An Ocean of Buddhist Intellectual Culture in Two Intertextual Drops: Parallel Text &amp; Issues Pertaining to Rongzom&#39;s Doctrine of &quot;Mere Appearance&quot; (snang tsam).

dominic  sur

This article adds to the body of scholarship examining intertextuality within Buddhist literature by identifying significant textual parallels between the Acintyamahāmudrā (Eng. The Inconceivable Great Seal) ascribed to Tilopa and the doctrinal discourse of the master work of the eleventh century defender of the Great Perfection, Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo, the Theg chen tshul'jug (Eng. Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle). In presenting these preliminary findings and using them as a touchstone for preliminary reflections on larger issues of textual modularity, communal authorship, received tradition, and the social and historical contexts of eleventh century Tibet, we do not claim to exhaust the issues or ensuing questions. Rather we aim to contribute to our understanding by exploring hitherto unstudied intertextual associations structuring one of the most important works in the Nyingma or "Old School"––and its core doctrinal theme of mere appearance (snang tsam).

AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE IN TWO INTERTEXTUAL DROPS: PARALLEL TEXT AND ISSUES PERTAINING TO RONGZOM’S DOCTRINE OF “MERE APPEARANCE” (SNANG TSAM)1 DOMINIC SUR 0. Introduction Phyag rgya chen po bsam gyis mi khyab pa (Acintyamahāmudrā) is the title of a work2 documented in the tantra (rgyud) section of the “comparative” edition of the Bstan ’gyur,3 known as the Dpe bsdur ma,4 where it is attributed to a Tillipa (Tilopa). As a macrotext,5 it comprises eight 1 My thanks to Drs. David Germano (University of Virginia) and James Gentry (Stanford University) who read an earlier draft of this paper and offered indispensable criticisms and suggestions. My two blind reviewers also deserve my thanks. 2 Throughout, I use terminology drawn from Chaim Milikowski (1999, 2006; cf. Silk 2015: 206; Sernesi 2015: 460, n. 4): discourse will refer here to “linguistic communicative acts;” copy, document, and witness refer to a written record while text specifies graphemic representation. The term work here refers to the hypothetical class that subsumes all the various textually documented instances of it. Cf. Silk 2015: 206. Here, the work is not unlike a platonic form; and the various documented texts individual – mortal, fallible – instances of it. While the ontology of such a scheme remains rightly under assault in terms of both author (cf. Foucault 1980) and work (cf. Silk 2015: 209–210), the nomenclature retains heuristic value for our effort. 3 Unless otherwise noted, all citations of this work refer to the text of the Phyag rgya chen po bsam gyis mi khyab pa (Acintyamahāmudra [(a tsin+tya ma hā muḥ dra) sic]) in Bka’ ’gyur Dpe bsdur ma, Tōh. 2305[–2312], Rgyud, wi–zhi, vol. 26 (Beijing: Krung go’i dpe skrun khang, 2006–2009), 1631–1654. 4 The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau (bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang) of the China Tibetology Research Center (krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas) in Beijing published the so-called comparative edition (Dpe bsdur ma) of the Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur, which are based on recensions documented in the Sde dge edition while noting variations found in seven additional editions of the Kangyur – i.e., Choné, Kangxi, Lhasa, Lithang, Narthang, Ulan Bator, and Yongle; the Bstan ’gyur Dpe bsdur ma also notes variations in accordance with three editions of the Tengyur: Beijing, Choné, and Narthang. 5 The use of Hebraist literary nomenclatures incorporating such categories as macrotext/ macroform, microtext/microform, and lemmata within Buddhist Studies of intertextuality is found in Mayer 2015, Sernesi 2015, and Silk 2015. Sernesi (2015: 471), citing Fraade Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 43 • 2020 • 215–252 • doi: 10.2143/JIABS.43.0.3289057 216 DOMINIC SUR poetic microtexts or sections, each labeled “advice to, for, or about” (… la gdams pa) a particular audience.6 This paper documents textual parallels found between two microtexts in the Acintyamahāmudrā and one microtext, as well as several other passages of note, in an important work of the eleventh century translator and polymath, Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (hereafter Rongzom/pa), namely The Exegetical Treatise Entitled Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle (Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos bzhungs so), hereafter Theg chen tshul ’jug, which is considered a defense of Great Perfection.7 Chapter six of Acintyamahāmudrā, a poem labeled “Advice for Scholars of the Vedas” (rig byed mkhan la gdams pa), is given in ninety-two 7-syllable lines composed into twenty-three four-line verses. Rongzom’s prose contains twelve of these ninety-two lines along with a number of notable tropes and themes. Chapter seven of Acintyamahāmudrā, “Advice for Illusionists” (sgyu ma mkhan la gdams pa),8 contains seventy-four 9-syllable lines, fifty-six (1999), describes the micro and macro form text paradigm used in Hebraist scholarship looking at literature deeply oral in nature as having a comparable context for application in textual studies of pre-modern religious literature in Tibet, where oral and written dimensions are closely related. 6 The Dpe bsdur ma edition divides the text as follows: (1) “Advice for Yogins” (Tōh. 2305: rnal ’byor pa la gdams pa), 1631.15–1634.4; (2) “Advice for the Powerful” (Tōh. 2306: mthu can la gdams pa), 1634.6–1636.6; (3) “Advice for Singers” (Tōh. 2307: glu mkhan la gdams pa), 1636.8–1638.11; (4) “Advice for Non-Buddhist Extremists” (Tōh. 2308: mu stegs la gdams pa), 1638.11–1640.13; (5) “Advice for Butchers” (Tōh. 2309: shan pa la gdams pa), 1640.15–1642.14; (6) “Advice for Scholars of the Vedas” (Tōh. 2310: rig byed mkhan la gdams pa), 1642.16–1645.1; (7) “Advice for Illusionists” (Tōh. 2311: sgyu ma mkhan la gdams pa), 1645.3–1647.20; and (8) “Advice for Strumpets” (Tōh. 2312: smad ’tsong la gdams pa), 1648.1–1650.5. For a list of where this work is found in other collections, see Torricelli 2007. We note, here, the assignment of individual catalog numbers to each chapter, a consideration we return to in section eight. 7 As is well-known, Great Perfection (rdzogs pa chen po) was an object of criticism during the so-called Tibetan renaissance, a transformative period of cultural rebirth beginning in the eleventh century. On Rongzom’s extant work and pedagogical influence on the Old School (rnying ma) of Tibetan Buddhism, see Sur 2017b. For a general introduction to, and translation of, his œuvre, see Sur 2017a. For a general description of the Rongzom’s place in Buddhist intellectual history and a brief overview of the contents of Theg chen tshul ’jug, see pp. 1–35. 8 This advice is perhaps given to a yogin named Bzhin bzang, which means something like “nice face” or “lovely countenance,” and whose name is invoked in the first verse. For Sanskrit equivalents of this term, such as bhadramukha, see Negi 5330–5331. At the opening AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 217 of which are reproduced in the text of Theg chen tshul ’jug, mostly in the context of Rongzom’s discussion of “mere appearance” (snang ba tsam)9, a doctrine that has recently been characterized “unprecedented in the world of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.”10 Evidence for intertextual association below begins in section one, which identifies two verses in the Acintya that are almost verbatim in the Theg chen tshul ’jug’s discussion of the nature of bodhicitta (byang chub kyi sems). Obvious parallels are also given in §§ 4, 6–7; it now would appear of the seventh section of the Acintya, the audience is told to heed these words (1645.3–6): in “all the doctrinal discourses associated with the Muni (thub pa’i gsung rab rnams) that teach the way of the Great Vehicle” (theg pa’i tshul chen), the Conqueror proclaimed all phenomena to be like an illusion, mirage, dream, reflection, and emanation (theg pa’i tshul chen thub pa’i gsung rab rnams/ /rgyu ma lta bur rgyal bas rab tu gsungs/). 9 Examples in section six below, in particular, form a microtext in Theg chen tshul ’jug concerned with establishing the illusory nature of mere appearance. In Theg chen tshul ’jug, penetrating illusory (māyopamā, sgyu ma lta bu) mere appearances signifies the unreal equality (or equal unreality) of all phenomena, which is the key to penetrating the inseparability of the two truths (RZSB 1.460.1–5; Eng. in Sur 2017a: 91); see also RZSB 1.460.1– 15. The inseparability of the two truths (bden gnyis dbyer med) is central to Rongzom’s philosophical discourse on reality (cf. Almogi 2009: 199) and the path of spiritual transformation (cf. Wangchuk 2004: 194, n. 83). An example of this is found in his miscellaneous essays (gsung thor bu), where the inseparability of the two truths as connected with tathāgatagarbha (RZSB 2.30.5–7). 10 Wangchuk 2009: 225. A proper evaluation of Wangchuk’s characterization of the doctrine of mere appearance as Rongzom’s unprecedented doctrine lies beyond the scope of the present study, which aims to document parallels and raise questions. This paper does demonstrate prima facie evidence that nevertheless suggests the need for a reevaluation of Wangchuk’s claim if the Acintya is indeed assumed to be authored by someone other than Rongzom, himself (see section eight below), presumably prior to the composition of Theg chen tshul ’jug. Questions about the originality and authorship of such a discourse merit further study. Central concerns of these work are linked to larger issues of textual transmission, authorship, and the sociology of so-called received tradition. In this context, the text in the RZSB (1999) edition is itself significant for a number of reasons regardless of any more pristine reading that may be offered by the much-anticipated critical edition of Theg chen tshul ’jug that is being constructed by Khenpo Tashi Dorjee (Mkhan po Bkra shis rdo rje) of the Ngagyur Nyingma Research Center of the Ngagyur Nyingma Institute at Namdroling monastery in Bylakuppe, Mysore District, Karnataka, India. I have not seen evidence for significantly dissimilar text preceding that found in the 1999 edition, which is based upon Mipham’s work (see §8 below). Moreover, the various editions of Theg chen tshul ’jug I have examined have not evinced significant dissimilarities. Lastly, the number of coincidences between the RZSB (1999) edition and the Dpe bsdur ma edition of the Acintyamahāmudrā is itself remarkable – and indicative of processes more complex than those described here. 218 DOMINIC SUR that §§2, 3, and 5 exhibit what may be structural and tropical elements further suggestive of subtle associations between Acintya and Theg chen tshul ’jug. In section two, we examine tropical elements in verses two and three of the Acintya that function as lemmata Rongzom uses to structure his own characterization of Great Perfection. Section three considers the trope of the illusory so central to Theg chen tshul ’jug. Section four identifies two verses concerning jñānayoga in the Acintya that collapse into a sentence expressing Rongzom’s concise teaching on Great Perfection. Section five examines thematic lemmata structuring the rubrics organizing Theg chen tshul ’jug. Section six marks extensive and contiguous representation of text from the Acintya comprising microtext in Rongzom’s discourse on the illusory.11 Several interesting parallels are confirmed in section seven. Section eight turns to passages in the dkar chag contained in RZSB (1999) for insight into the text we have today for concluding reflections about the implications of the intertextual parallels demonstrated below.12 1. Intertextual parallel in chapter five of Theg chen tshul ’jug: embedded text The following eight lines in Acintya are given almost verbatim into a passage of Theg chen tshul ’jug. Read side-by-side, Rongzom’s prose exhibits the hallmarks of an exegetical word commentary (tshig ’grel) on the two quatrains from the Acintya, as if he were engaged in a kind of commentarial gloss of these lines.13 These verses extoll the qualities of phenomena, 11 Subsections are used to mark contiguity of text documented in Theg chen tshul ’jug – i.e., when the parallel structures run together to form passages and microtexts. 12 Below, bold designates what may be verbatim parallels while underline indicates instances that may constitute paraphrase or elaboration. 13 Describing the broad conception of commentary in Tibetan intellectual culture, Dreyfus (2003: 184) links the work of tshig ’grel to a description given in Fraade 2003: 1: “commentaries … can be said to exhibit the following structural traits: they begin with an extended base-text, of which they designate successive subunits for exegetical attention, to each of which they attach a comment or chain of comments, which nevertheless remain distinct from the base-text, to which the commentary sooner or later returns (that is, advances) to take up the next selected sub-unit in sequence.” Cf. Griffiths (1991: 81) on the three essential characteristics of commentary referenced by Dreyfus (2003: 375, n. 1). AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 219 the path, and attainment. The verses invoke an interesting ontological metaphor: an island of gold on which no stone is found.14 Moreover, it should be noted that Rongzom’s use of these verses advances his particular concept of bodhicitta, it’s nature and scope, along with its relevance for the path. Lastly, where the second Acintya verse makes use of a trope on play (līlā, rol ba),15 Rongzom uses the occasion to insert the figure of Samantabhadra, a symbolic element integral to Rongzom’s discourse on Great Perfection.16 Acintyamahāmudrā (1644.16–20): /phyi nang snang srid chos rnams kun/ /rang bzhin gnyis med gdod nas dag/ /lam gyis bcos nas bsgrub17 tu med/ /rtsol med lhun gyis grub pa’o/ /gser gyi gling na rdo med ltar/ /phyi nang bsdus pa’i chos rnams la/ /skyon zhes ming yang ma grub ste/ /thams cad rol pa’i rgyan du ’gyur18/ 14 Cf. Tōh. 2287: Phyag rgya chen po rdo rje’i glu (Mahāmudrāvajragīti), found in Bstan ’gyur, vol. 26, Rgyud, wi–zhi: /gser gling nas sa rdo btsal mi rnyed/ The same metaphor is found, among other places, given in the STMG attributed to Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes (374.01–374.02): dper na ’dzam bu gser gling na sa rdo btsal gyi mi rjed pa bzhin no/; this metaphor is also used in Bonpo philosophical discourse: see Klein and Wangyal 2006: 94. 15 The significance of the word play (līlā, rol ba) in this can be usefully compared with the concept of play employed in Johann Huizinga’s work, Homo ludens (2009). There, play is connected to religion and variously described as an interruption of a purely appetitive world, a world of its own that transcends the ordinary dimensions and telos of life. Play is, in some sense, irrational, beyond notions of good and bad, voluntary, and has a quality of freedom that delineates it from vicissitudes of ordinary (read: samsaric) life. Huizinga’s notion of play helps us to understand the trope, the play of Samantabhadra, to indicate living beyond the scope of karmic restriction, beyond good and bad, and totally free from the relentless telos, logic, and rules, of conditioning. 16 See, for example, Rongzom’s reference to the centrality of this trope vis-à-vis its inclusion in the early Great Perfection text known as Rdo rje tshig drug pa (RZSB 1.494.07– 494.11; Sur 2017a: 132): kun du bzang po’i rol pa gtsor smos pa ’di ni/ byang chub kyi sems rdo rje tshig drug pa las/ tshig dang po gnyis kyis ni byang chub sems kyi rang bzhin gol sa bcad pa dang bcas pa bstan to/ /tshig bar ma gnyis kyis ni byang chub sems kyi che ba kun tu bzang po’i rol pa’i rgyan mi ’gog par bstan to/ /tshig tha ma gnyis kyis ni byang chub sems kyi gzhag thams la bzla’ ba dang bcas par bstan to/ On this text, see Karmay (1988) 2007. 17 B, Snar: sgrub. 18 B, Snar: brgyan du khyer. 220 DOMINIC SUR Theg chen tshul ’jug (492.4–12):19 de la mdor bsdu’ na byang chub sems kyî20 rang bzhin ni/ phyi nang snang srid kyi chos thams cad gnyis su myed pa’i byang chub kyi sems/ snying po byang chub kyi rang bzhin du gdod ma nyid nas sangs rgyas te/ da lam gyis bcos shing gnyen pos bsgrub du myed de brtsal ba myed par lhun gyis grub pa’o/ /byang chub sems kyi che ba ni/ /dper na rin po che gser gling nas rdo’i ming yang myed do/ /thams cad gser gyi rang bzhin du gnas pa bzhin du/ phyi nang snang srid kyis bsdus pa’i chos thams cad la/ ’khor ba dang ngan song la stsogs te nyes skyon gyi chos su btags pa ni ming tsam yang myed de/ thams cad kun du bzang po’i rol pa’i rgyan ma ’gags pa tsam du snang ba de bzhin gshegs pa’i che ba nyid do/ 2. The opening of Acintyamahāmudrā: tropes in vv. 2–3 In verses two and three of Acintya, the author describes the ordinary, thematic mind (citta, sems) as bodhicitta (byang chub [kyi] sems) and the root of all phenomena (dharma, chos). In fact, the relation between bodhi and citta is described as non-dual (advaya, gnyis su med) such that the ordinary mind as such is said to be inextricably linked with naturally occurring gnosis (rang byung ye shes). Penetrating this reality, which seems less ontological or epistemological and more phenomenological in scope, is labeled “perfected” (sangs rgyas).21 Moreover, this realization is described as unstructured by any ordinary notions such as time, conception (gdod nas), or effort (grub med). These tropes are repeated in Rongzom, albeit without the inclusion or mention of the maṇḍala reference in the Acintya, though the maṇḍala as lemmata is included in the trope in other places. And Rongzom’s terminology differs slightly, as in gdod ma nyid nas sangs rgyas te. Acintyamahāmudrā (1631.17–21): /chos kun rtsa ba byang chub sems/ /rang bzhin gnyis su med pa’i phyir/ 19 Unless otherwise noted, all citations of Rongzom’s work refer to RZSB. Throughout, the circumflex is used to indicate gigu verso. 21 My use of the term phemenological in this context is not meant to invoke the philosophy of Husserl, but rather to refer to phenomena, things that appear (cf. Greek phainomenon) and are perceived/observed by sentient beings. As such, I wish to use the term phenomenology to organize descriptions of discourse that function in some sense to collapse the value of explicit and distinct ontological and epistemological registers. 20 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 221 /sems nyid rang byung ye shes te/ /ma ’dres yongs rdzogs rgyal ba’i thugs/22 /de nyid ji bzhin rtogs gyur na/ /sangs rgyas zhes ni de la bya/ /gdod nas gnas pa’i dkyil ’khor la/ /grub med sprul pa’i dkyil ’khor shar/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (477.13–15): de ltar stond pa’i rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul ’di yang mdor bsdus te bstan na/ chos thams cad kyi rtsa ba nî sems dang sems snang ba tsam du dus la/ sems kyi rang bzhin nyid byang chub yin pas byang chub kyî sems zhes bya’o/23 Theg chen tshul ’jug (492.4–7): de la mdor bsdu’ na byang chub sems kyî rang bzhin ni/ phyi nang snang srid kyi chos thams cad gnyis su myed pa’i byang chub kyi sems/ snying po byang chub kyi rang bzhin du gdod ma nyid nas sangs rgyas te/ da lam gyis bcos shing gnyen pos bsgrub du myed de brtsal ba myed par lhun gyis grub pa’o/24 Cf. RZSB (1.348.18): byang chub kyi sems rtsa ba nî snying rje chen po’o. We note this is the opening of chapter four, on Rigs pas mi gnod tshul. Cf. Acintya 1644.13: rigs pas gnod pa la sogs pa. Just below (527.5–6), we read: mdor na rdzogs pa chen po’i gzhung gis/ byang chub sems kyi rang bzhin dang/ byang chub sems kyî gzhag thabs gnyis la tshul tha dad myed de/ Cf. Man ngag lta phreng gi ’grel ba (RZSB 1.339.13– 14): sems kyi rang bzhin byang chub yin pas rdo rje lta bu ste/ de bas na thams cad nas thams cad du spang zhing dor bar bya ba’î chos myed pas kun tu bzang po’o/; and Theg chen tshul ’jug (526.7–9): chos thams cad kyi rang bzhin rdo rje sems dpa’i rang bzhin du sangs rgyas so zhe bya ba’i don to/; Theg chen tshul ’jug (526.16–18): mdor bsdu na chos thams cad ni byang chub kyi sems rdo rje sems dpa’i rang bzhin nam/ byang chub kyi sems kun tu bzang po’i rang bzhin du sangs rgyas te/ This grafts this trope onto the symbolism of tantra, generally, and the deities Samantabhadra and Vajrasattva, in particular. We also note the eleventh chapter of the Mtshams brag edition of the Kun byed rgyal po contains this trope in its title (cf. Norbu and Clemente 1999: 256). 24 See also the opening lines of Snang ba lhar bsgrub (RZSB 1.559.3–4): ye nas sangs rgyas pa yin pas da lam gyis sgrub pa lta bu ni ma yin no/; we also find these in Dkon cog ’grel (1.196.4–5): ye nas mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas pa yin gyi/ lam gyis bsgrub pa ni ma yin no/; Man ngag lta phreng gi ’grel ba (1.304.7–8): ye nas mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas pa/ da lam gyis bsgrub cing gnyen pos bcos su myed par bstan pa’i phyir ro/ Cf. Acintyamahāmudrā (1644.16–20) below and line 95 of Slob dpon Sangs rgyas gsang bas mdzad pa’i Lam rim chen mo (W19229): yang dag lam gyis bcos su med. 22 23 222 DOMINIC SUR Theg chen tshul ’jug (525.8–10): rtog pa’i sems nyid ngo bo nyid kyis ma grub na/ des bskyod pa’i ’dus byed kyî skyod pa rnams ga la ’grub ste/ de’i phyir sems nyid gnyis su myed pa’i byang chub kyi sems bde ba chen po’o/25 In the first excerpt from Rongzom, the Acintya text is represented as a concise description of the way of Great Perfection. In the second, the Acintya text is represented in Rongzom’s description of the nature of bodhicitta, according to his view of Great Perfection, as an all-encompassing phenomenon representing an effortless and liberating perfection.26 In the third excerpt, Rongzom’s text makes no mention of the jñāna or gnosis referenced in Acintya and instead uses the unreality of ideas and their unsettling karmic processes to infer that the mind as such qua non-dual bodhicitta consists in great bliss (mahāsukha, bde ba chen po). 3. The basic logic of Theg chen tshul ’jug: the fundamental trope A cornerstone of Rongzom’s presentation is that the illusory nature of all phenomena renders them equal in some significant (read: existential, epistemological) sense. This doctrinal assertion is so fundamental to Rongzom’s Theg chen tshul ’jug it is emphasized in the work’s description of its own opening chapter. Here, we see the fundamental trope shaping the logic of Rongzom’s phenomenological discourse on Great Perfection. The Acintya likewise equates illusion with equality, a link at the heart of Rongzom’s over-arching discourse on the nature of reality.27 25 Cf. Sur 2017a: 171: “if the conceptual mind as such is essentially unreal, how could it be the unsettling perturbations of karmic processes stoked by that conceptual mind are real? For that reason, the mind as such is the nondual bodhicitta great bliss.” This is stated in the context of legitimating a Mind Series (sems sde) style reading Great Perfection. On the general character of the Mind Series, see Sur 2017a: 28–29. 26 Rongzom’s text also links the concept of snying po byang chub, an important element of early Great Perfection discourse (Higgins 2013: 87), to those elements represented in the Acintya. 27 The centrality of this theme is evinced in its placement within Theg chen tshul ’jug. Here, we note these lines comprise the last sentence of Theg chen tshul ’jug, chapter one (435.7; Sur 2015: 58), “On the Reality of Affliction” (nyon mongs kyi mtshan nyid). We should also note the similar emphasis on this trope in the last sentence of Theg chen tshul ’jug, chapter two (458.17; Sur 2015: 87), “Objections & Replies” (brgal lan) to criticisms of Rongzom’s discourse on the reality of affliction, which reads: chos thams cad sgyu ma AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 223 Acintyamahāmudrā (1642.21–1643.1): /sgyu ma yin phyir rang bzhin mnyam/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (435.5–8): theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug par ’dod pa rnams kyi/ nyon mongs pa rnams la spang bar bya ba’i rdzas myed par shes par bya zhing/ chos thams cad sgyu ma lta bur ’go’ mnyam par bstan pa’i skabs te/ dang po’o// // (passim) 4. Trope linking Great Perfection with jñānayoga (shes pa’i rnal ’byor) In chapter six, “Advice for Scholars of the Vedas,” the Acintya describes jñānayoga (shes pa’i rnal ’byor) as a practice in which there is no mental or physical action whatsoever.28 The bases of all phenomena are said to be included in the mind and mental appearance. The ordinary, thematic mind pertains to the nature of enlightenment; and bodhicitta pertains to lta bur ’go mnyam par bstan pa la/ brgal lan bstan pa’i skab te gnyis pa’o// // The final lines actually state that chapter two should be understood as a teaching on this logic that whatever is illusory is fundamentally the same. The opening of chapter three of Theg chen tshul ’jug (458.19; Sur 2015: 89), which distinguishes Rongzom’s Great Perfection discourse on the illusory from other traditions that also employ the nomenclature of illusion again intones this trope, stating that one is capable of entering the Great Vehicle once they realize the illusory nature of all phenomena. The culmination of the Great Vehicle, Rongzom continues, is ascertaining the equality of all phenomena vis-à-vis their illusory nature. This alone, according to Theg chen tshul ’jug, constitutes the way of Great Perfection (458.19–21; Sur 2015: 89). Also critical for our understanding of Rongzom’s agenda is the explicit linking of the realization that is the culmination of penetrating the illusory – i.e., that whatever is illusory is fundamentally equal – to the realization of the inseparability of the two truths. For example, Rongzom writes: “Similarly, it is because of realizing and, in the end, assimilating the very basic equality of all phenomena according to the Great Perfection approach to the path that awareness thus remains undeluded by the influence of appearance, incapable of generating conceptual constructions, and unbiased, unmoved, and unexerted. Thus, the perfect realization of the illusory in this context pertains to the penetration, or consummation, of the realization of the indivisibility of the two truths”; de bzhin du rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul [460] gyis chos thams cad thams cad sgyu ma lta bur shin du ’go mnyam pa nyid du rtogs shing mthar phyin par khong du chud pas/ de bas na snang ba’i dbang gis blo mi rmongs shing mngon par ’du byed pa skyed mi nus shing/ mi len mi mdor mi g.yo mi rtsol lo/ de ltar sgyu ma lta bu mthar phyin par rtog pa ’di ni bden pa gnyis dbyer med par rtog pa’ang mthar phyin par grub pa yin no/ (459.24–460.5; Sur 2017a: 90–91). 28 On jñānayoga in the context of six-limbed yoga (ṣaḍaṅgayoga, rnal ’byor yan lag drug), see, for example, Sferra 2000. 224 DOMINIC SUR the ordinary mind as such. Several complete lines from the Acintya are represented in Theg chen tshul ’jug. The key difference is context: in the Acintya, it is jñānayoga while in Theg chen tshul ’jug, it is Great Perfection. Acintyamahāmudrā (1644.2–6): /de ltar shes pa’i rnal ’byor la/ /mi bya ci yang yod ma yin/ /lus kyi spyod29 pa la sogs med/ /nam mkha’i ri mo bzhin du blta30/ /chos rnams kun kyi rtsa ba ste31/ /sems dang sems snang tsam du ’dus/ /sems kyi rang bzhin byang chub la/ /byang chub kyang ni sems nyid do/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (477.13–15):32 de ltar stond pa’i rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul ’di yang mdor ’dus te bstan na/ chos thams cad kyi rtsa ba nî sems dang sems snang ba tsam du ’dus la/ sems kyi rang bzhin nyid byang chub yin pas byang chub kyî sems zhes bya’o// 5. Parallel thematic structure 5.1 A normative hierarchy of Buddhist theories Here and below, a particular structural similarity between Acintya and Theg chen tshul ’jug stands out as significant. Admittedly, this doxographical rubric is merely a commonly assumed (read: historically significant) categorical framework hierarchizing a normative, which is not to say accurate, account of “Buddhist” (sangs rgyas pa) philosophical theory (dṛṣṭi, lta ba). In the context of the parallels illustrated below, these rubrical elements may be seen as a minor parallel shaping an arena of dialog or interplay between Acintya and Theg chen tshul ’jug, one in which Rongzom is not in agreement with Acintya. 29 B, Snar: kyis bcos. B, Snar: lta. 31 B, Snar: gyis rtsa ba ni. 32 Note this is the opening of Theg chen tshul ’jug, chapter four (477.13–15; Sur 2017a: 111): and a characterization of Great Perfection (rdzogs pa chen po). 30 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 225 Acintyamahāmudrā (1644.6–8): /de ltar sems kyi rang bzhin de/ /nyan thos gang zag med par shes/ /rang rgyal zung33 don med par shes/ /rnal ’byor spyod pa34 gzung ’dzin med/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (417.10–13): sems kyi… rang bzhin ji lta ba yin pa dang/ /sems ’khrul pa’i gnas skabs dang/ /sems ma ’khrul ba’i gnas ba’i gnas skabs tsam shes pas/ /shes bya thams cad ’dus pa’i phyir te/ /nyon thos dang rang sangs rgyas kyi byang chub ltar/35 Theg chen tshul ’jug (417.18–419.19): di ltar nyan thos kyi tshul las… gang zag la bdag myed par rtogs pas/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (420.2–17): rang rgyal… nyon mongs pa rnams la rdzas kyi grangs nges par bzung36 ba mi rmyed do/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (420.17–19): rnal ’byor spyod pa rnams kyi tshul ltar na’ang/ khams gsum pa’i sems dang sems las byung ba/ yang dag pa ma yin pa’i kun du rtog pa’i mtshan nyid ni/ gang gi’ang gzung ba ma yin zhing gang la’ang ’dzin par byed pa ma yin te/ 5.1.1 On parallel thematic structure (cont.) These lines adjoin the example given above in §4.1 as an extension of the same passage, with the quatrain on doxography expanded to a sestet including two lines summarizing the nature of traditional distinctions. There are two assertions here: continuation of the doxographical element, albeit 33 B, Snar: gzugs. B, Snar: pa’i. 35 The function of this three-fold scheme – i.e., “the nature of mind just as it is, the circumstance of the confused mind, and the circumstance of the unconfused mind” (Sur 2017a: 39) – is a topic of exploration in a study I am currently preparing. 36 The missing ba in the Acintya is, arguably, a curious, but not unimaginably unexplainable dissonance. 34 226 DOMINIC SUR in apparent disagreement with a position found in Theg chen tshul ’jug; and the more interesting point: divisions in Buddhist vehicles (yāna, theg pa) are made from the point of a sentient being’s fixation on phenomenological appearance. In Acintya, we find the claim that “inconceivable divisions in vehicle pertain to the degree of karmic imprint associated with appearance” (snang ba’i bag chags che chung gis/ /theg pa’i dbye ba bsam mi khyab/). In Rongzom’s text, the same point is made in slightly different terms: “the entire hierarchy of theoretical perspectives merely correspond to the varying degrees of fixation or obsession on appearance as [real, solid] things” (lta ba mthon dman ni snang ba la dngos por zhen pa che chung gi bye brag tsam ste/). Acintyamahāmudrā (1644.8–10): /dbu mas don dam bden pa la/ /sngags kyi37 bden pa dbyer med rtogs/ /snang ba’i bag chags che chung gis/ /theg pa’i dbye ba bsam mi khyab/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (460.11–13): dbu ma pa… ’on kyang bden pa gnyis kyî blo mi ’dor bas/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (459.24–460.5): rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul… bden pa gnyis dbyer myed par rtogs pa’ang mthar phyin par grub pa yin no/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (459.4–5): de lta bas na lta ba mthon dman ni snang ba la dngos por zhen pa che chung gi bye brag tsam ste/ 6. Discourse on the doctrine of “mere appearance” (snang ba tsam) in chapter one This section catalogues an Acintya textual unit embedded in a large, contiguous passage within Theg chen tshul ’jug elaborating on Rongzom’s doctrine of mere appearance – specifically the ontological and epistemological nature of illusory appearance. Parallels given in §§6.1–6 indicate 37 B, Snar: kyis. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 227 the Dpe bsdur ma text of the Acintya that is embedded within, and elaborated upon, in three contiguous (twenty-four line) pages of the eighteen pages that comprise chapter one of the 1999 edition of Theg chen tshul ’jug (430.19–433.24). This means that seventy-two lines of Rongzom’s first chapter – roughly sixteen percent of the total chapter – is organized around explicating text found in the Acintya.38 6.1 Five exemplars of the illusory, beginning with illusion (māyā, sgyu ma)39 A phenomenological soteriology is outlined in Acintya using five classical exemplars for the nature of reality: illusion, mirage, dream, reflection, and emanation.40 In this chapter of Acintya, entitled “Advice for the Illusionist” (sgyu ma mkhan la gdams pa), the audience is told that in “all the Buddha’s doctrinal discourses that teach the great mode of conveyance” (theg pa’i tshul chen), the Buddha proclaims everything to be like an illusion, mirage, dream, reflection, and emanation. When this point is recognized, affliction to be relinquished is gone and a person is automatically free (shes na nyon mongs spang du med/ rang grol…). Beginning with illusion, Acintya also uses the example of an enchanted figurine. In discussing reflections, Acintya also states that when they happen, they “do not first arise from anywhere” (dang po gang nas kyang ni ma byung la). When such appearances cease, as well, Rongzom uses an idiom similar to Acintya. Appearances “cease at that moment. That is, they do not appear. Yet at that moment, they have not gone anywhere” (’gags shing mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song). In Acintya, the Tibetan phrase is almost identical: ’gags shing mi snang gyur tshe gang du’ang song ba med. 38 The content and context for this microform is notable. The combination of contiguous treatment within Theg chen tshul ’jug and the context of the microtext – an elaborate discourse on the nature of reality vis-à-vis the illusory nature of mere appearance – signal a philosophical association that requires analyses beyond the scope the present effort. 39 In this section, readers should note although Rongzom repeats several tropes, but I do not indicate them after the first instance. 40 These classic examples are also found, among other places, in literature from the Prajñāpāramitā text tradition, such as Tōh. 3787: Pañca-viṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñā-pāramitaupadeśa-śāstra-abhisamaya-alaṅkāra-vṛtti. The tropes and images in Acintya use the same exemplars in the same order, using roughly the same illustrations, and employing the same theory of appearance in the same idiom as Theg chen tshul ’jug. 228 DOMINIC SUR In this passage, we again note what appears to be word commentary upon verse. While exhaustive analysis of the ideological interplay – i.e., whether Theg chen tshul ’jug is in effect critiquing or replicating discourse in the Acintya – is beyond our current scope, we do note that Rongzom’s text is reflecting upon, rather than simply reinforcing, ideas in the Acintya. In Acintya, “appearance and non-appearance are unified qua their indistinguishable nature” (snang dang mi snang dbyer med mtshan nyid gcig). In Theg chen tshul ’jug, Rongzom states that both share in an indivisibly characteristicless character (dbyer med par mtshan nyid med par mtshan nyid) – and therefore share a single nature. Acintyamahāmudrā (1645.3–15): /bzhin bzang41 rnal ’byor brtson pas42 nga la nyon/ /legs so legs so khyod kyi43 mdzad pa legs/ /theg pa’i tshul chen thub pa’i gsung rab rnams/ /rgyu ma lta bur rgyal bas44 rab tu gsungs/ /chos rnams thams cad sgyu ma smig45 rgyu dang/ /rmi lam gzugs brnyan sprul par lta bu ru/ /legs par shes na nyon mongs spang du med/ /rang grol ye shes thub pa’i dgongs pa’o/ /khyod kyis rde’u shing bu la sogs la/ /sbyor ba goms pas46 sngags kyi bsnun pa na/ /skyes pa bud med rta dang glang po sogs/ /gzugs brnyan sna tshogs snang ba ’byung ba na/ /dang po gang nas kyang ni ma byung la/ /snang ba’i tshe na sgyu ma yin pa’i phyir/ /mtshan nyid47 gang yang yod min sgyu ma bsdus pa na/ /’gags shing48 mi snang gyur tshe gang du’ang song ba med/ /bsdus te49 mi snang gyur kyang skad cig rgyud50 ma chad/ /de ltar snang dang mi snang gnyis ka’i51 mtshan nyid med/ 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: Snar: bzangs. pa’i. kyis. ba’i. mig. ba. ma. ’gag cing. tshe. rgyun, perhaps the better reading. ka. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 229 Theg chen tshul ’jug (430.19–431.6): de bas na chos thams cad ni/ sgyu ma lta bu’o/ /smigs rgyu lta bu’o/ /rmi lam lta bu’o/ /gzugs brnyan lta bu’o/ /sprul pa lta bu’o zhes gsungs su/ /de la sgyu ma’i mtshan nyid gang zhe na/ ’di ltar sgyu ma mkhan gyis rde’u dang shing bu dang gseg ma la stsogs pa la ’dra’ gzugs byas te/ gyo mo la sngags kyis btab nas sbyor ba goms pas bsnun na/ skyes pa dang bud myed dang rta dang glang po la stsogs pa’i gzugs sna tshogs snang ba ’byung bar ’gyur te/ de dang po byung ba’i tshe na gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang sgyu ma yin pa’i phyir mtshan nyid gang yang yod pa ma yin/ sgyu ma bsdus nas ’gags shing mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song/ gang yang ’di skad du sgyu ma bsdus pa’i rkyen gyis dbang po’i spyod yul du ma gyurd nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ de’i skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cîng ldog pa’ang ma yin no zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ ’di’ ltar snang ba dang mi snang ba gnyi’ ga’ang mtshan nyid med par mtshan nyid gcig pa yîn mod kyi/ 6.2 Mirages (marīci, smig52 rgyu) as exemplars of the illusory The following verses in the Acintya, which build on discourse introduced in §6.1, characterize one exemplar of illusion, i.e., “mirage” (marīci, smig rgyu), in terms directly linking this discourse to the idea of mere appearance. Not only is the topic the same, the presence of each lemmata – details in the description of conditions accounting for “mere appearance” – and the logical outcome also constitute parallels. Acintyamahāmudrā (1645.15): /gcig gnyis53 yin phyir ji srid rkyen nyid dang/ /nye bar gnas par snang tsam mtshan nyid rdzogs/ /de bzhin smigs rgyu zhes bya54 mtshan nyid kyang/ /sa phyogs tsha sgo can la nye bar gnas/ /nyi mas gdung55 dang ser bu’i ’jol phyogs ’bab/ /rgyang nas bltas56 pas chu klung gang bar mthong/ 52 While the Acintya spells this term smig rgyu throughout, Theg chen tshul ’jug renders it smigs rgyu. 53 B, Snar: nyid. 54 B, Snar: mig rgyu zhes bya’i. 55 B, Snar: ma’i gdungs. 56 B, Snar: ltas. 230 DOMINIC SUR /de nyid byung dang57 snang ba ’gags pas kyang58/ /snang dang mi snang dbyer med mtshan nyid gcig59/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (431.6–20): jî srid de rkyen nye bar gnas kyi bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yong su rdzogs pa yin te/ ’di la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba nî gang yang myed pas sgyu ma sgyu ma zhes brjod do/ de la smigs rgyu’i mtshan nyid gang zhe na/ sa phyogs na sa rgo nye bar gnas pa dang/ nyi ma tsha bas gdungs pa dang ser bu’î bzhol phyogs su bab pa dang/ lta ba po rgyang ma gnas pa’î rkyen gyis/ klung chus gang ba lta bur snang ba ’byung bar ’gyur te/ de dang po byung ba’i tshe na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang rten gyi ’byung ba chen po myed pa’i phyir/ mtshan nyid gang yang yod pa ma yin/ nyi ma nub nas ’gags shîng mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song/ gang yang ’di skad du nyi ma nub pa’i rgyen gyis dbang po’i spyod yul du ma gyurd nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ de’i skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cing lkog pa’ang ma yin no zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ ’di’ ltar snang ba dang mî snang ba gnyi’ ga’ang mtshan nyid med par mtshan nyid gcig pa yin mod kyi/ ji srid du rkyen nye bar gnas kyi bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa yin te/ ’di la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba nî gang yang myed pas/ smigs rgyu smigs rgyu zhes bya’o/ Here, the prose in Rongzom appears to represent an elaboration what is represented in the Acintya. At this point, there must be more work done to determine whether Acintya, Theg chen tshul ’jug, or some other work constitutes a source for these lemmata in such discourse. 6.3 Dreams (svapna, rmi lam) as exemplars of the illusory As in §6.2, the following verses in the Acintya characterize one exemplar of illusion, i.e., “dreams” (svapna, rmi lam). In this case, the characterization is given in terms directly linking this discourse to the idea of “mere appearance” (snang tsam). As above, the presence of particular lemmata – details describing a causal phenomenology of mere appearance with 57 58 59 B, Snar: yang. B, Snar: pa’i yang. B, Snar: ’das. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 231 reference to such tropes as a pleasure grove or a prison – is represented in the philosophical discourse given in Theg chen tshul ’jug. Acintyamahāmudrā (1645.18–1646.2): /de nyid byung dang60 snang ba ’gags pas kyang61/ /snang dang mi snang dbyer med mtshan nyid gcig62/ /rmi lam zhes bya skyes bu gnyid log pas63/ /gnyid nang kun dga’ ra ba skyed mos64 tshal/ /longs spyod sna tshogs rmi zhing65 snang gyur kyang/ /btson ra khri mon sdug bsngal sna [1646] tshogs snang/ /skye dang gnas dang ’gag par ’gyur ba’i66 tshe/ /don gyi67 cha gzhan bsgrub68 par byas pa med/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (431.20–432.8): /de la rmi lam gyi mtshan nyid gang zhe na/ skyes bu gnyis69 kyis logs pa’i rmi lam na/ kun dga’i ra ba dang skyed mos tshal la stsogs te longs spyod kyi gnas kyang dmigs shing snang bar ’gyur la/ btson ra dang khri mun la stsogs te sdug bsngal gyi gnas kyang dmigs shing snang bar ’gyur te/ da dang po ’byung ba’i tshe na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang rmi lam yin pa’î phyir mtshan nyid gang [432] yang yod pa ma yin/ gnyid sad nas ’gags shing myi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song/ gang yang ’di’ skad du gnyid sad pa’i rkyen gyis dbang po’i spyod yul du ma gyurd nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ de’i skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cing ldog pa’ang ma yin no/ zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ snang ba dang mi snang ba gnyi’ ga dbyer myed par mtshan nyid myed par mtshan nyid gcig pa yin mod kyi/ ji srid du rkyen nye bar gnas kyî bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa yin te/ ’di la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba ni gang yang myed pas rmi lam rmi lam zhes brjod do/ 60 B, Snar: yang. B, Snar: pa’i yang. 62 B, Snar: ’das. 63 B, Snar: pa’i (perhaps a preferable reading). 64 B, Snar: mo’i. 65 B, Snar: dmigs cing. 66 B, Snar: ’gags par gyur pa’i. 67 Snar: gyis. 68 B, Snar grub. 69 This instance of text should be corrected to skyes bu gnyid in accordance with Acintyamahāmudrā (1645.20), which corresponds with text documented in BM (25.3), Msg (17r.3), NTh (27.3), and Th (76.5). 61 232 DOMINIC SUR 6.4 Reflections (pratibimba, gzugs brnyan) as exemplars of the illusory As in §§6.1–3, the Acintya continues its use of classical exemplars of illusion in terms of a causal phenomenology. In this case, the topic is a “reflection” (pratibimba, gzugs brnyan). The parallels in Rongzom’s prose appear to represent an elaboration of what is seen in the Acintya verse. The prose, in effect, details a causal phenomenology of an example of illusion, a reflection. Acintyamahāmudrā (1646.2–4): /gzugs brnyan zhes bya me long dag pa la/ /sna tshogs gzugs su snang bar gyur pa na70/ /skye ’gag la sogs rnam gzhag71 gzhan med pas/ /snang dang mi snang dbyer med mtshan nyid gcig/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (432.8–19): /de la gzugs brnyan gyi mtshan nyid gang zhe na/ ’di ltar me long la stsogs pa dang ba’i gzugs dang bzhin la rtsogs pa gsal ba’i gzugs nye bar gnas pa na/ gzugs brnyan snang ba ’byung bar ’gyur te/ de dang po byung ba’i tshe na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang rten gyi ’byung ba chen po myed pa’i phyir/ mtshan nyid gang yang yod pa ma yin/ rkyen zhig ma tshang bas ’gags shing mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song/ gang yang ’di’ skad ky rkyen ma tshang ba’i dbang gis dbang po’i spyod yul du ma gyurd nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ de’i skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cing ldog pa’ang ma yin no zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ snang ba dang mi snang ba gnyi’ ga’ang dbyer med par mtshan nyid myed par mtshan nyid gcig pa yin mod kyi/ ji srid du rkyen nye bar gnas kyi bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa yin te/ ’di’ la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba nî gang yang myed pas gzugs brnyan zhes bya’o/ 6.5 Emanations (nirmāṇa, sprul pa) as exemplars of the illusory In a continuation of the discourse organized around examples of illusion, this section concerns “emanation” (nirmāṇa, sprul pa). Acintya’s text is sparse; Rongzom’s text, which contains several tropes from above (cf. §6.1), offers a more detailed presentation. Rongzom uses elements of 70 71 B, Snar: dang. B, Snar: bzhag. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 233 the verse to elaborate upon the perfect character of what he terms mere appearance (snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa), which he gives in a rhetorical framework: a three-fold typology of emanations – those linked with gnosis (jñāna, ye shes), concentration (samādhi, ting nge ’dzin), and vidyā-mantra (rig sngags). Whereas the verse makes mention of flowers of various colors that appear as images of a tathāgata (de bzhin gshegs pa), Theg chen tshul ’jug specifies each apparent image, correlates it with a particular color, and then repeats the tropes mentioned above, in effect detailing a viable criteria for establishing the validity and scope of emanation as a subject of philosophical discourse.72 Acintyamahāmudrā (1646.4–7): /sprul pa zhes bya ye shes ting ’dzin nam/ /rig sngags grub pa’i mthu las byung gyur pa/ /me tog kha dog dbye ba’i rnam pa yis/ /de bzhin gshegs pa la sogs snang bar ’gyur/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (432.19–433.10): /de la sprul pa’i mtshan nyid gang zhe na/ ’di’ ltar ye shes kyi sprul pa’am/ tin nge ’dzin gyi sprul pa’am/ de ma yin pa rig sngags grub pa’i sprul pa dang kyang/ ’di ltar me tog dkar po la sngags kyis btab ste nam mkha’ la gtor na/ de bzhin gshegs pa stong snyed la stsogs pa nam mkha’ la bzhugs par snang bar ’gyur ro/ de bzhin du me tog ser po la btag ste gtog na dgra’ bcom pa mang po snang bar ’gyur ro/ me tog dmar po la btab ste gtor na lha’i rnam pa mang po snang bar ’gyur ro/ me tog sngon po la btab ste gtor na gnod sbyin dang sron po mang po snang bar ’gyur te/ dang po byung ba’i tshe na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang sprul pa yin pa’i phyir mtshan nyid gang yang yod pa ma yin/ sprul pa bsdus na ’gags shing mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du ma song/ gang yang ’di skad du sprul pa bsdus pa’i rkyen gyis dbang po’i spyod yul du ma gyurd nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ de’i skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cing ldog pa’ang ma yin no zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ snang ba dang mi snang ba gnyi’ ga’ang dbyer myed par mtshan nyid myed par mtshan nyid gcig yin mod kyi/ jî srid du rkyen nye bar gnas kyi bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyîd yongs su rdzogs pa’ang yin te/ ’di la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba ni gang yang myed pas sprul pa sprul pa zhes brjod do/ 72 Cf. Sur 2017a: 55–56. We also note the presence of repeated, distinctive collocations, such as na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung, tshe’ang gang du ma song, among others. 234 DOMINIC SUR 6.6 Summing up Tilopa’s tropes of the illusory73 In this, the last of these contiguous passages organized around exemplars of illusion, Theg chen tshul ’jug uses two verses, almost verbatim,74 to elaborate on the view that perceptual appearance manifests so long as karmic imprints perfume the continuum of a sentient being. These appearances are linked with ideas about the (external) objective apprehended and the (internal) subjective apprehender. Acintyamahāmudrā (1645.7–12): /de bzhin phyi nang dngos po sna tshogs snang ba dag/ /ji srid gzung dang ’dzin pa’i rnam par rtog pa yis/ /bag chags dbang gis nye bar gnas pa de srid du/ /dngos po sna tshogs snang ba ’byung bar gyur pa rnams/ /dang po75 byung tshe gang nas ma byung la/ /snang tsam nyid na bag chags dbang gis snang/ /gzung ’dzin gnyis kyi76 bag chags zad pa77 na/ /mi snang gyur tshe gang du’ang song ba med/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (433.10–24): /de bzhin du phyi nang gî dngos po sna tshogs snang ba ’di dag thams cad kyang/ ji srid du gzung ba dang ’dzind pa’î rnam par rtog pa’i bag chags kyi dbang nye bar gnas pa de srid du/ dngos po sna tshogs snang ba ’byung bar ’gyur te/ de dang po byung ba’i tshe na’ang gang nas kyang ma byung/ snang ba nyid kyi tshe na’ang bag chags kyî dbang gîs snang ba yin pa’î phyir/ mtshan nyid gang yang yod pa ma yin/ gzung ba dang ’dzin pa gnyis gyi bag chags zad na ’gags shing mi snang bar ’gyur te/ de’i tshe’ang gang du’ang ma song/ gang yang ’di skad du gzung ’dzin gyi rnam par rtog pa dang bral ba’î mi rtog pa’î ye shes kyi spyod yul du ma gyur nas mi snang ba tsam du zad de/ snang ba ’di dag gi skad cig ma’i rgyun ni ’chad cing ldog pa’ang ma yin no zhes rnam par gzhag pa’ang myed de/ snang ba dang mi snang ba gnyi’ ga’ang dbyer myed par mtshan nyid myed par mtshan nyid gcig pa yin mod kyi/ jî srid du rkyen nye bar 73 Readers will note these tropes have been repeated in Rongzom’s text. Whether or not these passages are verbatim and how comparative readings of variations inform the larger issues at hand is a topic of the larger study of this text I am currently preparing for publication. 75 B, Snar: dngos. 76 B, Snar: kyis. 77 B, Snar: pas. 74 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 235 gnas kyî bar du snang ba’ang dmigs la/ snang ba tsam de’i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa yin te/ ’di la don gyi cha gzhan bsgrub par bya ba ni gang yang myed pas/ de bas na chos thams cad ni sgyu ma lta bu/ smigs rgyu lta bu/ rmi lam lta bu/ gzugs brnyan lta bu/ sprul pa lta bu’o zhes brjod do/ 7. Intertextual parallels in chapter two The second chapter of Theg chen tshul ’jug, Rongzom dedicates fortyeight lines of text – two twenty-four line pages in the 1999 edition – to embedding and contextualizing discourse also presented in the Acintya. That amounts to just under eight percent of Rongzom’s chapter. 7.1 On the perceptual reality of illusions This is on the reality of the illusory in chapter two. In this case, the embedded text in Theg chen tshul ’jug is given in the purvapakṣa – that is, it represents an interlocutor’s question, which functions to shape a rhetorical arena in which Rongzom offers his response. Acintyamahāmudrā (1646.12–14.): /khyod kyi sgyu ma sems dang sems byung dang/ /tshor ba ’du shes nye bar mi spyod cing/ /’gro ba’i phung po sems dang sems byung dang/ /tshor dang ’du shes nye bar spyod pa can/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (435.14–21): /chos rnams la don dam pa’i ngo bo nyid myed pas/ yang dag pa’i kun rdzob du rdzas yod par ’dod du zad kyang/ sgyu ma lta bur gsungs par zad de sgyu ma dang phung po gnyis shin du ’go’ mnyam pa nî ma yî[n] no/ /ji lta’ bu zhe na/ sgyu ma nî skad cig tsam snang ba yin la/ ’gro’ ba’î phung po ni yun ring du brtan par snang ba yin no/ /sgyu ma ni sems dang sems las byung bas yongs su zin pa’ang ma yin te/ tshor ba dang ’du shes kyi nye bar spyod pa can ma yin la/ ’gro ba’i phung po ni sems dang sems las byung bas yongs su zin pa/ tshor ba dang ’du shes kyi nye bar spyod pa can yin pas/ de bas na ’di gnyis shin du ’go bsnyam du mi rung ngo/ Rongzom’s prose here represents his interlocutor’s reaction to a central assertion found throughout Theg chen tshul ’jug: all things are basically the same because all things are illusory. For the interlocutor, this is tantamount 236 DOMINIC SUR to saying that something unreal – something that does not exist, such as the illusion of water given by a mirage – is the same as a person constituted by the five aggregates. In the mind of the interlocutor, it is absurd to equate the reality of a person qua aggregates with the unreality of an illusion. 7.2 On the allusions to Rāmāyaṇa and the sūtra concerning Bhadramāyākāra This passage concerns the reality of the illusory; it comprises the same passage as 7.3, the longest in this section. There are two noteworthy elements: the Bhadramāyākārasūtra and what looks to be an allusion to the South Asian Brahmanical epic, the Ramāyaṇa.78 The so-called Bhadramāyākāravyākaraṇasūtra is a Mahāyāna text79 in which a magician named Bhadramāyākāra (literally, a “Good” or “Excellent Illusion-maker”), uses the power of mantra to magically conjure the illusion of a feast to offer to the Buddha, who in turn transforms the conjured illusion into a significant and enjoyable object of merit: an actual80 feast offering to the Buddhist community. The second element is a passage in the Acintya about the youth, Bali. In the passage, the boy is entrusted to a ṛṣi or to several ṛṣis.81 The third line of the Acintya verse mentions Bali and the ṛṣis; the fourth makes allusions to the Bhadramāyākārasūtra. These two tropes are contained in different passages in Theg chen tshul ’jug with the line four lemmata actually occurring in Rongzom’s text before those in line four. This passage appears connected with the South Asian epic, the Rāmāyaṇa. The particular story configuration we see here contains elements variously used across the Ramkathā networks operant in South and South East Asia. In Rongzom, the passage contextualizes discourse concerning the ontology and validity of a simulacrum: a living breathing doppelgänger of Sita’s son, Bali. 79 Tōh. 65: Sgyu ma mkhan bzang po lung bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Bhadra-māyākāra-vyākaraṇa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra) in Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 43. Cf. Régamey 1990. 80 Actual in the sense of able to be acted upon or practicable rather than necessarily in the sense of ontologically real. In this context, an illusion, such as a rope appearing to be a snake, amounts to something significant: it provokes cognitive (perception), emotional (fear), and physical (withdrawal) responses. 81 In this case, the Tibetan particle dag may be metri causa or indicating plural. In Rongzom’s elaboration, there is only one ṛṣi. 78 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 237 Acintyamahāmudrā (1646.14–16): /mgo mi mtshungs zhes yid gnyis byed gyur na/ /mtshungs par gyur pa’i82 sgyu ma la sogs pa/ /drang srong dag la ba le bcol ba ’am/ /bzang po’i sgyu mas83 thub la gdugs tshod phul/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (437.3–15): ’on kyang sgyu ma’i mtshan nyid la nî bye brag du gyur pa myed de ’go mnyam mo/ /sems kyis yongs su zin par snang ba’ang rang gi nyams su myong ba gtogs pa/ gzhan gyî spyod yul du snang ba ni bye brag myed par dus yun ring por snang bar nus pa/ sgyu ma mkhan gyî sngags kyi mthu che ba rnams la ’byung ste ’di ltar rgyal po ra ma na’i bu ’ba’ le zhes bya ba drang srong la bcol nas/ mas grong gzhan zhig du bya ba zhîg gî phyir phyin pa dang/ bu ma phyir ’brang drang srong gis ma tshor te/ bu stor nas btsal bas nî ma rnyed/ thams gzhan myed nas/ sgyu ma’i bu ’ba’ le ci ’dra ba zhig byas te bsdad pa dang/ lha mo si ta log tsam na bu ’ba’ le yang ma phyi nas tshur byang/ bcol sa na yang bu ’ba’ le cig ’dug/ mas kyang ngo ma shes par gyur nas/ cig kyang brdzus te skyes pa’i bu cig yin par bsams te/ gnyi’ ga khrid nas rgyal po’i drung du phyin te/ lo rgyus zhib tu bsnyad pa dang/ rgyal po’ang de bzhin du bsams nas/ dus yun ring mor sras ’ba’ le mched gyis kyis rgyal po’i stas kyi bya ba byas so/ /’di lta bu’ang drang srong gi mthu sgyu ma mkhan las ches che bas/ sgyu ma de’ang sgyu ma gzhan pas brtan par snang ngo/ And Theg chen tshul ’jug (436.16–21): /’di ltar sgyu ma mkhan bzang pos/ bcom ldand ’das la thams cad mkhyen yin nam ma yin sad pa’i phyir/ sgyu ma’i longs spyod kyi rnam pa man sprul te/ bcom ldan ldas nyan thos kyi dge ’dun dang bcas pa spyan drangs pas/ bcom ldan ldas dus mkhyen cing rgyud rig pas de bzhin du gshegs te/ bzang po sprul pa’i sgyu ma’i longs spyod rnams kyang brtan par byin gyis brlabs nas gdugs tshod kyang gsol/ In the first excerpted passage from Theg chen tshul ’jug, the lemmata corresponding to those found in the Acintya are embedded in a large chunk of explanatory prose. In the second excerpt, the lemmata are part of a summary of the Bhadramāyākārasūtra. 82 83 B, Snar: sgyur ba’i. B, Snar: ma’i. 238 DOMINIC SUR 7.3 On the unreality of the path and perceptions of unreality vis-à-vis prasenā (mirror divination) This passage on the reality of the illusory, which continues the discourse on equality that asserts illusions, mirages, dreams, reflections, and emanations to be fundamentally equal in some significant sense, incorporates the narrative of prasenā techniques, which, here, include a type of mirror divination and prophetic/divinely induced vision.84 In these verses, which are embedded in text in the Theg chen tshul ’jug, the classical two accumulations (tshogs gnyis) are said to be illusory in nature and different objects are said to be basically the same. Acintyamahāmudrā (1646.17–19): /tshogs gnyis rdzogs pa sgyu ma’i snang ba yis/ /bye brag gyur pa med de mgo mnyam mo/ /smig85 rgyu dag kyang nyams kyi86 ’du ’phro yis/ /lam gyi87 bya ba byed kyang88 mgo mnyam mo/ /rmi lam dag la lha yis89 lung bstan nas/ /ma ’ongs dngos po ston te bye brag med/ 84 On prasenā mantras and accompanying ritual dimensions of Buddhist medical traditions, see McGrath 2019. He identifies, as a locus classicus for prasenā divination, a text classified as kriyātantra, Tōh. 805: ’Phags pa dpung bzang gis zhus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud (āryasubāhuparipṛcchānāmatantra) and its three Tibetan commentaries (7, n. 21). In Tōh. 2671 Dpung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don attributed to Buddhaguhya (Slob dpon Sangs rgyas gsang ba, fl. 8th c.), for example, we find what is putatively an early description (Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 36, 122.15–18): /me long thal ba gtsang mas lan bdun nam/ /brgyad dam yang na bcur ni phyir nas su/ /rtse gcig sems kyis gsang sngags zlos bzhin du/ /byis pa gzhon nu nub tu kha ltas pas/ /lha yi mig gis btas na ’das pa dang/ / da [sic] ltar dang ni ma ’ongs mthong bar ’gyur/ Reference to Tōh. 805 may be found in Lessing and Wayman 1968. One note of interest from McGrath 2019 is an early Dunhuang manual containing prasenā rites: IOL Tib J 401 (https://earlytibet.com/2009/02/19/ a-tibetan-book-of-spells/). On prasenā in Kālacakra discourse, see Orofino 1994. Re the term, pra se na: Orofino calls it “a hyper-Sanskritization of the word prasenā, a term of uncertain etymon whose meaning, as found in the Sanskrit dictionary is ‘a kind of jugglery’” (Orofino 1994: 614); cf. see MW s.v. and Newman 1987: 268, n. 17 s.v. ādarśapratisenā, me long gi pra phab pa; and p. 367, n. 1, where Newman notes a Pratisenāvatāratantra (Pra dbab pa la ’jug pa’i rgyud). 85 B, Snar: mig. 86 B, Snar: kyis. 87 B, Snar: las kyi. 88 B, Snar: dang. 89 B, Snar: lha’i. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 239 /gzugs brnyan phra90 yis sngags las grub pa yis/ /lkog gyur rkun mo’i gzugs mthong tha dad med/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (436.6–14): ’on kyang sprul pa’i mtshan nyid la ni bye brag myed de ’go’ mnyam mo/ /’di’ ltar gzugs brnyan dag la yang pra se nā’i sngags grub pas mngon par bsngags pa’î me long la gzhon nu ma gtsang mas bltas na/ lkog tu gyur pa rkun mo’i gzugs brnyan mthong ba yod la/ phal pas ni ma yin te/ gzugs brnyan gyi mtshan nyid la ni bye brag myed do/ /rmi lam dag la’ang lha khyad par can gyi dbang gis ltas nye bar ston pa’i rmi lam mthong ba dag ma ’ongs pa’î dngos po’i ltas ston par nus pa yod do/ /phal gyis nî ma yin te rmi lam gyi mtshan nyid la ni bye brag myed do/ /smigs rgyu dag la’ang rkyen gyi dbang gis la la ni lam sgrib pa’i bya ba byed la/ la las nî ma yîn te/ smigs sgyu’i mtshan nyîd la nî bye brag myed do/ In both texts, the unreality of the illusory world is compared to objects predicted to exist in the future and obscure objects, such as those perceived by particular beings due to particular states, such as ritually induced perception like that practiced via prasenā techniques. 7.4 On the unreality of merit and negativity in the view of equality Here, in two nine-syllable verses91 invoking elements of the six-limbed yoga and the role of merit (puṇya, bsod nams) in an illusory world, the two verses represented in Acintya are in Theg chen tshul ’jug, albeit in seven syllable lines. Acintyamahāmudrā (1647.3–5): /de ltar sgyu ma ’dra ba’i dngos po sna tshogs92 kun/93 /’byin dang sdud94 dang phel bar byed pa yis/ /de ltar de la sdig pas yongs95 mi gos/ /bsod rnams dag kyang de bzhin shes par bya/ 90 B, Snar: kra. See note 93. 92 B, Snar: sna tshogs [sic]. It is perhaps the case that tenth and eleventh syllables, sna and tshogs, may be removed. They add syllables uncounted in the remaining three lines of the otherwise nine-syllable verse. 93 Note this line contains eleven rather than nine syllables. In Rongzom’s rendering, the line drops both de ltar and sna tshogs, leaving only seven syllables. 94 B, Snar: bsdud. 95 B, Snar: pa’i yong. 91 240 DOMINIC SUR /gang la sdig dang bsod nams gnyis med pa/ /de ltar gyur la byang chub rab tu96 gsungs/97 Theg chen tshul ’jug (442.23–443.02): /sgyu ma ’dra ba’î dngos po kund/ /’byin dang sdud par byed pa po/ /des na de la sdig mi ’gyur/ /bsod [443] nams dag kyang de bzhin no/ /gang la bsod nams sdig med pa/ /de la byang chub rab tu gsungs/ In these verses, the logic of the illusory is turned on the classical Buddhist notion of merit, which is rendered just another illusion structuring conditioned existence. On this view, awakening is structured by an absence of such notion of merit – or its dyadic partner: sin (pāpa, sdig pa). 7.4.1 On the unreality of merit and negativity in the view of equality (cont.) In a passage that continues discourse advanced in §7.4, on the reality of merit in an illusory world, here we note the same tropes and the buddhadharma is a boat across samsaric waters metaphor employed in Rongzom’s elaboration, which specifically concerns the reality of so-called pure phenomena. Acintyamahāmudrā (1647.6–10): /chu yis gnod la gzings kyis phan pa sgrub98/ /chu med gyur tshe gzings kyis dgos pa med/ 96 B, Snar: bar du. A similar passage is found in Tōh. 1790: Sgron ma gsal byar byed pa’i gsal byed cyes bya ba’i dka’ ’grel (Pradīpodyotanodyotanāmapañjikā) in Bstan ’gyur, rgyud. a–ki, vol. 16, which claims to cite Toh. 443: ’Dus pa phyi ma (Sanskrit n/a): /’dus pa phyi mar yang gsungs pa/ /chos rnams thams cad sgyu ma bzhin/ /skyed dang sdud par mdzad pa po/ /des ni de yi sdig mi ’gyur/ /bsod nams nyid kyang khyad par du’o/ /gang la bsod nams sdig med pa/ /de ni byang chub yin par gsungs/ (387.12–387.16). The fact of this citation links the current effort to larger issues concerning the modularity of Buddhist literature beyond our present scope. This topic, and the implications of textual modules such as this one, are treated in the larger study of this text currently under preparation. 98 B, Snar: bsgrub. 97 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 241 /de bzhin gnas ngan len gyis gnod kyi bar/ /sgyu mar shes pa gang la yod pa phan/ /gnas ngan len gyi gnod pa bral ba na/ /bsod nams sgyu ma lta bus99 dgos pa med/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (442.13–19): /gzhan yang ’di ltar ji srid du chu klung gî gnod pa yod pa de srid du/ gru gzings kyis kyang phan ’dogs pa’i bya ba byed la/ /chu klung gi gnod pa dang bral te skam sa la ’gro ba de’i tshe gru gzings kyis kyang phan ’dogs pa’i bya ba mi byed do/ /de bzhin du gnas ngan len gyî las kyi gnod pa yod pa de srid du/ bsod nams kyi las kyis kyang phan ’dogs par byed la/ gang gi tshe gnas ngan len gyi las kyis gnod pa yod pa de srid du/ bsod nams kyi las kyis kyang phan ’dogs par byed la/ gang gi tshe gnas ngan len gyi las kyis gnod pa myed pa de’i tshe/ bsod nams kyi las kyis phan ’dogs pa’ang myed do/ /gang phan gnod thams cad dang bral ba de nyid byang chub ces sangs rgyas kyis kyang gsungs te/ Interestingly, though the passage explicitly discusses the classical idea of merit as a benefit along the Buddhist path, in Rongzom these ideas implicitly link to discourse concerning whether or not beings who are enlightened have any cognitive operations. According to this passage in Theg chen tshul ’jug: “Buddha in fact proclaimed the state of being divorced from all benefit [i.e., merit] and harm [i.e., sin] to be awakening.” 7.5 On the fundamental equality of buddhas and sattvas and the nature of reality In this, the final parallel advanced for consideration here, we find two verses from the Acintya extolling the natural fundamental equality that obtains between sattvas (sems can) and buddhas (sangs rgyas), two categories typically contrasting one another, embedded almost verbatim within Theg chen tshul ’jug. On this view, fundamental to Rongzom’s Great Perfection, buddhas and sattvas are naturally equal; all phenomena are empty of nature; all phenomena are naturally at peace, beyond sorrow (prakṛtiparinirvṛta, rang bzhin gyis mya ngan las ’das pa). All phenomena are naturally luminous. All phenomena are manifestly perfectly awakened from the beginning. Rongzom’s text states this to be the case just before 99 B, Snar: bur. 242 DOMINIC SUR noting that “such a mode for objects is not simply the purview of the system of secret mantra alone; it is also proclaimed in the sūtras of definitive meaning, such as the Āryagaṇḍavyūhasūtra.”100 Acintyamahāmudrā (1647.10–15): /sems can sangs rgyas rang bzhin mnyams pa ste/ /chos rnams thams cad ngo bo nyid kyis stong/ /rang bzhin ’od gsal gzod nas ’dus ma byas/ /sgyu mas gos min101 ye nas sangs rgyas so/ /de ltar shes nas bdag dang102 dbyer med pa/ /phung sogs sgyu ma tsam du snang ba yis/ /de bzhin gshegs par shes pa’i103 blo ldan ni/ /lam gyi mchog tu rgyal bas104 rab tu gsungs/ Theg chen tshul ’jug (450.9–16): de bas sangs rgyas kyi rang gî ngo bo ni/ chos kyi dbyings rnam par dag pa nyîd yin par lung dang rigs pa gnyi’ gas mngon no/ /de lta na sems can dang sangs rgyas rang bzhin mnyam ste/ chos thams cad ni ngo bo nyid kyis stong pa’o/ /chos thams cad ni rang bzhîn gyîs mnya ngan las ’das pa’o/ /chos thams cad ni rang bzhin gyîs ’od gsal ba’o/ /chos thams cad nî ye nas mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas pa’o/ /gang gis don ’di lta bu rtogs te/ bdag dang sangs rgyas dbyer myed pa’i blo dang ldan zhing/ phung po lnga sgyu ma tsham du snang ba’ang de bzhin gshegs pa nyid yin pa’î blo dang ldan na/ lam gyi mchog yin te/ gang gis khyad par yod par mthong ba ni lam gyi mchog ma yin no/ 8. What is learned from the dkar chag of Ju Mipham Although a comprehensive transmission history of Theg chen tshul ’jug remains elusive,105 the dkar chag attributed to Ju Mipham Rinpoche (1846– 1912) accounts for his collection and redaction of Rongzom’s work prior RZSB (1.450.17–18): don kyi tshul ’di lta bu ni gsang sngags kyi tshul ’ba’ zhig du ma zad kyi/ nges pa’i don gyi mdo sde las kyang gsungs pa ying te/ The Āryagaṇḍavyūhasūtra itself comprises the forty-fifth section of Tōh. 44: Buddhāvataṁsaka. On the relation and identification of Buddhāvataṁsaka and the Gaṇḍavyūha sūtras, see Almogi 2009: 245–246, n. 26. 101 Snar: ma’i gos yin. 102 B, Snar: gzhan. 103 B, Snar: pas. 104 B, Snar: ba’i. 105 Hopefully, Khenpo Tashi Dorjee’s forthcoming critical edition of the text of Theg chen tshul ’jug can shed light on the transmission history of the work. 100 AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 243 to publication.106 Mipham’s dkar chag, like other accounts, advances a picture of Rongzom as a controversial, then influential figure (cf. Sur 2017b). It also offers a picture of the sociopolitical dynamics of Rongzom’s time, including the role of the Theg chen tshul ’jug in shaping Tibetan intellectual culture in a transformative age. As is well-known, Rongzom’s prolific habit of composition was a cause for concern amongst some Tibetan literati of the time who thought authoritative composition the purview of Indians rather than Tibetans.107 According to the dkar chag, however, Rongzom’s work was of such high quality it would become a model for others to emulate. Indian paṇḍitas therefore exhorted Rongzom to exercise some cultural authority through the composition of exegetical treatises and the teaching of the buddhadharma in Tibet. These same Indians are described as witnessing people in India with only a fraction of Rongzom’s knowledge composing systematic presentations of grammar and epistemology (sgra tshad kyi lugs).108 Therefore, there was no reason, they argued, Rongzom should not engage in the composition of authoritative exegetical treatises.109 While some Tibetan intellectuals and translators initially expressed skepticism if not hostility toward the autochthonous practice of composition of authoritative Buddhist literature in Tibet, Indian paṇḍitas seemed keen on encouraging Rongzom to do just that because his work was superior to some being produced in South Asia.110 Mipham reports Rongzom’s erudition was so effortless and complete as to obviate any need for him to consult other works during composition, a behavior which did nothing 106 See Dkar chag me tog phreng ba, RZSB Volume 1, pp. 3–22. Almogi produced an annotated translation of this work in 1997. Unfortunately, it remains unavailable to me. 107 Sur 2017a, 2017b; cf. Sur 2015: 70–78. 108 It is worth noting received tradition and its narratives often explicitly mark Rongzom as a master of both of these subjects. See for example, Verhagen 1994: 141, n. 139: sgra-daṅ-tshad-ma-roṅ-pa-mkhas/; cf. Roerich 1996: 164; Dudjom 2002: 708. 109 RZSB (1.7.5–8): ’gyur shin tu bzang bas gsar ’gyur gyi nang na phul du byung ba’i tshad du ’jog pa ’byung/ rgya gar gyi paN+Di ta de kun na re/ d+ha r+m b+h dra khyod chos mang ba rtsom la ’gro ba rnams skyobs shig/ khyod kyi yon tan gzhan lta zhog/ sgra tshad kyi lugs ’di’i sum cha tsam mi shes pas kyang nged rgya gar phyogs su chos rtsom pa mthong na khyod ci’i phyir mi rtsom zhes gsungs/; cf. Dudjom 2002: 709. 110 Perhaps our understanding of Rongzom’s influence and authority in eleventh century Tibet is made all the more clear when we recall that, at the time, it is believed, “anything un-Indian was by definition un-Buddhist” (Davidson 2005: 14). 244 DOMINIC SUR to corrupt his citations.111 One would-be critic of Rongzom was a learned monk and prolific translator named Go rub lo tsā ba dge slong Chos kyi shes rab, a figure who travelled to and trained in Kashmir, Nepal, and India and is traditionally associated with the Bka’ gdams School.112 According to Mipham, Go rub’s skepticism and hostility toward Rongzom’s work was allayed – and his faith in and devotion to Rongzom was inspired – by studying Theg chen tshul ’jug.113 Similar remarkable historical accounts, he writes, may be found in the accounts of New School translators.114 Mipham recounts that, perhaps, in the summer of 1904 (rab byung bco lnga pa’i shing ’brug lo’i dbyar phyogs kyi tshe) after Tayé Ozer’s tulku searches his previous incarnation’s library, he offered Rongzom texts to Mipham and encouraged – we might say permitted (bcug pas) – Mipham to engage in a process of reviewing Rongzom’s works and redacting them before having the works documented to publish. Along the way, Mipham compared different editions, made interpretive decisions and amendments to original manuscripts, inserting interlinear notes on obscure passages or corrupted text.115 111 RZSB (1.6.17–19): gzhung lugs gang rtsom par zhus kyang mi mkhyen pa med la/ rtsom pa’i tshe glegs bam bsdu gzugs sogs la cung zad ltos mi dgos par thogs med du brtsom par mdzad cing/ de ltar brtsam pa rnams la lung rnams kyi tshig zur tsam yang nyams pa med cing/ 112 Go rub is said to have contributed more than eighty translations found in the Peking edition of the Buddhist canon, more than seventy percent of which are given in the tantra section (Verhagen 1994: 142, n. 141). 113 The question of why proponents of gsar ma traditions were so open to and influenced by a discourse in a work that ostensively defends a controversial contemplative system – one criticized by the New School proponents as inauthentic – is taken up in a forthcoming article. 114 RZSB (1.8.4–16): go rub lo tsā ba dge slong chos kyi shes rab ces thos ma mang po’i gzungs thob par grags pa des kyang dang por kha btang byas/ bar du theg chen tshul ’jug mthong bas gus pa chen po skyes nas/ mthar zang zing mang pos bsnyen bkur bcas sngar gyi rang nyes brjod de bshags shing rjes su bzung bar gsol ba btab ste/ tshul de dang cha mtshungs rong zom pa’i ngo mtshar lo rgyus du ma gsar ma’i lo tsā ba dag gis gsungs pa rnams na snang/; cf. Dudjom 2002: 708. Go rub lo tsā ba is also recorded as a translation partner of Rongzom. One may wonder if any work by the pair was undertaken after the former’s change of heart concerning Rongzom’s compositions, or before. Reference to their work as a translation team may be found in Verhagen 1994: §§II.0.0–2, and III.2.5–6. 115 RZSB (1.14.3–10): rab byung bco lnga pa’i shing ’brug lo’i dbyar phyogs kyi tshe/ mchog gsum gyi thugs rje dang dam pa gong ma rnams kyi legs smon gyi mthus sku zhabs AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 245 Mipham gathered manuscripts that had been scattered around central Tibet.116 He describes finding some works in disarray and, in need of organization, puts them into an auspicious arrangement ordered by virtue of the so-called sixteen viśuddha vowels. Mipham also removed archaic language from Theg chen tshul ’jug and replaced it with modern conventions in order to ease the modern reader’s comprehension. Moreover, Mipham reports replacing archaisms of various types and correcting faulty grammar and spellings throughout the collected works as a whole while maintaining archaisms when they posed no problem for comprehension of the texts he transmitted as a result of his efforts.117 In a last note of interest from the dkar chag, Mipham describes the style of writing and discourse employed in Rongzom’s works as similar to that found in Indian works. With this in mind, Mipham thinks it possible that, in the past, some of Rongzom’s writings may have gone unidentified and been inserted – without colophon – into Tengyur collections.118 sprul pa’i sku dang gleng ’phros byung ’phral khong gis kyang legs so’i gsung dang dgyes pa’i gnan skyes bcas ring mo nas brnag pa ’di bzhin khyod kyis sgrub na legs tshul dang spar gyi ma phyi’i dpe rnams kyang sku zhabs gong ma’i phyab dpe’i khrod du nyul bas rnyed nas gnang ba bzhin/ kho bos kyang dpe bsdur dang tshig don la rtog zhib bcug pas ma dpe yang cung dag pa zhig tu ’dug pas/ tshig ’bru phran bu nyams pa dang/ skabs rer chad pa cung zad byung snyam pa dang/ gzhung mchan ’jud mtshams brnol ba dang/. With the scope of Mipham’s work in mind – and recalling Silk’s point that such editing is a form of authorship (2015: 215), we should consider the role of Mipham in, in some significant sense, authoring Rongzom’s collected texts. 116 I have not been able to learn anything about the editions used by Mipham in his editorial work. A study of these documents is desideratum. 117 RZSB (1.21.13–21): da dung yang mkhas pa’i dbang phyug chen po ’di’i gsung che phra ci rigs gang zag blo ldan dag gis btsal na dbus gtsang sogs su/ sngar gyi yig rnying rnams kyi khrod du rnyed par srid la rnyed na go rim nges pa med par ’di’i phro mthud de dbyangs bcu drug gi rim pas pod grangs su bsgrug par bya ba’i rten ’brel ’phro can du byas pa yin no/ theg tshul la yig rnying gi brda ltar ’bris pa ches mang yang ci rigs bklag bde ba’i phyir bcos par byas/ da dung yang gsung rnams rnyed srid na brda dag skad gsar bcad deng sang gi lugs ltar bcos na bklag bde bar snang/ gzhan yi ge brda dag re zung dag yig ltar bcos rgyu ’dug kyang don gyi go ba la mi gnod pa rnams rang sar bzhag/ tshig phrad re zung tsam re bsnan na go bde bar phan yang ma dpe sor bzhag ltar ma bcos par gzhag go/ 118 RZSB (1.21.21–24): rong zom pa chen po’i gsung ’di rtsom gshis rgya gzhung dang ’dra zhing/ don rgya gzhung chen po rnams ma gtogs phal gyis do zla med par grub pas gsung re zung bstan ’gyur gyi khrod du yang mdzad byang ma phog par bzhugs pa ’dra snyam/ 246 DOMINIC SUR The parallels demonstrated above indicate a significant relationship between the Acintya attributed to Tilopa and Rongzom’s Theg chen tshul ’jug. Two immediate questions arise. First, what is the Acintya and who was it composed for? Why is there no translator’s colophon? Why was each chapter of Acintya assigned a different Tōh. number in the Chibetto Daizōkyō Sōmokuroku catalog? Does this suggest it a compilation of eight distinct microtexts? Second, what is Theg chen tshul ’jug and who was it written for? Is the Acintya, or any part of it, a work of Rongzom inserted into the Tengyur without proper identification?119 If no part of the Acintya is authored by Rongzom, what is the relationship between the two? Is the Acintya (or sections of it) functioning as a root text for Rongzom’s śāstra (bstan bcos/chos)? What do these parallels tell us about the early history of Great Perfection? Further, what should we make of historical reports that Theg chen tshul ’jug – an apology for Great Perfection (cf. Wangchuk 2002: 266–267) – was so persuasive for Sarma figures critical of Rongzom’s practice of composition? Was Theg chen tshul ’jug written by Rongzom specifically for those familiar with the Sarma traditions, their new classes and traditions of tantra, and their emphasis on linguistic and grammatical precision? If so, that would explain a couple things: it would buttress the observation that Theg chen tshul ’jug is a defense of Great Perfection meant to persuade critics. If the audience is Sarma, that would also explain why, at the very top of chapter four of Theg chen tshul ’jug120 – labeled “The System of Great Perfection is Not Undermined by Reasoning” – Rongzom criticizes those foolish enough to hold logical and grammatical precision above the soteriological value of an albeit somewhat illogical discourse found in Great Perfection. For Rongzom, such people have missed the soteriological forest for the philosophical trees. Nevertheless, he writes, he will set forth the system of Great Perfection in an idiom familiar to the critic, thus sparing him the difficulty of grappling with tropes, symbols, and discourse he 119 Such a suggestion, however, has much to account for, not least of which are ideological incongruities between Acintya and Theg chen tshul ’jug, such as, for example, seen in §4.1.1 above. Regardless, I am unaware of any Sanskrit witness for the Acintya; and I have not found any citations of it I can date to the eleventh century, the putative era of composition for Theg chen tshul ’jug. 120 See RZSB 1.477.12–491.20; cf. Sur 2017a: 111–127. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 247 considers insufficient at best and outright corrupt at worst.121 If Rongzom had it in mind that Theg chen tshul ’jug should be read by Sarmapas, that would also make intelligible an interesting passage in the closing verses of Theg chen tshul ’jug. There, the text reads: /gang gzhan sgro skur bral ba’î don/ /tshul gzhan dag gîs sgrub byed kyang/ /nges don bka’ yi rjes brangs nas/ /don la bdag blo ’di ltar skyes/ /theg chen tshul la ’jug pa tsam/ /lho sgom don du ’di bgyes122 te/ /theg chen snod du gyur pa yi/ /’gro ba rnams kyîs mthong gyur tam/ The first verse states that other traditions work to accomplish the same unitive state: freedom from the distortions of the ordinary, thematic mind and delusive mental appearance. For those following a definitive path of the Buddha to that end, he writes, follow the path outlined in Theg chen tshul ’jug, which, according to the second verse, was composed for a “meditator [in the] south” (lho sgom).123 According to Hahn and Pagel (2002: 36), if the Tibetan gyur in the last line is perfective and previously rendered archaically as gyurd – a collocation appearing throughout RZSB – the last two lines of the verse may be plausibly read to pose a question about who will read Theg chen tshul ’jug: “Will it be seen by those beings who are suitably vessels for the Great Vehicle?” Combined with the previous verse’s mention of those working to accomplish liberation through other dharma traditions (tshul gzhan dag gis sgrub byed), we may surmise 121 RZSB (1.477.17–24): ’on kyang sgra’i bstand chos dang/ rigs pa’i bstan chos la mngon par zhen pa’i gang zag dag ’di snyam du/ bdag cag gi grub pa’i mtha’ ’di dag ni/ sgra’i don dang rigs pas grub pa’ yin la/ rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul ni rigs pa dang ’gal te/ gang rigs pa dang ’gal ba de ni blang bar bya ba ma yin no snyam du sems te/ rdzogs pa chen po yid bzhin gyi nor bu rin po che dang ’dra ba ’di lta bu spangs nas/ nor bu ’ching bu dang ’dra ba’i grub mtha’ na tshogs la zhen pa’i gang zag la/ /rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul tshul las grags pa’i thig le dang che ba la stsogs pa’i skad rnams bzhag ste/ spyir grags pa’i skad kyis rigs pa’i tshul phyogs ’ga’ bshad do/ 122 This should read bgyis in accordance with BM (214.5), NTh (230.6), Th (334.6), and Msg (128v.5). 123 The semifinal particle te at the end of line three of the second verse above can be read to indicate the action of the prior verb – bgyis – precedes or causes the action of the following verb – in this case: mthong. Cf. Hahn and Pagel, §15.2. 248 DOMINIC SUR Rongzom to be wondering aloud, as it were, if proponents of non-Old School traditions might read Rongzom’s work by virtue of its composition for someone in the south. That question is made more polemical and interesting insofar as we keep in mind that the phrase “Great Vehicle” (mahāyāna, theg chen) in Rongzom’s Theg chen tshul ’jug is closely related to the term “Great Perfection” (rdzogs chen), such that the latter subsumes the former insofar as the latter indicates the organic culmination of the former (Sur 2017a: 10–11). The present effort is merely meant to present preliminary findings concerning parallels found between the Acintya and Theg chen tshul ’jug. I do not claim to identify, much less resolve, the many questions that stem from this discovery. This work remains to for a later date. This paper identifies a remarkable example of modular Buddhist literature and the communal nature of literary authorship operant in Buddhist intellectual culture. Further, the present effort demonstrates the need for further study tracing the intellectual history of the doctrine of “mere appearance” attributed to Rongzom. Abbreviations Acintya B BM Bka’ ’gyur Bstan ’gyur MW Msg Acintyamahāmudra [sic]. In Bka’ ’gyur Dpe bsdur ma, Tōh. 2305[–2312], Rgyud, wi–zhi, vol. 26. Beijing: Krung go’i dpe skrun khang, 2006–2009: 1631–1654. Beijing as per the Dpe bsdur ma. Rong zom chos kyi bzang po. Theg chen tshul ’jug dbu med. Manuscript, no publication data (BDRC: W15575). Bka’ ’gyur Dpe bsdur ma. Edited by Krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006–2009. Bstan ’gyur Dpe bsdur ma. Edited by Krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006–2009. See Monier-Williams 2000. Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa’i bstan bcos.124 In Rong zom gsung ’bum, 3 Volumes. N.p.: Rmugs sangs dgon, n.d. (BDRC: W3PD444). 124 The dkar chag gives a longer title: Theg pa dang grub mtha’ dag gi mthar thug ’jug yul rdzogs pa chen po nyag cig tu nges par bstan pa theg pe chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa’i bstan bcos (1.1–2). AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE Negi NTh RZSB Snar STMG Th Theg chen tshul ’jug Tōh. 249 Negi, J.S. 2003. Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi: Surabhi Printers. Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, 2000. Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum. Vols. 1–2. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999. Snar thang as per the Dpe bsdur ma. Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes. Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye she rin po ches mdzad pa’i sgom gyi gnang gsal bar phye ba bsam gtan mig sgron. Ed. ’Khor gdon gter sprul ’Chi med rig dzin. Leh: Smartsis shesrig spendzod, Vol. 74, 1974. Rong zom chos kyi bzang po. Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos. Thimphu: Kunsang Topgay, 1976 (TBRC W27479). Rong zom chos kyi bzang po. Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos. Unless otherwise noted, all citations refer to RZSB, vol. 1. Chibetto Daizōkyō Sōmokuroku/A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstanḥgyur). Edited by Hakuju Ui, Munetada Suzuki, Yensho Kanakura, and Tokan Tada. Sendai, Japan: Tohoku Imperial University, 1934. Secondary sources Almogi, Orna. 2009. Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna : ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyibzang-po. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies. Davidson, Ronald. 2005. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Dreyfus, Georges. 2003. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Dudjom Rinpoche. 2002. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Trans. Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein. Boston: Wisdom. Foucault, Michel. 1980. “What is an Author?” In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press: 113–138. 250 DOMINIC SUR Fraade, Steven. 1999. “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim.” Oral Tradition 14 (1): 33–51. Fraade, Steven. 2003. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Griffiths, Paul. 1999. Religious Reading: The Place of Reading in the Practice of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Hahn, Michael and Ulrich Pagel, trans. 2002. Textbook of Classical Tibetan. London: n.p. Higgins, David. 2013. The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Huizinga, J. 2009. Homo ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Abingdon: Routledge. Karmay, S.G., (1988) 2007. The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: Brill. Klein, Anne Carolyn and Tenzin Wangyal. 2006. Unbounded Wholeness: Dzogchen, Bon, and the Logic of the Nonconceptual. New York: Oxford University Press. Lessing, Ferdinand and Alex Wayman. 1968. Fundamentals of Buddhist Tantra. Delhi: Motilal. Mayer, Robert. 2015. “gTer ston and Tradent: Innovation and Conservation in Tibetan Treasure Literature.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 36: 227–242. McGrath, William. 2019. “Tantric Divination and Empirical Diagnosis: A Genealogy of Channel Prasenā Rituals in the Tibetan Medical Tradition.” In Knowledge and Context in Tibetan Medicine. Leiden: Brill: 261–308. Milikowsky, Chaim. 1999. “Further on Editing Rabbinic Texts.” Jewish Quarterly Review 90 (1–2): 137–149. Milikowsky, Chaim. 2006. “Reflections on the Practice of Textual Criticism in the Study of Midrash Aggada. The Legitimacy, the Indispensability and the Feasibility of Recovering and Presenting the (Most) Original Text.” In Carol Bakhos, ed., Current Trends in the Study of Midrash. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 106. Leiden and Boston: Brill: 79– 109. Monier-Williams, Monier. 2000. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Newman, John R. 1987. “The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayāna Buddhist Cosmology in the Kālacakra Tantra.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison. AN OCEAN OF BUDDHIST INTELLECTUAL CULTURE 251 Norbu, Chogyal Namkhai and Andriano Clemente. 1999. The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde Kunjed Gyalpo. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications. Orofino, Giacomella. 1994. “Divination with Mirrors: Observations on a Simile Found in the Kālacakra Literature.” In Per Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Fagernes 1992. Vol. 2. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture: 612–628. Régamey, Konstanty. 1990. The Bhadramāyā-kāra-vyākaraṇa: Introduction, Tibetan Text, Translation, and Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Roerich, George, trans. 1996. The Blue Annals. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sernesi, Marta. 2015. “The Collected Sayings of the Master on Authorship, Author-function, and Authority.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 36/37: 459–498. Sferra, Francesco. 2000. The Ṣaḍaṅgayoga by Anupamarakṣita: with Raviśrījñāna’s Guṇabharaṇīnāmaṣaḍaṅgayogaṭippaṇī. Text and Annotated Translation. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente. Silk, Jonathan. 2015. “Establishing/Interpreting/Translating: Is It Just That Easy?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 36/37: 205–226. Sur, Dominic. 2015. “A Study of Rongzom’s Disclosing the Great Vehicle Approach (theg chen tshul ’jug) in the History of Tibet’s Great Perfection Tradition.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia. Sur, Dominic. 2017a. Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle: Dzogchen as the Culmination of the Mahāyāna. Boulder: Shambhala Publications. Sur, Dominic. 2017b. “Constituting Canon and Community in Eleventh Century Tibet: The Extant Writings of Rongzom and His Charter of Mantrins (sngags pa’i bca’ yig).” Religions 8 (3): article number 40. Accessed August 11, 2020. doi: 10.3390/rel8030040. Torricelli, Fabrizio. 2007. “The Tibetan Text of Tilopa’s Acintyamahāmudrā: 1. The Instruction to the Yogin.” Tibet Journal 32 (4): 3–32. Verhagen, Pieter C. 1994. A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet. Leiden: Brill. Wangchuk, Dorji. 2002. “An Eleventh Century Defense of the Authenticity of the Guhyagarbha Tantra.” In Helmut Eimer and David Germano, eds., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: Brill: 265–291. Wangchuk, Dorji. 2004. “The rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha Theory.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens/Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies 48: 171–213. Wangchuk, Dorji. 2009. “A Relativity Theory of the Purity and Validity of Perception in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.” In Eli Franco and Dagmar Eigner, eds., Yogic Perception, Meditation, and Altered States of Consciousness. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences: 215–237. 252 DOMINIC SUR ABSTRACT This article identifies significant textual parallels between the Acintyamahāmudrā125 (Eng. The Inconceivable Great Seal) ascribed to Tilopa and the doctrinal discourse of the master work of the eleventh century defender of the Great Perfection, Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo, the Theg chen tshul ’jug (Eng. Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle). As such, it adds to the body of scholarship examining intertextuality within Buddhist literature and argues for a re-assessment of Rongzom’s doctrine of mere appearance. In conclusion, this paper uses information about the collection and editing of Rongzom’s work as touchstones for reflections on larger issues of textual modularity, communal authorship, received tradition, and the social and historical contexts of eleventh century Tibet. In doing so, we do not claim to exhaust the issues or ensuing questions. Rather we aim to contribute to our understanding of these issues by exploring hitherto unstudied intertextual associations structuring one of the most important works in the Nyingma or “Old School” – and its core doctrinal theme of mere appearance (snang tsam). 125 The spelling here, and throughout, “Acintyamahāmudrā,” follows Torricelli 2007. The text found in the Dpe bsdur ma collection gives the Sanskrit title without the long-a in mudrā – that is, “Acintyamahāmudra.” Cf. note 3.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

An Ocean of Buddhist Intellectual Culture in Two Intertextual Drops: Parallel Text & Issues Pertaining to Rongzom's Doctrine of "Mere Appearance" (snang tsam).

An Ocean of Buddhist Intellectual Culture in Two Intertextual Drops: Parallel Text & Issues Pertaining to Rongzom's Doctrine of "Mere Appearance" (snang tsam).

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS