occasion, “cessation of mind” means that open awareness makes evident the spiritual embodiment of primordial knowing (ye shes kyi sku = jhanakaya). [The Madhyamakavatara (11,17d) states:] Due to mind’s cessation, that [[[suchness]]] is made evident by the kdya. This is one quarter of [of the stanza].

Now, in the case of genuine meditative absorption, there oc­curs [a state that does] not stray from the sphere of open aware­ness which is free from the entire complex of mind consisting of the all-ground and all-ground consciousness, along with ego-based cognition, and the conscious experiences of the five sense percep­tions. The Inconceivability (Skt. acintya Tib. hsam gyis mi khyab pa) chapter of the Ratnakuta states:

Though free from mind, ego-mind and dichotomizing cognition, one has not also abandoned the state of contemplative absorption. By meditating in this way, the three experiences of bliss, clarity and non-conceptualization naturally emerge and, moreover, they are beyond limit. As the mDo gdams ngag ’bogpa’i rgyalpo states:

If one settles mind without thought in The nature of reality without thought, There arises a felt experience without bias or partiality.64

Now, the procedure for this meditative absorption that transcends mind belonging to the three realms [389j is as follows. In the form­less [[[realms]]] the single-pointed non-conceptual [[[cognition]]] has no apparent object (snang yul med pa). This means that although there is no conceptualization, the appearance of objects (yul snang ba) is not suppressed, rather it is the single-pointed grasping that is absent. As for mind belonging to the [[[realm]] of] forms, although there is the appearance of objects, this may involve thoughts and analyses (rtog dpyod) or be devoid of these. But even if it is imbued with the good feelings of a meditative trance, it doesn’t go beyond a kind of grasping. The mind which doesn’t go beyond matters of speculation be­cause its doubts have not been resolved and the mind belonging to the desires |realm] are predominantly conceptual and analytic. In this context, what constitutes non-conceptual primordial knowing and, moreover, the meditative absorptions of the three individual realms still involve habitual tendencies for mind’s apparent objects and thus the nature of one’s abiding condition remains unknown. But here [[[primordial]] knowing and absoprtions] are nonetheless en­dowed with numerous special qualities such as realizing the essence of the ground whose nature is luminosity, being embraced by the bodhicitta, and uniting [the forces of] skillfull means and discerning insight. In this regard, the four concentrations and four formless states are of two sorts: (a) those subsumed under the mind

The title to which this passage is attributed likely refers to the dGongs ’dus (Songs rgyas thams cad kyi dgons pa ’dus pa ’i mdo), a text sometimes referred to by the title mDo gDams ngag ’bogs pa’i rgyalpo or close vari­ants thereof by rNying ma pa and bKa’ brgyud scholars including Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po, Bu ston, ’Gos lo tsa ba, and

Klong chen pa. For this identification and its problems, see Karmay 1998: 84-89. I thank Dr. Dorji Wangchuk for pointing out this reference. The dGongs ’dus is an important rNying ma tantra (despite the mdo in its title) that is regarded as as one of five principal tantras of the Anuyoga tradition of rDzogs chen. of samsara, i.e. grasping which, in this context should stop, and (b) the transworldly formless concentrations which should be culti­vated because they are the genuine primordial knowing. So as you progressively become familiar with luminous primordial knowing, [390] you successively traverse all the spiritual levels and paths and the super-knowledges such as the [[[divine]]] eye66 and so forth arise automatically like reflections arising spontaneously in clear water.

[Part Three'. The Goal}

Once you have thus recognized the ground and have purified, through cultivating the path, the defilements of mind and its mental factors that have obscured your spiritual potential, and after expe­riencing the diamond-like absorption at the end of the series of ten spiritual levels, primordial knowing of buddhahood dawns. Since one’s spiritual disposition is then free of every last defilement, this is known as the fundamental transformation of spiritual awaken­ing (byang chub tu gnas ’gyur). At this time, the dharmakaya in its luminosity makes true cessation in which mind has ceased clearly evident by way of primordial knowing, self-awareness as it is indi­vidually realized. As the Madhyamakavatara [11.17] states:

Through the incineration of the dry kindling of all that Is knowable, the |ensuing| peace is the dharmakaya of the victors.

The six super-knowledges labhijhd', Tib. mngon shes) are:

1) capacity for miraculous transformations,

2) divine eye (that sees the deaths, transmigration and rebirths of all sentient beings),

3) divine ear (that hears all sounds in the universe),

4) clairvoyance (that knows all the thoughts of others),

5) remembering past lives (of oneself and others), and

6) ability to destroy imperfections (in oneself and others). These are discussed in AK 7.42ad. See La Vallee Poussin 1925, vol. 5, 97-100. In his Sems nyid ngal gso 'grel vol. 1, 455.4, Klong chen pa includes the six as one of the twenty-one categories of undefiled qualities of the Buddha presented in Abhisamaydlamkara 8.2-6. For additional details on the six super-knowledges (as summarized in the above list), see ’Jigs med gling pa’s Yon tan mdzod ’grel vol. 1, 341.3 and Yon tan rgya mtsho’s Nyi zla sgron me vol. 1, 792.1.

66 The term spyan (honorific for mig or eye) refers to the divine eye (Skt. divyacaksus = Tib. lha'i mig/lha'i spyan), one of the six super-knowledges (see preceding note). See AK 7.54cd.

At this time there is neither arising nor cessation.

Due to mind’s cessation that [[[suchness]]] is made evident by the kaya.^ This spiritual embodiment (kciyci) [of suchness] is of three kinds:

(1) the dharmakaya, luminous by nature,

(2) sambhogakaya, endowed with five definite attributes,68 and

(3) nirmanakaya, manifesting in See above n. 22 and edited text. This quotation and the following one (MAv 11.17 and 11.19) are here presented (with intervening pada 11.18) along with Candrakirti’s auto-commentary as they are found in the critical edition MAv, 361f.:

shes by a ’i bud shing skam po ma lus pa I bsregs pas zhi ste rgyal rnams chos sku ste / de tshe skye ba med cing ’gag pa med / sems 'gags pas de sku yis mngon sum mdzad // [11.17] ye shes kyi rang bzhin can gyi sku shes bya’i bud shing skam po ma lus pa bsregs pa las shes bya ’i skye ba med pas skye ba med pa dang Idan par ’gyur ba gang yin pa ’di ni sangs rgyas rnams kyi chos kyi sku'o I di nyid kyi dbang du mdzad nas / sangs rgyas rnams ni chos nyid Ita I ’dren pa rnams ni chos kyi sku / chos nyidshes bya ’ang ma yin te / de ni shes par nus ma yin // [11.18] zhes gsungs so / chos kyi sku ’di ni / de tshe skye ba med cing 'gag pa med pa ste / ’di nyid kyi dbang du mdzadnas ’jam dpal skye ba med cing ’gagpa med pa zhes bya ba ’di ni de bzhin gshegs pa ’i tshig bla dvags so zhes gsungs so / de Itar na ye shes kyi yul de kho na nyid la rnam pa thams cad du de’i yul na sems dang sems las byung ba rnams mi ’jug pas sku kho nas mngon sum du mdzadpar kun rdzob tu rnam par bzhag go / ’di ni zhi sku dpag bsam shing Itar gsal gyur zhing I yid bzhin nor bu ji bzhin rnam mi rtog / ’gro grol bar du ’jig rten ’byor slad rtag / ’di ni spros dang bral la snang bar ’gyur // [11.19] sku gang gis de kho na nyid ’di mngon sum du mdzadpar bshadpa de ni zhi ba’i rang bzhin can du ’dod de I sems dang sems las byung ba dang bral ba’i phyir ro / zhi ba ’i rang bzhin can yin yang sems can gyi don mdzadpar spyod pa gsal bar byedpa ni /....

68 These five definites (nges pa Inga), also known as five exquisite qualities (phun sum tshogs Inga), specify the structure common to the varied manifes­tations of sambhogakaya.

They are:

(1) setting (gnas),

(2) duration (dus),

(3) teacher (ston pa),

(4) his teaching (bstan pa), and

(5) his retinue (jkhor).

These became widespread in Tibetan exegesis on the three kayas from at least as order to train each trainee according to their aspirations. One’s in­born qualities are thereby spontaneously present like a wish-grant­ing jewel. So long as samsdra persists,[391] spontaneously occur- ing buddha-activity arises in order to fulfil the two aims of living beings. This [[[buddha activity]]] manifests and is actualized in the spiritual embodiment of primordial knowing that is free from all discursive elaborations. As this text goes on to say [11.19]: The embodiment of calm radiates like a wish-fulfilling tree.

And like a wish-granting jewel, it ever enriches the world, Without premeditation, until beings are free. This is manifest in a state free from elaboration. Now, at the time of buddhahood, although mind and mental factors cease, since primordial knowing does not cease, it is not like space that is empty of matter. Rather, [this primordial knowing] works for the fulfillment of sentient beings by way of inconceivably great in­sight and compassion comprising (a) qualities of renunciation, that is, the freedom from all obscurations and (b) qualities of realiza­tion including the ten strengths, four kinds of fearlessness, four correct discriminations,71 ten powers and so forth, and it is un­conditioned and spontaneously present. It is the actualization of a capacity which exists as a quality which you have had primordially in your spiritual potential.

As the Ratnagotravibhaga [1.5] states:

Buddhahood is endowed with the two aims:

a) It is unconditioned, spontaneously present, And is not realized through extraneous conditions.

b) It is imbued with knowing, caring and capability.

In short, the goal is what is known as spiritual awakening (byang chub) replete with [392] capabilities belonging to one’s spiritual po­tential which is luminosity. For a more detailed exegesis of these matters, you should have a look at the treatise I composed called Nges don Shing rta chen po.™

[Colophon]

Through any virtue that may accrue from concisely elucidating The distilled meaning of ground, path and goal, May all beings without exception realize the meaning of luminosity And be victors of the dharma, spontaneously [fulfilling] life’s two aims. In the vast ocean-isle in the jeweled sea of intelligence [dwells] The serpent[-Buddha] adorned with precious hood of the three train­ings. Endowed with goodness and renowned for qualities of pure dharma, May this elucidation of the teaching provide a lasting foundation. By clarifying, in accordance with my command of the subject matter, The distilled quintessence of scripture, reasoning and personal guid­ance, May all beings without exception traverse the path to liberation And may they spontaneously realize life’s two glorious aims. While I have longed to meet with you, Time and place have granted few opportunities, But in future times, it is hoped we will be reunited in Pure Buddha-fields overflowing with the riches of inborn qualities. This reply to the question^) you have asked Is my modest contribution to a subject difficult to understand. [393] But as far as I am able, I have put into words the subject matter Of which I am certain and offer it respectfully to you. These Instructions on Investigating Mind and Primordial knowing have been respectfully offered by this contemplative who teaches That is, the rDzogs pa chen po Sems nyid ngal gso'i ’grel pa Shing rta chen po (see Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel). Klong chen pa here incorporates his disciples name Chos grags bzang po [“Good one renowned for dharma”] into the kavya, a trope employed in many Indian and Tibetan verses of dedication.

the dharma, Tshul khrims bio gros, from [the hermitage at] Snow Capped Mountain (Gangs ri thod dkar) to the master Chos grags bzang po. May all beings hereby gain mastery over the exquisite worldy and trans worldly splendors in all times, places and situ­ations, and as their bright qualities expand, may they effortlessly accede the highest citadel of supreme liberation.

Sarvam Mangalam\ Kusala, kusala, kusala\

3. Text

1. Notes on edited texts of Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan Three extant versions of the Sems ye dris lan have been consulted in preparing this critical edition:

1) Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan. (SYa) A xylographic copy from blockprints contained in the A Uzom chos sgar edition of the Klong chen pa gSung thor bu vol. 1 (of 2), 377-393.

2) Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan. (SYd) A xylographic copy from blockprints contained in the Derge edition of the Klong chen pa gSung thor bu vol. 1 (of 2), 292-304.

3) Sems dang ye shes brtag pa’i man ngag. (SYk) A manuscript copy of Sems ye dris lan contained in the bKa’ ma shin tu rg- yas pa (NyKs) vol. 49 (of 120), 344-365. The first two versions contain only minor discrepancies and would appear to derive from a common source. The third, a reproduction of the text contained in the manuscript copy of the NyKs, contains many scribal errors and has been of limited philological value in preparing the edited text.

In my translation and critical edition of the Sems ye dris lan, page references in subscript square parentheses □ within the body of the translation and edited transliteration refer to paginations in the main primary source used. In the case of the Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan, I use the A ’dzom chos sgar edition (SYa) as the main source with variant readings from the other editions (apart from the obvious scribal errors in SYk) included in the notes to the ed­ited text. These notes also indicate variants of quotations found in Sanskrit originals or other Tibetan versions of the quoted passages. Klong chen pa’s writings present a particular challenge in this re­gard as he apparently (and is credited by tradition with) quoting texts from memory. I have therefore attempted as far a possible to correct quotations on the basis of Sanskrit edition and/or canonical recensions of Tibetan translations wherever these are available. For ease of reference, I have included all other citation information for quoted passages and textual-critical comments in the notes to the translation. Page numbers in square brackets that occur both in the edited text and translation correspond to numbers given on folia sides in SYa.

2. Text of the Sems ye dris lan:

sems dang ye shes kyi dri lan zhes bya ba bzhugs /

sems dang ye shes brtag pa’i man ngag ces bya ha /

sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad la phyag ’tshal lo/

gang thugs gnyis med chu gter dag pa’i dbyings / sems dang sems byung myog pa rab zhi zhing / mkhyen brtse’i gting mtha dpag gis mi lang ba’i / rgyal ba rgya mtsho sras bcas spyi bos mchod // chos tshul brgyad khri bzhi stong snying po’i don / mdo dang rgyud sde’i dgongs pa ma nor bar / sems

dang ye shes mam pa gnyis su ’dus / de don brtags nas sgom pa’i rim ba bri //

de la yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas kyis chos kyi ’khor lo rim pa gsum du bskor ba yang / bka’ dang po bden pa bzhi’i chos kyi rnam grangs las / gtso bor las dang po pa dang bio cung zad dman pa rnam ’jug pa p78] la dgongs te / spang gnyen gyi rim pas nyams su len pa’i thabs gsal bar gsungs shing /bka’ bar pa mtshan nyid med pa’i chos kyi rnam grangs las / gtso bor cung zad sbyangs pa dang dbang po ’bring po rnams ’jug pa’i rim pa la dgongs te / ngo bo nyid med pa’i rnam grangs kyi gnyen po la bdag tu ’dzin pa rnams skye ba med par gsungs la / bka’ tha ma nges pa don gyi chos kyi rnam grangs las / gtso bor yongs su rdzogs pa’i theg pa rnams dang dbang po rnon po rnams ’jug pa’i rim pas gshis la ji Itar gnas pa’i rnam grangs rgya cher gsung te / dang pos ’khor ba’i mtshan nyid spang bya las ldog pa’i lam bstan / bar pas spang bya las ’dzin pa’i rang bzhin ngo bo med pas shes sgrib spang bar bstan / tha mas yin lugs snying por bstan te / dbang po’i rim pa dang / ’jug tshul gyi go rim la brten nas gsungs pa rnams kyi don gsal rab phyed nas nyams su blang ba las / ’dir dang po dri ma dang bcas pas ma dag pa’i gnas skabs dang / lam gyis sbyangs pas dri ma rim pa bzhin du dag pa ma dag pa dag pa’i gnas skabs dqang / dri ma thams cad dang bral ba shin tu rnam dag gi gnas skabs rnam pa gsum la Itos nas / gzhi dang / lam dang / ’bras bu’i rim pa rnams re zhig gsal bar mdzad pa ni / bka’ [379] tha ma’i rim pa bzhin brjod pa las / rgyud bla mar /

ma dag ma dag dag pa dang I shin tu rnam dag go rim bzhin / sems can byang chub sems dpa’ dang / de bzhin gshegs pa zhes brjod do //

zhes gsungs te / sems can pa’i dus kyi ’od gsal ba’i ye shes rang la yod pa ni gzhi’o / byang chub sems dpa’i dus kyi tshogs sbyor mthong sgom bzhi ni lam mo / de bzhin gshegs pa’i dus kyi stobs sogs kyi yon tan de mthar phyin pa ni ’bras bu’o / de yang sems can pa’i sems nyid ’od gsal ba ni dri ma dang bcas pa’i de bzhin nyid yin pas chos khams dge ba de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po sems nyid ’od gsal ba zhes bya’o /

1) ’dir dang po gzhi’i don bshad pa ni / ye nas ’od gsal ba’i chos nyid ’dus ma byas shing lhung gyis grub pa stong pa’i ngos nas dngos po dang mtshan ma gang du’ang ma grub cing ’khor ba dang mya ngan las ’das pa la sogs pa gang du’ang ma chad pas spros pa’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba nam mkha’ lta bu / gsal ba’i ngos nas sku dang ye shes kyi rang bzhin ye Idan du lhung gyis sgrub cing ’od gsal ba nyi zla’i dkyil ’khor lta bu / de gnyis ka’ang ’du ’bral med pa’i chos nyid du ye nas gnas pa ni / snying po rab tu bstan pa 'i mdo las psoj / thog ma med pa’i dus kyi dbyings / chos mams kun gyi gnas yin te / de yod pas na ’gro ba kun / mya ngan ’das pa thob pa yin // zhes dang / mdo sde rgyan las / snga ma phyi ma khyad med kyang / de bzhin nyid ni dag gyur ba // zhes dang /

ji ltar snga bzhin phyis de bzhin / ’gyur ba med pa’i chos nyid do // ces pa dang / rin po che rgya mtsho’i rgyud las / ye nas ’od gsal bde gshegs snying po ni / nor bu bzhin du yon tan ma lus rdzogs / dri med mkha’ dang nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor bzhin // sku dang ye shes lhun gyis grub pa nyid // ces pa la sogs pa’o / de ltar ’od gsal ba’i ye shes ni gdod ma’i gzhir ltar pas gtan la dbab pa’o / ding sang ni dge ba’i bshes gnyen phal dang / sgom chen kun mthun par / stong rkyang ci yang med pa la gzhi byed pa ni snying po’i don gyi dgongs pa dang mi mthun te / ci’ang med pa’i gzhi nyams su blangs pas ’bras bu sangs rgyas yon tan thams cad dang ldan pa mi ’byung ste / gzhi lam ’bras bu gsum ’jol ba’i phyir ro / sangs rgyas de ni ’dus ma byas shing lhun gyis grub pa’i yon tan can bral ba’i ’bras bu mngon du gyur pa zhig yin pa’i phyir ro / des na srid rtse’i lta ba dang de dag mthun par snang ngo / ’dir ni ’dus ma byas shing lhun gyis grub pa’i ’od gsal ba nyid gzhir ’dod pa psi] yin no / gzhi de lta bu’i ngang las yin lugs ngo ma shes pas ma rig par gyur te / de las gzung ’dzin du ’khrul nas khams gsum du ’khor bar sgyu 'phrul drva ba’i rgyud las / e ma ho bde gshegs snying po las / rang gi rnam rtog las kyis sprul / zhes so /

de’ang gnas lugs ma shes pa rtsa ba’i ma rig pa ste / dang po’i ’khrul pa bskyed pa’i gzhi’am sa bon nam rten gzhir gyur pa’i ngang las / gnyis su ’dzin pa’i kun rtog langs pa ni kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa ste / de gnyis las sems can tha ma ngang song gsum dang / ’bring mi dang / mchog lha rnams so so’i snang ba mi ’dra ba tha dad du shar nas kun gzhi la bag chags sna tshogs su bzhag pa’i nus pas ’khor ba mtho dman du zo chu’i khyud mo bzhin rang snang bde sdug so sor spyod pa ni / sdud pa las / sems can tha ma ’bring dang mchog gyur ji snyed pa I de kun ma rig las byung bde bar gshegs pas gsungs // zhes so / de ltar kharns gsum so sor brgyud kyang bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po ni ngan du ma song bar sems can thams cad la khyab byed du gnas te / dbral phreng gi mdo las / bde gshegs snying pos ’gro kun yongs la khyab // ces dang / rgyud bla ma las / rdzogs sangs sku ni ’phro phyir dang // de bzhin nyid [382] dbyer med phyir dang // rigs yod phyir na lus can kun // rtag tu sangs rgyas snying po can // zhes gsungs pa bzhin no / de’ang sems can pa’i dus na bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po de / sems kyis bsgribs te dri ma dang bcas par gnas pa ni / sgyu 'phrul drva ba las / sa yi dkyil na yod pa’i chu // rtag tu rang bzhin dri ma med // de bzhin sems kyi sgrib pa’i khams // ’gro ba kun la rang bzhin gnas // zhes pa dang / rgyud bla ma las / ji ltar mi dbul khyim nang sa ’og na / mi bzad pa yi gter ni yod gyur la / mi des de ma shes shing gter de yang / de la nga ’dir yod ces mi smra ltar // SYadk sa : RGVt pa SYadk ngo : RGVt de SYadk, RGVt shing : D (sastra) te de bzhin yid kyi nang chud rin chen gter / dri med gzhag dang bsal med chos nyid kyang / ma rtogs pas na dbul ba’i sdug bsngal ni / rnam mang kun tu skye rgu ’dis myong ngo // zhes pa ltar ngo I

de yang bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po ni nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor lta bu yin la/kun gzhi bag chags dang bcas pa khams gsum pa’i rgyud kyis bsdus pa’i sems sems byung thams cad sprin dang ’dra ba yin no / mkhas par rlom pa’i blun po kha cig / sems sems byung sgrib par mi ’thad de sems bskyed pa’i phyir dang / sems nyid ’od gsal ba khams yin pa’i phyir ro / des na sems p83j rtog med byang chub kyi yan lag ting nge ’dzin du ’dod do zer ba ni mdo rgyud kyi dgongs pa ma long pa’i rnam ’gyur yin te sems bskyed pa’ang ’khor ba’i gnas skabs na blang dor du byed pa’i rtog pa min nam / yin na ni mthar thug ’gag dgos la / sems nyid la zer na ni bskyed bya bskyed byed gnyis med pas mi ’grub pa’i phyir ’os pa ma yin no / sems dang sems nyid so sor phyogs ma byed par snang ste / sems ni khams gsum pa’i rgyud kyi rtog pa dang dpyod pa cha dang bcas pas sgro btags ’khrul pa’i rnam pa ’dzin byed kun gzhi tshogs brgyad dang bcas pa yin te / dbu ma bden gnyis las /

sems dang sems byung khams gsum pa’i / sgro btags rnam pa can rtog yin // zhes so / sems nyid ni bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po ’od gsal ba’i ye shes te / de’ang sems ’gags shing ma mchis pa’i tshe sems nyid ’od gsal ba’i ye shes so so rang gi rig pa la snang ba yin no / yum brgyad stong pa las / sems de ni sems ma mchis pa9° te sems kyi rang bzhin ’od gsal ba lags so /

zhes gsungs pa yin no // sangs rgyas kyi sa na / sems chen po yod do zhes na / de ni ye shes chen po la zer te I rgyud las nyong mongs pa chen po nyid ye shes su bshad pa dang rnam pa mthun no / mdor [3S4] bsdu na khams gsum pa’i sems sems byung cha dang bcas pa thog ma med pa nas brgyud pa’i bag chags can sgrib pa gnyis kyi ngo bo ’dzin cing / bskyed par brten pas spang bya yin zhing dgag dgos par bshad pa yin no / de yang sems nyid ’od gsal ba’i nang la brten pa med pa’i tshul gyis da Itar brten pa ni nam mkha’ la sprin lding ba Itar ’dod de / rgyud bla ma las:

sa ni chu la chu rlung la / rlung ni mkha’ la rab tu gnas / mkha’ ni rlung dang chu dag dang / sa yi khams la gnas ma yin // de bzhin phung po khams dban^ rnams / las dang nyon mongs dag la gnas / las dang nyon mongs tshul bzhin min / yid la byed pa rtag tu gnas // tshul bzhin ma yin yid byed ni / sems kyi dag pa la rab gnas / sems kyi rang bzhin chos mams ni / thams cad la yang gnas pa med // zhes so / rnam ’grel las / sems ’di rang bzhin ’od gsal te /" dri ma rnams ni gio bur ba //

zhes pa’ang tshul de dang mthun te / sems kyi rang bzhin / sems kyi chos nyid / sems nyid / dbying rang bzhin kyis dag pa / don dam pa’i gnas lugs rnams don gcig yin pa’i phyir ro / sems de yang�khams gsum gyi dbye bas rtog med rtse gcig pa dang / gsal ba tsam dang / rtog bcas kyi gnas skabs gsum mo / pss] de’ang sems la brten cing bag chags kyis ’khrul par snang ba ’khor ba’i chos ’di dag mi bden pa / bslu ba / byis pa ’drid pa / gsog / gsob / ya ma brla I snying po med pa / lbu ba rdos pa / chu shing / sgyu ma / mig yor la sogs pa dpe brgyad kyis bstan te / ra ri / ’al ’ol / med bzhin snang ba I snang dus nyid nas rang bzhin med pa / bios dpyod mi bzod pa I kun rdzob ’khrul pa’i ngor snang tsam dha du ra zos pa’i snang ba dang ’dra bar / bar skabs su gzung ’dzin la bden par zhen pa’i mthus snang bar shes par bya’o / ’od gsal ba’i snying po ni / don dam pa’i bden pa / rtag pa / brtan pa / ’pho ’gyur med pa / rab tu zhi ba / mi bslu ba / thog ma med pa nas tha ma’i bar gzhi ji bzhin pa ye shes kyi ngo bo spros pa’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral zhing / sems dang sems las byung ba’i chos thams cad kyi dri mas ma gos mi gos gos pa med pa’i rang bzhin mnyam pa nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor sgrib pa med pa lta bur shes par bya’o / 2) don gnyis pa lam nyams su blang ba ni / de Itar sangs rgyas kyi snying po rang la yod par rtogs nas de’ang ngang du bsgom pa ste / de’ang pha rol tu phyin pa’i lugs kyis sems bskyed nas bsgoms la / sngags kyis de’i steng du p86j dbang gis smin par byas te gdams pas grol bar byed pa’o / ’dir ngo bo gcig tu nyams su len tshul mdo dang mthun te / de yang stan bde ba la ’dug nas skyabs su ’gro ba dang sems bskyed de / gang la mos pa’i lhar skad cig gis gsal btab pa’i rjes la / rnam" snang gi chos bdun dang ldan pas gang la’ang mi rtog cing ci la’ang mi ’dzin yul snang thog tu bios ma bzung ba’i rig pa sal le sing nge wa le ba’i nang la mnyam par bzhag pa ni / ’od gsal ba’i don la ’jog pa yin te / 'phags pa klu sgrub kyis dbu ma siege med rin po che’i mdzod las / gar yang ma rtog cir yang ma ’dzin cig / bcas bcos ma byed rang bzhin lhug par zhog / ma bcos pa de skye med rin chen mdzod / dus gsum rgyal ba kun gyi gshegs shul lags // zhes dang / he ru ka gal po las / 99 bsam du med de sems nyid nam mkha’ che / SYa, SYd rnam : SYk rnams sems nyid nam mkha’ bsam pa kun dang bral / bsam du med pa’i sems nyid nam mkha’ ni / nam mkhar mi dmigs pa yang dmigs su med // ces so / de yang de’i tshe sems dang sems byung thams cad ’gags nas rnam par mi rtog pa’i ye shes so so rang rig pa’i ngo bor gnas pa ste / lung las / smra bsam brjod med shes rab [387] pha rol phyin / ma skyes mi ’gags nam mkha’i ngo bo nyid I so so rang rig ye shes spyod yul ba / dus gsum rgyal ba’i yum la phyag ’tshal lo // zhes so / de’ang don dam pa’i bden pa ni sems blo’i yul las ’das pa zhes pa’ang tshul de la zer gyi / sems ’gags shing bio las ’das pa’i dus na ye shes rang la gnas pa de ni chos nyid de sprin dang bral bas nyi ma gsal ba bzhin no / de Itar mnyam par ’jog pa la dangs snyigs phyed pa’i bog ’byin nam mkha’ sprin med pa’i tshe nyi ma la rg- yab phyogs par ’dug ste / mig nam mkha’i dkyil lam ngos der bltas pas shes pa dvangs la rtog med ’byung ngo / de’i tshe sems ’gags pas phyi rol snang yul la dngos po ngos bzung du ’dzin pa dang / nang sems dngos po ngos bzung du ’dzin pa gnyis dmigs pa med pas dngos po dang dngos po med pa la mi rtog pa na / de gnyis las gzhan du ’dzin pa’i phung po gsum pa dmigs pa med pa zhi ba ste / spyod ’jug las / gang tshe dngos dang dngos med dag / bio yi mdun na mi gnas pa / de tshe mam pa gzhan med pas / dmigs pa med pa rab tu zhi // zhes pa dang / mtshan brjod las / so so rang rig mi g.yo ba // zhes pa dang / do ha las / chu dang mar pss] me rang gsal gcig pur zhog // ces dang / tog rtse pas I sems kyis bsgom pa bsgom ma yin / mi sgom pa’ang sgom pa min / sgom dang mi sgom las ’das pa I yid la med do phyag rgya che I I zhes gsungs pa’i don te / de’i tshe sems ’gags pa’i don rig pa ye shes kyi sku mngon du gyur pa ste I sems ’gags pas de sku yis mngon sum mdzad / ces pa’i zur gcig yin no / de yang ting nge ’dzin yang dag pa zhig yin na / kun gzhi dang kun gzhi’i rnam shes kyi sems dang / yid shes dang / sgo lnga’i rnam par shes pa thams cad dang bral ba’i rig pa’i ngang las mi g.yo ba ’byung ste /dkon mchog brtegspa’i gsang ba bsam gyis mi khyabpa’i le’u las / sems dang yid dang mam par shes pa thams cad dang bral la / ting nge ’dzin gyi gnas kyang mi ’dor ba ste // zhes gsung pa yin no / de Itar bsgoms pas nyams bde ba / gsal ba / mi rtog pa gsum ngang gyis ’byung zhing gzhan yang tshad med de / mdo gdams ngag 'bog pa 'i rgyal po las / bsam du med pa’i chos nyid la / bsam du med pa’i bio gzhag na / phyogs ris med pa’i nyams myong skye // zhes so / de’ang ting nge ’dzin ’di nyid khams gsum pa’i sems dang bral ba’i tshul ni / ps9] gzugs med na rtog med rtse gcig pa snang yul med pa yin la / ’di ni rnam rtog med kyang yul snang ba mi ’gog pa dang / rtse gcig pa’i ’dzin pa med pa’o / gzugs kyi sems ni yul snang ba yin yang rtog dpyod kyi cha dang bcas pa dang / rtog dpyod med cing bsam gtan gyi dga’ bas brgyan kyang ’dzin pa las ma ’das pa ste / mtha’ ma chod pas blo’i yul las ma ’das pa dang ’dod pa’i sems ni gtso bor rtog dpyod dang bcas pa ste / ’dir ni mi rtog pa’i ye shes yin pa dang / gzhan yang khams gsum so so’i ting nge ’dzin de ni sems kyi snang yul bag chags dang bcas pas / gnas lugs kyi rang bzhin ma shes bzhin du gnas la / ’dir ni rang bzhin ’od gsal ba’i gzhi’i ngo bo rtogs pa dang sems bskyed pas zin pa dang / thabs dang shes rab zung du ’brel ba la sogs pa’i khyad par du ma dang bcas pa’o / de yang bsam gtan bzhi dang gzugs med pa bzhi yang gnyis te / ’dzin pa ’khor ba’i sems kyis bsdu pa ni ’dir ’gag dgos la / ’jig rten las ’das pa’i bsam gtan gzugs med ni yang dag pa’i ye shes yin pa’i phyir blang bar bya ba yin no / de ltar na ’od gsal ba’i ye shes rim gyis goms pa [390] las / sa dang lam thams cad gong nas gong du bgrod cing / spyan dang mngon par shes pa la sogs pa rang chas su yod pa rnams ’char ba ni / chu dvangs pa las gzugs brnyan ngang gis ’char ba bzhin no / 3) don gsum pa ’bras bu ni / de ltar gzhi shes nas lam bsgoms pas khams la sgrib pa’i sems sems byung gi dri ma cha dang bcas pa dag nas / sa bcu rgyun gyi tha mar rdo rje lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin gyi rjes la sangs rgyas kyi ye shes ’char ba ni khams nyid dri ma mtha’ dag dang bral bas byang chub tu gnas ’gyur ba zhes bya’o / de’i tshe chos kyi sku ’od gsal ba so so rang gi rig pa’i ye shes kyis sems ’gag pa’i ’gog pa dam pa mngon du mdzad do / 'jug pa las: shes b^a’i bud sliin<z skom po ma lus pa / bsregs pas zhi ste rgyal mams chos sku ste / de tshe skye ba med cing ’gag pa med / sems ’gags pas de sku yis mngon sum mdzad // ces so / sku de yang rnam pa gsum ste / chos kyi sku rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal ba dang / long spyod rdzogs pa’i sku nges pa Inga ldan dang / sprul pa’i sku gdul bya so so’i mos pa ltar gang la gang ’dul du snang ba ste / yid bzhin gyi nor bu ltar yon tan lhun gyis grub pa I ’khor ba ji srid par ’gro [391] ba’i don gnyis lhun gyis grub pa’i phrin las ’byung ba ’di ni spros pa thams cad dang bral ba’i ye shes kyi sku la snang zhing mngon du mdzad pa ni / de nyid las I zhi sku dpag bsam shing ltar gsal gyur cing / yid bzhin nor bu ji bzhin rnam mi rtog / ’gro grol bar du ’jig rten ’byor slad rtag / ’di ni spros dang bral la snang ba ’gyur // zhes so / de’ang sangs rgyas pa’i tshe sems dang sems byung ’gags ky- ang / ye shes mi ’gag pas bems stong nam mkha’ lta bu ma yin te / spangs pa’i yon tan sgrib pa thams cad dang bral zhing / rtogs pa’i yon tan stobs bcu dang / mi ’jigs pa bzhi dang / so so yang dag pa’i rig pa bzhi dang / dbang bcu la sogs pa bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i mkhyen rab dang thugs rjes sems can gyi don mdzad cing / ’dus ma byas shing lhun gyis grub pa ni khams la yon tan ye ldan du yod pa’i nus pa mngon du gyur pa ste / rgyud bla ma las / ’dus ma byas shing lhun gyis grub / gzhan gyi rkyen gyis rtogs min pa / mkhyen dang brtse dang nus par ldan / don gnyis ldan pa’i sangs rgyas nyid // ces so / mdor na ’od gsal ba’i khams kyi nus pa rdzogs [392] pa’i byang chub ces bya ba ni ’bras bu’o / ’di dag gi rnam par bzhag pa rgyas par ni / kho bos byas pa’i bstan bcos nges don shing rta chen por blta bar bya’o // de ltar gzhi lam ’bras bu’i don bsdus pa / cung zad gsal bar byas pa’i dge ba des I ma lus ’gro kun ’od gsal don rtogs nas I don gnyis lhun grub chos kyi rgyal por shog // bio gros chu gter yangs pa’i mtsho gling na / bslab gsum klu dbang rin chen gdeng kas mdzes I chos dkar yon tan grags pa bzang po can I bstan pa’i gsal byed yun du gnas gyur cig // lung rig man ngag snying po’i bcud bsdus te / ji ltar sbobs bzhin gsal bar byas pa des / ma lus ’gro kun thar pa’i lam bgrod de / dpal ldan don gnyis lhun gyis grub par shog // dam pa khyed dang mjal bar spro na yang / dus dang gnas kyis cung zad skal par gyur / phyi dus yon tan ’byor pas yongs gang ba’i / dag pa’i zhing du lhan cig mjal bar smon // dam pa khyed kyis dris pa’i lan ’di ni / rtogs dka’i gnas te ’on kyang cha shas tsam / ji ltar nus shing [393] kho bos nges pa’i gnas / yi ger bkod nas phyag tu gus pas ’bul // sems dang ye shes brtag pa’i man ngag ces bya ba / gangs ri thod dkar nas chos smra ba’i bsam gtan pa tshul khrims bio gros kyis / slob dpon chos grags bzang po’i phyag tu phul ba phyogs dus gnas skabs thams cad du ’jig rten dang ’jig rten las ’das pa’i dpal phun sum tshogs par mnga’ dbang ’byor zhing / ’gro ba thams cad kyi dkar po rnam par ’phel bas thar pa chen po’i grong khyer mchog tu ’bad pa med par phyin par gyur cig // sarvam mangalam / dge’o / dge’o / dge’o //

Abbreviations

add. addidit = added

D Derge edition of bsTan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei: SMC Publishing 1991.

onr. omittit or omisit = omits or omitted.

P Peking edition of bsTan ’gym; The Tibetan Tripitaka. Tokyo/ Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute 1957.

Primary sources

Abhisamayalamkara - Th. Stcherbatsky & E. Obermiller (eds.), Abhisama- ydlamkara-Prajhapdramita-Upadesa-Sastra: The Work of Bodhisattva Maitreya. Part 1: Introduction, Sanskrit Text and Tibetan translation. Reprint: Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica 99. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1992 [‘1929]. AK - Abhidharmakosakarika (Vasubandhu) - P. Pradhan (ed.), Abdhidhar- makosabhasya of Vasubandhu. Tibetan Sanskrit Work Series 8. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute 1967. bLa ma yang tig (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - In sNying thig ya bzhi (see below) vols. 1-2.

Bodhicaryavatara (Santideva) - Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya (ed.), Bodhi- caryavatara. Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society 1960. bSam gtan ngal gso ’grel (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - rDzogs pa chen po bSam gta ngal gso’i ’grelpa shing rta rnam par dag pa. In Ngal gso skor gsum vol. 3. Chos dbyings mdzod ’grel (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Chos dbyings rin po che ’i mdzod kyi ’grel pa Lung gyi gter mdzod. mDzod bdun vol. 3, 83—765. Grub mtha ’ mdzod (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Theg pa mtha ’ dag gi don gsal bar byedpa Grub mtha’ rinpo che'i mdzod. mDzod bdun vol. 2. gSung thor bu (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Kun mkhyen Klong chenpa Dri med ’od zer gyi gSung thor bu. Reproduced from xylographic prints from A ’dzom ’brug pa chos sgar blocks. 2 vols. Gangtok. Perna Thinley n.d.

gSung thor bu (sde dge) (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Kun mkhyen Klong chen pa Dri med ’od zer gyi gSung thor bu. Reproduced from xylographic prints from Sde dge blocks. 2 vols. Delhi. Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimey 1982.

Guhyagarbhatantra. See Dorje 1987.

’Jigs gling gsung 'bum - The A-'dzom chos-sgar redaction of the Collected Works of Kun-Mkhyen Jigs-med gling-pa Rang-byung rdo-rje mkhyen- brtse ’i 'od-zer. 14 vols. Paro: Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Demy 1985-.

Katha Upanisad with the original text in Sanskrit and Roman transliteration. tr. and ed. Narayan Prasad, Muni. Rediscovering Indian literary classics 7. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld Ltd. 1998.

Kun mkhyen dri med 'od zer gyi rnam thar mthong ba don Idan. In Kun mkhy­en klong chen rab 'byams kyi rnam thar. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1994, 167-232. (Also in sNying thigya bzhi vol. 6,499-589)

Mahaprajhaparamitdsastra. See Lamotte, Etienne. mDzod bdun (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - mDzod bdum. Mdzod bdun: The Famed Seven Treasuries of Vajrayana Buddhist Philosophy. 7 vols. Gangtok: Sherab Gyaltsen and Khyentse Labrang 1983.

MAv - Madhyamakavatara par Candrakirti'. Traduction Tibetain. Publiee par Louis de la Vallee Poussin. Bibliotheca Buddhica IX. St. - Petersbourg 1907-1912. MAvBh - Candrakirti. Madhyamakavatdrablidsya. Tibetan, Derge edition, translated by Pa tshab Nyi ma grags and Tilaka(kalasa), D no. 3862. MSA-Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra. Edited by S. Levi. Paris: Champion 1925. Mulamadhyamakakdrikd (Nagarjtina) - Madhyamikavrtti (with Mulama­dhyamakakdrikd). Ed. Louis de la Vallee Poussin, Bibliotheca Buddhica 4. St. Petersburg: The Imperial Academy of Sciences 1903-1913.

Ngal gso skor gsum (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - rDzogs pa chenpo ngal gso skor gsum. Reproduced from xylographic prints from A ’dzom ’brug pa chos sgar blocks. 3 vols. New Delhi 1999. Nyi zla sgron me (Yon tan rgya mtsho, Mkhan po yon dga’) - Yon tan rin po che’i mdzod kyi 'grelpa Nyi zla sgron me. 3 vols. In Snga ’gyur bka' ma 'i chos sde ’i glegs ba so brgyadpa series published by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Bodhnath, Nepal, (n.d.) NyKs - rNying ma bKa’ ma shin tu rgyas pa 120 vols. Compliled at Katok Monastery by students of Kenpo Munsel and Kenpo Jamyang. Chengdu: 1990. Phyogs bcu mun sei (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - dPal gsang ba snying po de kho na nyid nges pa ’i rgyud kyi 'grel pa phyogs bcu 'i mun pa thams cad rnam par sei ba. In NyKs vol. 68, pp. 5-683. See also Dorje 1987.

Pramanavarttika (Dharmaklrti) - Pramdnavdrttikakarika (Sanskrit and Tibetan). Ed. by Ytisho Miyasaka. Acta Indologica II. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji 1971/2. Rang byung rdo rje gSung 'burn (Rang byung rdo rje, Third Karmapa) - Rang byung rdo rje gsung 'bum, vol. 1-16. Ziling: mTshur phu mkhan po lo yag bkra shis 2006. rDo rje sems dpa’ snying gi me long - In rNying ma’i rgyud bcu bdun: Collected Nyingmapa Tantras of the Man ngag sde Class of the A ti yo ga (rDzogs chen). 3 vols. New Delhi: Sanje Dorje 1973, vol. 1, 315-388.

rDzogs pa chen po Tshig don bcu gcig pa. mKhas pa Nyi ma ’bum. Lhasa: Bod ljongs dmangs dpe skrun khang 2008. RGV - Ratnagotravibhaga Mahdydnottaratantrasastra. Ed. E. H. John­son. Patna: Bihar Research Society 1950. (Includes Ratnagotravibhaga- vydkhyd.) RGVt - Critical edition of Tibetan translation of Ratnagotravibhaga Maha- yanottaratantrasastra. See Nakamura, Zuiho. RGVV - Ratnagotravibhagavydkhyd (see RGV)

Sems nyid ngal gso ’grel (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - rDzogs pa chen po Sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel pa Shing rta chen po. Ngal gso skor gsum vols. 1-2. Sems ye dris lan (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan. gSung thor bu vol. 1, 377.2-393. sGyu ma ngal gso ’grel (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - rDzogs pa chen po sGyu ma ngal gso’i ’grelpa Shing rta bzangpo. Ngal gso skor gsum vol. 2. sNying thig ya bzhi - Klong chen rab ’byams pa et al. sNying thig ya bzhi. 11 vols. New Delhi: Trulku Tsewang, Jamyang and L. Tashi 1970-71. sPyi don legs bshad rgya mtsho (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Ngal gso skor gsum gyi sPyi don legs bshad rgya mtsho. In Ngal gso skor gsum vol. 3. SY (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Sems dang ve shes kyi dris lan. See SYa, SYd, SYk.

SYa (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Sems dang ve shes kyi dris lan. gSung thor bu vol. 1, 377.2-393. SYd (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan. gSung thor bu (sde dge) vol. 1, 292.3-304. SYk (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Sems dang ye shes brtag pa ’i man ngag. Manuscript copy of SY: NyKs, vol. 49, 344-365. Theg mchog mdzod (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Theg mchog rin po che’i mdzod. mDzod bdun pt. 1 in vol 5, 37-1185 and pt. 2 in vol. 6.

Tk - gTing skyes edition of the NG. rNying ma ’i rgyud ’bum'. A Collection of Treasured Tantras Translated during the Period of the First Propagation of Buddhism in Tibet. 36 vols. Thimbu, Bhutan: Dingo Khyentse Rimpoche 1973-75. Tshig don mdzod (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - gSang ba bla na med pa ’Od gsal rdo rje snying po’i gnas gsum gsal bar byedpa’i Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod. mDzodbdun. vol. 4. Yid bzhin mdzod ’grel (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Thegpa chenpo’i bstan bcos Yid bzhin rin po che’i mdzod kyi ’grel pa Padma dkar po. mDzod bdun vol. 7, 139-1591. Yon tan mdzod ’grel (’Jigs med gling pa Mkhyen brtse ’od zer) - Yon tan rin po che’i mdzod kyi rgya cher ’grel rnam mkhyen shing rta. In JLsb vol. 1-4. Zab don snying po (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Zab don snying po. In Zab mo yang tig vol. 1, sNying thig ya bzhi vol. 12. Zab mo yang tig (Klong chen rab ’byams pa) - Zab mo yang tig. sNying thig ya bzhi vol. 12-13. Secondary sources

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

Arguillere, Stephane. Vaste Sphere de Profusion —La vie, I’ceuvre et la pen- see de Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet 1308-1364). Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 167. Louvain: Peeters 2007. Barron, Richard (tr.). A Marvelous Garland of Rare Gems: Biographies of Masters of Awareness in the Dzogchen Lineage: A Spiritual History of the Teachings of Natural Great Perfection. Junction City: Padma Publishing 2005. An annotated translation of Smyo shul mkhan po’s Rang bzhin rd­zogs pa chen po’i chos ’byung rig 'dzin brgyudpa’i rnam mthar Ngo mt- shar nor bu bai du rya’iphreng ba (see above).

Brunnholzl, Karl. In Praise of Dharmadhatu by Ndgdrjuna, Commentary by the IIIrd Karmapa. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion 2007. Dainton, Barry. Stream of Consciousness: Unity and Continuity in Conscious Experience. London: Routledge 2000. Davidson, Ronald. The Litany of Names of Manjusri. In: Michael Strickman (ed.), Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein. Bruxelles: Institut Beige des Hautes Etudes Chinoises 1981, 169.

Doboom, Lama Doboom Tulku (ed.). Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives, New Delhi: Mahohar 1995. Dorje, Gyurme. The Guhyagarbhatantra and its XIVth Century Tibetan Commentary, Phyogs-bcu mun-sel. Ph.D. thesis, the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1987.

Eckel, Malcolm. Jhanagarbha's Commentary on the Distinction between the Two Truths: An Eighth-Century Handbook of Madhyamaka Philosophy. New York: N.Y. State University Press 1987. Eltschinger, Vincent. Ignorance, epistemology and soteriology (1). Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32/1-2, 2009 (2010), 39-83. Fasching, Wolfgang. Consciousness, self-consciousness, and meditation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1, 2008, 463-483. Fontana, David. Meditation. In: M. Velmans & S. Schneider (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell 2007, 154- 162. Franco, Eli. Dharmakirti on Compassion and Rebirth. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 38. Vienna: Arbeitskreis fiir tibet- ische und buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien 1997.

Griffiths, Paul. On Being Mindless'. Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co. 1991. Guenther, Herbert. Kindly Bent to Ease Us. 3 vols. Emeryville, California: Dharma Publishing 1975-1976. [An annotated translation of the root texts of Klong chen pa’s Ngal gso skor gsum.)

Higgins, David. On the rDzogs chen Distinction Between Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes): Clarifications and Transcendental Arguments (forthcoming). Husserl, Edmund. On the Phenomenology of Consciousness of Internal Time (1893-1917), tr. by J.B. Brough. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991. Jackson, David. Enlightenment by a Single Means. Beitrrige zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 12. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1994. Karmay, Samten. The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1988. . King Tsa/Dza and Vajrayana. The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History, Myth, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point 1998, 76-93 (reprint of 1981). La Vallee Poussin, Louis de (tr.). L’Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. 6 vols. Societe Beige d’Etudes orientales. Paris: Geuthner; Louvain: Istas 1923- 1931. Lalou, Marcelle. Contribution a la bibliographic du Kanjur et dn Tanjur: Les textes bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri-sron-lde-bcan. Journal Asiatique 1953, 313-354. Lamotte, Etienne. Le Traite de la grand vertue de sagesse de Ndgarjuna (Maha- prajhdpdramitdsdstra). Tome I-V. Pubheations de l’lnstitut Orientaliste de Louvain. Louvain: Universite de Louvain 1944-1980.

Legrand, Dorothee. Two senses for ‘givenness of consciousness.’ Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8, 2009, 89-94. Maeda, Takashi. DakarnavamahayoginTtantrardia, Chapter 15 (1): Sanskrit Edi­tion with Tibetan Translation. In: Sravakabhumi Study Group and Buddhist Tantric Texts Study Group (ed.), Studies in the Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. Tokyo: Sankibo Press 1995. Makransky, John. Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet. sNying thig ya bzhi Series in Buddhist Studies. Albany: SUNY Press 1997. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within : Go Lotsawa’s Maha- mudra Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhdga. Somerville: Wisdom Pub­lications 2008. Matilal, Bimal Krishna. Ignorance or Misconception? - A Note on Avidya in Buddhism. In: Somaratna Balasooriya et al. (eds), Buddhist Studies in honour ofWalpola Rahula. London, etc.: Gordon Fraser 1980, 154-164.

Mejor, Marek. On the sevenfold classification of the negative particle (nah) (Grammatical explanation of a-vidya in Vasubandhu’s Pratityasamutpada- vydkhyd). In: Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought'. In Honor of Doctor Haiime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten 2002, 87-100. Nakamura, Zuiho. Zdwa-taiyaku Kukyoichijohoshoron-kenkyu. (Critical edition and Japanese translation of Tibetan versions of Mahayanottaratantrasastra known as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos based on Derge, Narthang and Peking Tangyur editions.) Tokyo: Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan 1967. Naranjo, Claudio and Ornstein, Robert E. On the Psychology of Meditation. New York: Viking Press 1972. Obermiller, E., ed. Prajha-Pdramitd-Ratna-Guna-Samcaya-Gdtha: Sanskrit & Tibetan Text. Bibliothetica Indo-Buddhica Series 97, 1937 (reprint: Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications 1992).

Roerich, George N. The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1988. Schmithausen, Lambert. Textgeshichtliche Beobachtungen zum 1. Kapitel der Astasahasrika Prajhaparamita. In: Lewis Lancaster & Luis O. Gomez (eds.), Prajhaparamita and Related Systems'. Studies in Honor of Edward Conze. Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 1. Berkeley: University of California Press 1977, 35-80. . Alayavijhana'. onthe Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogacara Philosophy. 2 vols. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 4. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies 1987.

SeyfortRuegg, David. La Theorie du Tathagatagarbha etdu Gotra'. Etudes sur la Soteriologie et la Gnoseologie du Bouddhisme. Publications de l’Ecole fran- caise d’Extreme Oriente 70. Paris: Ecole francaise d’Extreme Oriente 1969.

. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective. London: School of Oriental and African Studies 1989. . Aspects of the Investigation of the (Earlier) Indian Mahayana. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27/1, 2004, 3-62.

Takasaki, Jikido. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathagata-garbha Theory of Mahayana Buddhism. Serie Orientale Roma 33. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente 1966. Tauscher, Helmut. Verse-Index of Candrakirti’s Madhyamakavatdra (Tibetan Versions). Wien: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien 1989. Thompson, Evan. Mind in Life'. Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2007.

Tillemans, Tom. Materials for the Study ofAryadeva, Dharmapala and Can- drakirti. 2 vols. Wien: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien 1990. Wangchuk, Dorji. The rNin-ma Interpretations of the Tathagatagarbha Theory. Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies 48, 2005, 171-213. . The Resolve to Become a Buddha'. A Study of the Bodhicitta Concept in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 23. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies 2007.

. Cross-Referential Clues for a Relative Chronology of Klong chen pa’s Works. In: Orna Almogi (ed.), Contributions to Tibetan Buddhist Literature. PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar ofthe International AssociationforTibetan Studies. Konigswinter 2006. Beitrage zur Zentralasienforschung. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies 2008, 195- 244. Wayman, Alex and Wayman, Hideko. The Lion’s Roar of Queen Srimdla: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathagatagarbha Theory. New York: Columbia University Press 1974. Wiley, Kristi L. Historical Dictionary of Jainism. Toronto: The Scarecrow Press 2004 Yuyama, Akira (ed.), Prajha-paramitd-ratna-guna-samcaya-gatha (Sanskrit Recension /I): Edited with an Introduction, Bibliographical Notes and a Tibetan Versionfrom Tunhuang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1976.