The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s Distinction between gnas lugs phyag chen and ’khrul lugs phyag chen. Andiast (Schweiz): Zentralasiatische Studien (ZAS), 44 (2015), pp. 51-77.

David Higgins

The idea that meditation leads to knowledge of deep features of reality that normally elude human cognition has been central to a wide range of Buddhist systems of doctrine and practice. One interesting Tibetan variation on this theme is the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud distinction between Mahāmudrā as the mode of abiding (gnas lugs phyag chen) and Mahāmudrā in the mode of error (’khrul lugs phyag chen). The distinction is introduced by Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa (1213-1258), illustrious founder of the Yang dgon subsect of the Upper ’Brug pa (stod ’brug) tradition, in his celebrated Trilogy of Mountain Teachings (Ri chos skor gsum). It is there presented as a subdivision of the first of the three basic categories of ground (gzhi), path (lam) and goal (’bras bu) Mahāmudrā in order to clarify how the ground of human reality (i.e., Mahāmudrā) is both an abiding condition and the condition of possibility of error and obscuration. Later, in the more polemically charged intellectual climate of central Tibet in the 16th century, Padma dkar po (1527-1592) revives Yang dgon pa’s distinction and employs it as a powerful paradigm for articulating and defending a view of Mahāmudrā emphasizing the unity (zung ’jug) or inseparability (dbyer med) of the two truths - the conventional and ultimate - and of therefore reconciling the profane and the sacred.

Zentralasiatische Studien 44 (2015) International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies ∙ Andiast (Schweiz) Zentralasiatische Studien 44 (2015) Herausgegeben von Peter Schwieger unter Mitarbeit von Christoph Cüppers, Franz-Karl Ehrhard , Karl-Heinz Everding, Dieter Schuh und Ines Stolpe Begründet von Walther Heissig IITBS GmbH Andiast (Schweiz) 2015 International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Die Zentralasiatischen Studien wurden von dem bekannten Mongolisten Walther Heissig in Jahre 1967 begründet. In den Zentralasiatischen Studien legten und legen Mitarbeiter, Studenten, Gäste und Freunde des ehemaligen Seminars für Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiens, welches heute als „Abteilung für Mongolistik und Tibetstudien“ des Instituts für Orient- und Asienwissenschaften der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn firmiert, Arbeiten aus ihren Forschungsbereichen vor. Mit der Ausgabe 43 (2014) wurde die bisherige Ausrichtung durch eine internationale Struktur der wissenschaftlich verantwortlichen Herausgeber erweitert. Ein besonderes Anliegen dieser Veröffentlichung ist es, unbekannte Texte und Materialien zu erschließen und sie auch in Faksimilia zugänglich zu machen. © IITBS GmbH, International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast (Schweiz) 2015. ISBN: 978-3-03809-124-0. Homepage: www.Tibetinstitut.de Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Inhaltsverzeichnis Teil 1 Sonderbeiträge Klaus-Dieter Mathes (Editor) Toward a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Martina Draszczyk, and David Higgins Preface 9 Contributors 15 Klaus-Dieter Mathes Mind and its Co-emergent (sahaja) Nature in Advayavajra´s Commentary on Saraha´s Dohākoṣa 17 Casey Kemp Merging Ignorance and Luminosity in Early Bka’ brgyud Bsre ba Literature 35 David Higgins The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s gnas lugs phyag chen and ‘khrul lugs phyag chen 51 Roger R. Jackson Did Tsongkhapa Teach Mahāmudrā? 79 Martina Draszczyk A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos Grags ye shes on the Hidden Meaning of Luminosity 99 Rolf Scheuermann The Four Dharmas of Sgam po pa – A Brief Examination of Padma dkar po’s Famous Dwags poʼi chos bzhiʼi rnam bshad skyes bu gsum gyi lam nyin mor byed pa 121 Teil 2 Reguläre Beiträge John Bray A.H. Francke’s last visit to Ladakh: history, archaeology and the First World War 147 Hartmut Walravens Siberian Manuscripts and the Tibetan Jäschke Type 179 Hartmut Walravens A note on early Kalmuck printing in St. Petersburg 193 Michael Knüppel Zu den „Auslassungszeichen” in uigurischen Āgama-Texten 201 Wolfgang-E. Scharlipp Die Angst der Nomaden vor der chinesischen Kultur 207 Besprechungen Bettina Zeisler L’épopée tibétaine de Gesar. Une version inédite par dBang chen nyi ma. Manuscrit Alexandra David-Néel, Musée Guimet BG54805. Présentée par AnneMarie Blondeau et Anne Chayet. (Patrimoine d'Orient.) Suilly-la-Tour: Editions Findakly. Preface, Introduction, 2 maps, 18 colour, 6 black-and-white illustrations, 3 colour and 216 black-and-white manuscript reproductions, glossary, index, appendices. ISBN: 978-2-86805-148-6. Paperback, 256 pages, 35 €. 217 Jeannine Bischoff Czaja, Olaf, Medieval rule in Tibet: The Rlangs clan and the political and religious history of the ruling house of Phag mo gru pa. With a study of the monastic art of Gdan sa mthil (Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie, 20). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 221 Volker Caumanns Helmut Eimer, Sa skya legs bshad: Die Strophen zur Lebensklugheit von Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251). Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 83. Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien: 2014. 226 51 David Higgins The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s gnas lugs phyag chen and ‘khrul lugs phyag chen The Mahāmudrā exegesis of the fourth ’Brug chen Padma dkar po (1527-1592) makes use of a key distinction between mahāmudrā as the mode of abiding (gnas lugs phyag chen) and mahāmudrā in the mode of error (’khrul lugs phyag chen)1 that was first introduced by Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa (1213-1258), illustrious founder of the Yang dgon subsect of the so-called Upper ’Brug pa (stod ’brug) Bka’ brgyud tradition.2 The distinction is outlined in Yang dgon pa’s influential Trilogy of Hermit Teachings (Ri chos skor gsum)3, a comprehensive and elaborately structured cycle of Mahāmudrā instructions to be used by yogins 1 The translation of these technical terms requires careful attention. While the first term assumes a relation of identity between phyag chen and gnas lugs—mahāmudrā is the mode of abiding, the second term assumes a relation of difference between phyag chen and ’khrul lugs—mahāmudrā is not the mode of error, though it is specified as being a precondition of the latter and discernable within it. This clarification was emphasized in post-classical defences of the distinction by Padma dkar po and his disciple Sangs rgyas rdo rje. 2 The ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud lineage originated with Gling ras pa Padma rdo rje (11281188) and his disciple Gtsang pa rgya ras Ye shes rdo rje (1161-1211). It later subdivided into three branches: (1) the Upper ’Brug (stod ’brug) established by Gling ras pa’s disciple Rgod tshang pa Mgon po rdo rje (1189-1258), (2) the Middle ’Brug (bar ’brug) established by Gling Gtsang pa rgya ras’s disciple Lo ras pa Dar ma dbang phyug (11871250), and (3) the Lower ‘Brug (sman ’brug) established by Gtsang pa rgya ras himself. Following Padma dkar po’s death, a bitter dispute ensued between two factions claiming different authentic reincarnations of the master as legitimate heirs to the ‘Brug chen throne. According to Gene Smith, “[t]he long and heated struggle led to a decision by the Sde srid Gtsang pa [ruler of Central Tibet] in favor of the ’Phyongs rgyas candidate, Dpag bsam dbang po (1593-1641), and the flight to Bhutan in 1616 of the Rwa lung candidate, Zhabs drung Ngag dbang rnam rgyal (1594-1651)”. See Smith 2001, 83. The ’Brug pa tradition henceforth divided into the Northern ‘Brug pa (byang ’brug) branch in Tibet headed by the Rgyal dbang ’Brug pa and the Southern ’Brug pa (lho ’brug) branch based in Bhutan headed by the Shabdrung (zhabs drung) incarnations. 3 Ri chos is a contraction of ri khrod pa’i chos, “teachings for hermits” (ri khrod pa), i.e., those who have renounced worldly concerns (tshe blos btang ba’i ri khrod pa) and taken up practices of virtue and meditation in mountain retreats. ZAS 44 (2015) 52 in retreat.4 Yang dgon pa is credited with introducing this distinction not only by Padma dkar po himself but also by the latter’s disciple Mkhas dbang Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569-1645)5 in a lengthy defence of his master’s Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod6 which he composed in response to a critical review of this treatise by the Sa skya critic Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-1596).7 Sangs rgyas rdo rje there devotes several pages to clarifying the sense of the distinction and defending its legitimacy, particularily in regard to the contentious idea of “mahāmudrā in the mode of error”. Some three centuries after Yang dgon pa, in the more polemically heated intellectual climate of central Tibet in the 16th century, Padma dkar po revives Yang dgon pa’s distinction and redeploys it as a powerful interpretive scheme for articulating and defending a view of Dwags po Mahāmudrā emphasizing the unity (zung ’jug) or inseparability (dbyer med) of the two truths—the conventional and ultimate—and for thereby reconciling what Yang dgon pa had termed the essence (gshis) and manifestation (gdangs) of ground mahāmudrā. In doing so, Padma dkar po also establishes its doctrinal affiliations with certain innatist Buddhist ideas drawn from non-tantric and tantric traditions concerning buddha nature, the nature of mind, and the ground, and uses it to account for the age-old Buddhist problem of how error and confusion adventiously arise within a medium that is itself invariant and unconditioned. The aim of this paper is to clarify meaning and significance of the distinction 4 An early occurence of ri chos in a text title is a short vademecum by Sgam po pa’s student Phag mo gru pa (1110-1170), the Ri chos bdud rtsi bum pa, that is preserved in his Collected Works, Phag mo gru pa rdo rje rgyal po’i gsung ’bum vol. 2, 389-397. Following Yang dgon pa’s use of ri chos to designate his popular cycle of retreat instructions, it was widely used by Tibetan masters including the Rnying ma pas Mi ’gyur rdo rje (1645-67), Tshe dbang nor bu (1698-1755), and ’Jigs med gling pa (1729-1798), the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud author Don grub nyi ma (1831-1880), and the Karma Bka’ brgyud master Karma chags med (1613-1678). A large number of works styled ri chos have been composed in the past two centuries. 5 An eminent scholar, Sangs rgyas rdo rje’s eight volume collected works contain expositions of ’Brug pa doctrine as well as biographies of several ’Brug pa masters including Lha rtse ba Ngag dbang bzang po, Mi pham Bkra shis blo gros, and the Fifth ’Brug chen Dpal bsam dbang po (1593-1641). 6 Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces bya ba’i bstan bcos la Rtsod pa spong ba’i gtam srid gsum rnam par rgyal ba’i dge mtshan, in The Collected Works of Mkhas-dbang Sangs rgyas-rdo-rje, vol. 4, 293-636. 7 Sdom gsum rab dbye'i dka' 'grel sbas don gnad kyi snying po gsal byed Phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma'i 'od zer. In The Collected Works of Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho, vol. 5, 111-206. ZAS 44 (2015) 53 in Padma dkar po’s writings in light of its origin and development in the writings of Yang dgon pa. As an innovative interpretation and classification of ground mahāmudrā, the distinction between two modes of mahāmudrā can be traced from Yang dgon pa (1213-1258), through ’Ba’ ra ba Rgyal mtshan dpal bzang (1310-1391), ’Brug chen II Rgyal dbang rje Kun dga’ dpal ’byor (1428-1476), Padma dkar po himself and his disciple Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569-1645). It should be noted that the more general distinction between modes of abiding and error (gnas lugs) and (’khrul lugs) are also found outside the Bka’ brgyud tradition in the writings of the Jo nang founder Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361)8 and the Rnying ma systematizer Klong chen rab ’byams pa (1308-1364)9, though neither author relates the distinction specifically to Mahāmudrā teachings. Living roughly a half century after Yang dgon pa, it is likely that both masters encountered the distinction in Yang dgon pa’s influential Ri chos cycle10 and adapted it to their own doctrinal aims. In fact, it was Dol po pa’s sharply drawn distinction between modes of abiding and error—along with a cluster of related dichotomies—that was taken as the main target of Padma dkar po’s lengthy critique of the Jo nang account of the two truths in his Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod which he advances under the rubric “mahāmudrā in the mode of error” (’khrul lugs phyag chen). The Jo nang theory of error is there criticized on the grounds that it disregards the fundamental unity of the conventional and ultimate truths, of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, downgrading the former and absolutizing the latter. It is likewise charged with violating Nāgārjuna’s central teaching on the inseparability of 8 See, for example, his Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho, Peking 1998: 4184 f. and Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa rang ’grel, Paro 1984, vol. 1: 5996 f., 6125 f. et passim. 9 For example, in his Rdzogs pa chen po sgyu ma ngal gso'i bsdus don man dā ra ba'i phreng ba, 5825-6, Klong chen pa uses the distinction as thematic headings to discuss: (1) the primordial abiding mode (gdod ma’i gnas lugs) of the nature of mind (sems nyid), (2) the errancy mode (’khrul lugs) of dualistic ignorance (ma rig gzung ’dzin), and (3) the unreal mode of appearing during errancy due to the power of latent tendencies of subject and object [duality]: dang po la gsum ste | sems nyid gdod ma’i gnas lugs | ma rig gzung ’dzin gyi ’khrul lugs | gzung ’dzin bag chags kyi dbang gis ’khor ba sna tshogs su ’khor bas ’khrul dus bden med kyi snang lugs so | | 10 It is worth noting that Klong chen pa received Yang dgon pa’s Ri chos cycle from his main preceptor Kumārarāja (Tib. Ku ma rā dza), and also that the title of Dol po pa’s most famous work, the Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho, identifies it as a “Hermit Teaching” (ri chos). ZAS 44 (2015) 54 emptiness and dependent arising.11 Before considering how Padma dkar po redeploys Yang dgon pa’s distinction in these philosophical contexts, it may be useful to begin by inquiring into antecedent uses and definitions of the two terms in the distinction. Mahāmudrā in the mode of abiding (gnas lugs phyag chen) The first term in Yang dgon pa’s distinction, gnas lugs phyag chen, arouses little consternation as it is a well-attested in Tibetan Mahāmudrā exegesis as a quasi-synonym of mahāmudrā which came to be used both as a specific descriptor of Buddhist goal-realization and as a genre designation for a class of teachings concerned with it. In this regard, it is possible to distinguish three overlapping deployments: [1] as a technical term, [2] as a doxographical construct, and [3] as a thematic category. As a technical term, gnas lugs phyag chen is used as a virtual synonym of ground mahāmudrā (gzhi phyag rgya chen po). The first part of the compound, gnas lugs, is widely used in Tibetan religio-philosophical works to refer to the abiding (gnas) condition, mode or nature (lugs) of phenomena.12 In terms of lexicography, gnas lugs and its close relative dngos po’i gnas lugs (Skt. vastuvṛtta) are ubiquitous in Tibetan canonical translations of Indian works. According to Negi’s Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary13, gnas lugs has been used to render a number of Sanskrit terms among which the following are worth commenting upon: (1) sthitiḥ—definitions in Monier-Williams include ‘abiding’, ‘lasting’, ‘continuance in being’, ‘staying or remaining or being in any state or condition’, and ‘that which continually exists’.14 11 A critial edition and translation of Padma dkar po’s critique is included in a forthcoming monograph on Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way by Tina Draszczyk and myself. 12 The terms gnas lugs, gnas tshul and gnas bzhugs are used almost synonymously to refer respectively to a mode/condition, way/manner and state/continuance of abiding. These terms are closely related to the terms yin lugs, yin tshul and (less commonly) yin bzhugs which refer a mode, way or state of being. 13 See Negi s.v. gnas lugs. See also Miller 2013 and Broido 1984. Broido criticizes Herbert Guenther’s attempt to interpret dngos po’i gnas lugs as an existential category (a mode of being) in line with the European existential tradition and instead recommends defining it as a kind of insight (p. 11) that is available to the cig car ba aspirant. This intepretation misses the point of Padma dkar po’s construal of dngos po’i gnas lugs as the abiding ground of both error and freedom and his discussions of its mental and corporeal dimensions where it is characterized both as a prediscusive mode of awareness and as the somatic condition of its possibility. 14 These are among the definitions given in Monier-Williams s.v. sthiti. ZAS 44 (2015) 55 (2) vṛtta or, more specifically, vastuvṛtta (Tib. dngos po’i gnas lugs), a panIndian philosophical term which is broadly defined (cf. MonierWilliams) as “the actual fact”, “the real matter”.15 It was given more specific definitions by Indian philosophical traditions in line with their differing views of reality. In Indian pramāṇa traditions, for example, vastuvṛtta has the sense of “real entities”. In the Sāṃkhya school, it connotes “nature of reality” in keeping with this tradition’s dualism between nature and spirit.16 The lexical assocation of gnas lugs with the Sāṃkhya idea of vastuvṛtta (dngos po’i gnas lugs) as unconscious nature is strikingly different from the understanding of vastuvṛtta/dngos po’i gnas lugs that developed in Indo-Tibetan Mahāmudrā systems. There it comprises both psychic and somatic17 aspects and is thus broadly classified in terms of the abiding modes of reality of mind and body (sems/lus dngos po’i gnas lugs).18 15 See Negi s.v. dngos po’i gnas lugs On this view, the active but unconscious nature, represented by the feminine principle prakṛti, exists in separation from the inactive but conscious spirit, represented by the masculine principle puruṣa. See Negi s.v. gnas lugs: “Thus, this [gnas lugs] is the ‘nature of things’ (vastuvṛtta : dngos po’i gnas lugs) because possessing [passions] such as desire (rāga) and the other [elements], the Lord (īśvara) cannot exist therein.” atha vastuvṛttametanna rāgādiyogitāmaiśvaryasambhāvaḥ; Tib. 'on te 'di ni dngos po'i gnas lugs yin te | 'dod chags la sogs pa dang ldan pa la dbang phyug srid pa ni ma yin no | | 17 See Willa Miller’s illuminating analysis of Yang dgon pa’s interpretation of the concept dngos po’i gnas lugs with special attention to how it figures in the author’s “somatic theory of enlightenment” which takes the body as “the essential ground of the salvific path” in her PhD thesis Secrets of the Vajra Body: Dngos po’i gnas lugs and the Apotheosis of the Body in the Work of Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa. Harvard University: 2013. 18 An important Indian Mahāmudrā source for these psychic and somatic dimensions of vastuvṛtta is the Pravacanottaropamā (Tib. Bka’ dpe phyi ma), a short text by the siddhapaṇḍita Nāropa based on his understanding of instructions (on the six yogas of Nāropa) received from his guru Tilopa (te lo pa’i zhal sngar gdams pa mnos pa). The abiding mode of reality is there identified with the human body as the matrix of somatic processes conducive to spiritual awakening such as energy channels (nāḍi) and seminal bodhicitta. It is also identified as the locus of unborn and unceasing great wisdom (ye shes chen po : mahājñāna) wherein ordinary mind is brought to rest. Bka’ dpe phyi ma D 2332: 5455-6: “[The instructions consist in] [1] the abiding mode of reality, [2] the path, and [3] the stages of coming to fruition. In that regard, [1] the abiding mode of reality is [A] the body as the basis of somatic phenomena—the five perfect awakenings (mngon par byang chub : abhisambodhi), the energy channels (rtsa : nāḍi), the [seminal] bodhicitta (byang chub sems), and the impure substances and thoughts. [B] In that regard, as for procedures for resting the mind, [it rests in] great wisdom abiding in the body because it is the essence that is free from arising and cessation. [2] The 16 ZAS 44 (2015) 56 (3) sanniveṣa (saṃniveṣa)—definitions include ‘establishment’, ‘assembly’, ‘situation’, ‘open place’, ‘foundation’, ‘assembling together’, ‘entering or sitting down together’19; Negi gives as an example “the distinctive assemblage or ensemble (sanniveṣaviśeṣaḥ : gnas lugs kyi khyad par) of the three aspects of happiness, sorrow and delusion”20. (4) saṃsthāna—definitions include ‘nature’, ‘state’, ‘condition’, ‘being’, ‘standing’, ‘abiding’, ‘standing firm’.21 If these Sanskrit antecedents of gnas lugs tell us more about how Tibetan lexicographers rendered the term than about how Tibetan thinkers may have interpreted and deployed it, they do shed interesting light on the complex history of a term that continued to take on a wide range of meanings and associations in the Tibetan intellectual world, not least of all in Mahāmudrā traditions. In these traditions, the term gnas lugs phyag chen figures as one of many terms for goal-realization and it is in this sense semantically akin to a wide range of descriptors such as the actual abiding nature of reality (dngos po gshis kyi gnas lugs) 22, coemergent wisdom (lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes), and the nature of mind (sems nyid). Yang dgon pa states that mahāmudrā as the abiding mode refers to “‘the abiding mode of reality as ground’ (gzhi dngos po’i gnas lugs) ‘the way of dwelling of the nature of mind’ (sems nyid kyi bzhugs tshul), ‘buddha’s enlightened intent’ (sangs rgyas kyi dgongs pa), ‘the nature of mind in minded beings’ (sems can gyi sems nyid), and ‘the authentic nature of the knowable’ (shes bya gnyug ma’i gshis). It is triply present as essence, nature and characteristics.”23 ’Brug chen II Rgyal dbang rje further characterizes Yang path comprises the generation and completion [stages].” dngos po'i gnas lugs lam dang ni | | 'bras bu skye ba'i rim pa'o | | de la dngos po'i gnas lugs ni | | lus ni byang chub rnam lnga dang | | rtsa dang byang chub sems dang ni | | mi gtsang rdzas dang rnam rtog gis | | lus kyi chos ni gnas pa yin | | de la sems kyi gnas thabs ni | | lus gnas ye shes chen po ste | | skye 'gag bral ba'i ngo bo yin | | lam la bskyed dang rdzogs pa'o | | 19 See Monier-Williams s.v. saṃniveṣa 20 See Negi s.v. gnas lugs 21 See Monier-Williams s.v. saṃsthāna 22 See, for example, Rtse le sna tshogs rang grol’s Chos thams cad kyi snying po phyag rgya chen po’i don yang dag pa rab tu gsal bar byed pa, 1725-1731: “[First,] a concise indication of the meaning of ‘view’ in terms of ground mahāmudrā, the actual abiding mode of reality, both of freedom and error/delusion.” gzhi phyag rgya chen po dngos po gshis kyi gnas lugs ’khrul grol gnyis kyi sgo nas lta ba’i don mdor bstan pa … 23 Ri chos yon tan kun ’byung ba Rin po che ’bar ba, 479.3 f: [dang po] gzhi dngos po’i gnas lugs sems nyid kyi bzhugs tshul | sangs rgyas kyi dgongs pa | sems can gyi sems nyid | shes bya gnyug ma’i gshis de ngo bo rang bzhin mtshan nyid gsum du gnas te | ZAS 44 (2015) 57 dgon pa’s gnas lugs phyag chen as a continuum (rgyun chags pa) that “remains unchanging from beginningless saṃsāra through endless nirvāṇa,” and qualifies it as “the nature (rang bzhin) or abiding mode (gnas lugs) of all phenomena” that can be ascertained solely in the context of mind.24 Interpreting it as a term with wide-ranging doctrinal affiliations, Padma dkar po aligns it with a family of core Buddhist soteriological ideas that includes the nature of phenomena (chos nyid), coemergent nature (rang bzhin lhan cig skyes pa), natural luminosity (rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal), buddha nature (de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po : tathāgatagarbha), the spiritual potential (rigs : gotra), and the all-ground (kun gzhi : ālaya).25 Rtse le sna tshogs rang grol (b. 1608), a scholar-practitioner equally well-versed in Mahāmudrā and Rnying ma doctrine, connects this concept not only with non-tantric ideas of buddha nature and tantric ideas of immanent buddhahood, but also with the Rnying ma Rdzogs chen idea of an originally pure essence (ngo bo ka nas dag pa)—a prediscursive mode of being (yin tshul) and awareness that antedates the emergence of ignorance and error.26 Turning to its use as a doxographical construct, gnas lugs phyag chen in some cases serves to designate a tradition of mind-oriented Mahāmudrā teachings that is traced from Saraha to Śavaripa and Maitrīpa and through their Tibetan successors. For example, Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol identifies 24 Phyag rgya chen po lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi khrid yig, 1686: “How is mahāmudrā described? It is described as the nature or abiding mode of all phenomena. How is this ascertained? It is ascertained solely in the context of mind. How is it taken as the path? All phenomena consisting of sights and sounds are taken as the path. How is the goal attained? Existence and appearance manifest as the play of the three kāyas.” phyag rgya chen po gang la zer na | chos thams cad kyi rang bzhin nam | gnas lugs la zer | de gtan la gang du ’bebs snyam na | sems nyag gcig gi steng du gtan la ’bebs | lam du gang ’khyer na | snang grags kyi chos thams cad lam du ’khyer | ’bras bu ci ltar thob nyam na | snang srid sku gsum gyi rol par ’char ro | | 25 See his Rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba’i snying po’i rnam par bshad pa, 3772-6. 26 See, for example, his Nges don phyag rgya chen po’i phyogs nas dri ba la lan du bgyis pa, 4033-4042, where the author describes gnas lugs phyag chen as the ever-present mode of being (yin tshul) or dwelling (bzhugs tshul), an expanse beyond discursive elaborations (spros pa thams cad las ’das pa’i dbyings), wherein self-awareness recognizes its own abiding nature as it really is, coemergent ignorance and error having not yet emerged. He goes on (4041-2) to link this with relevant Rdzogs chen terminology: “In the context of Rnying ma Mantra[yāna], it is called the ‘originally pure essence’ (ngo bo ka nas dag pa) or ‘being free directly in the [state of] Samantabhadra’ (kun tu bzang po zhig thog tu grol ba), whereas in our own Mahāmudrā context, is designated as ‘mahāmudrā in the abiding mode’ (gnas lugs phyag chen).” gsang sngags rnying ma’i skabs tshor | ngo bo ka nas dag pa’am | kun tu bzang po zhig thog tu grol ba zhes zer la | phyag rgya chen po’i rang skabs su ni | gnas lugs phyag chen du ming btags mod lags… ZAS 44 (2015) 58 gnas lugs phyag chen as an epithet for one of the two major strands of Indian Mahāmudrā that Sgam po pa disseminated: (1) the Saraha-Maitrīpa tradition which also goes by the names ‘awareness-emptiness Mahāmudrā’ (rig stong phyag chen) and ‘mental non-engagement’ (yid la mi byed pa : amanasikāra), and (2) the Tilopa-Nāropa tradition of bliss-emptiness Mahāmudrā (bde stong phyag rgya chen po).27 Finally, the employment of gnas lugs phyag chen as a thematic or interpretive category to demarcate and structure teachings on the essence of mahāmudrā seems to be largely confined to the Mahāmudrā treatises of Yang dgon pa and Padma dkar po, though we have indicated that the more general rubrics ’khrul lugs and gnas lugs were at times used by scholars of other traditions such as Dol po pa and Klong chen pa to present and organize key doctrines of their own traditions. Mahāmudrā in the mode of error (’khrul lugs phyag chen) If the technical term gnas lugs phyag chen was used ubiquitously and relatively uncontroversially as a descriptor, doxographical construct and topical category by Bka’ brgyud exegetes, its counterpart ’khrul lugs phyag chen was a neologism introduced by Yang dgon pa as a concept and category to serve a more specific philosophical and soteriological purpose. In defining this concept, Yang dgon pa states that “As for mahāmudrā in the mode of error, the abiding mode in its self-manifestation is empty in essence, and [this] emptiness 27 Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam, 843-851: “In India, Nāropa together with his guru Tilopa gave priority to skillful means among the two aspects of means and insight (thabs shes). They specified mahāmudrā as coemergent wisdom of bliss and emptiness (bde stong lhan skyes kyi ye shes). This tradition of going to the heart of the path of skillful means through direct experience was taken up by Mar pa, Mi la, Ras chung and others. Maitrīpa and his teacher Śavaripa (ri khrod dbang phyug), along with the latter’s teacher Saraha, gave priority to insight and emptiness (shes rab stong pa nyid) which they termed mahāmudrā of awareness and emptiness (rig stong phyag rgya chen po) or amanasikāra. This system (phyag srol) which propounded mahāmudrā in terms of the real wisdom (don gyi ye shes) which is only the uncontrived natural flow termed “mental non-engagement” (yid la mi byed pa) continued from Mar[pa] to Mi[la] and widely disseminated by the incomparable Sgam po pa.” rgya gar du yang nā ro pa dang de nyid kyi bla ma til li pa dang bcas pa ni | thabs shes gnyis las thabs gtso bor mdzad de | bde stong lhan skyes kyi ye shes la phyag rgya chen por bzhed cing | nyams len kyang thabs lam la gnad du bsnun par mdzad pa’i phyag srol mar pa mi la ras chung sogs kyis ’dzi pa dang | mai tri pa dang de’i bla ma ri khrod dbang phyug | de’i bla ma sa ra ha dang bcas pas ni shes rab stong pa nyid gtso bor mdzad de | rig stong phyag rgya chen po’am | a ma na si kā ra ste | yid la mi byed pa ces bya ba ma bcos sor ’dzag kho na’i don gyi ye shes la phyag rgya chen por bzhed pa’i phyag srol mar mi nas brgyud de mnyam med sgam po pas spel bar mdzad la | | ZAS 44 (2015) 59 is imbued with the vital nucleus of awareness. Since that [empty awareness] which has been primordially present as the inseparable unity of the three kāyas emerges together (lhan cig skyes pa) with ‘oneself’, there is the non-selfrecognition of ignorance (ma rig pa’i ngo ma shes).”28 Here, mahāmudrā in the condition or state (lugs) of delusion or error (’khrul) is defined as the empty abiding mode of awareness which is lost sight of in the progressive process of non-self-recognition (awareness not recognizing itself as it is) and misrecognition (recognizing itself as other than it is), but which nonetheless remains unchangingly present and available within this state of confusion as the underlying unadulterated awareness. An indication of Yang dgon pa’s reason for coining this term is given by Padma dkar po’s disciple Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569-1645) in his defence of his teacher’s Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. He there defends ’khrul lugs phyag chen against criticism by the Sa skya critic Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-1596) who rejected the idea as “a mistake (skyon) to be rejected because it is not verified by reasoning”.29 More specifically, Klu sgrub rejects Yang dgon pa’s interpretation on the basis of Sa paṇ Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan’s (1182-1251) broad-based criticisms of non-gradual mahāmudrā teachings that were thought to be endemic in Dwags po Bka’ brgyud traditions. This is interesting when one considers that Yang dgon pa counted Sa paṇ among his four root teachers and that neither Yang dgon pa himself nor his biographers hint at any personal or sectarian tension between teacher and student at this time.30 Be this as it may, 28 Ri chos yon tan kun ’byung ba Rin po che ’bar ba, 4813-4: ’khrul lugs phyag rgya chen po ni | gnas lugs rang snang ngo bo stong zhing | stong pa rig pa’i snying po can | sku gsum dbyer med du ye nas gnas pa de rang dang lhan cig skyes pas ma rig pa’i ngo ma shes te | … The idea here is that one fails to recognize one’s own natural condition for what it is—the primordial unity of the three kāyas—and instead takes it for something it is not, a self or oneself. This is how Yang dgon pa understands the two aspects of ignorance: the innate ignorance (lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa) of nonrecognition and reifying ignorance (kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa) of mis-recognition. 29 Sdom gsum rab dbye'i dka' 'grel sbas don gnad kyi snying po gsal byed Phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma'i 'od zer, 1464-5: “In short, in view of [Sapaṇ’s] claim that [to attain] mahāmudrā it is necessary to depend on wisdom and the stages of empowerments, ‘mahāmudrā in the abiding mode’ appears to be a mistake to be dispensed with: the statement ‘not established by reasoning’ is alone sufficient [to make the case]”. mdor na phyag chen ye shes dbang rim gang rung la ltos dgos par khas blangs pa la | ’khrul lugs phyag chen skyon la gtong par snang ste | rtags ma grub ces pa gcig pus chog go | 30 See Millar 2013: 31-36 for an interesting account of this teacher-student relationship and the influence of Yang dgon pa’s vajra body (rdo rje’i lus) teachings on early Sa skya masters. ZAS 44 (2015) 60 Sa paṇ soon gained a reputation as a harsh critic of the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition and Klu sgrub does not hesitate to cite certain pronouncements in Sa paṇ’s Sdom gsum rab dbye to the effect that mahāmudrā can only be realized as the fourth and culminating phase in the Buddhist tantric series of four mudrās (Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.176-77), and that this in turn depended upon first receiving the tantric empowerments, along with formal tantric practices of the generation and completion stages (ibid. 3.179).31 Now, it has recently been demonstrated by Klaus-Dieter Mathes that Sa paṇ’s criticisms of those Tibetan non-gradual Mahāmudrā teachings offering individuals of sharp acumen a less conceptually and ritually mediated path to goal-realization by way of direct introduction (ngo sprod) to the nature of mind—a path that circumvented the elaborate system of tantric empowerments and stages of realization—were based on a misinterpretation (whether intentional or otherwise) of a key passage of the Caturmudrānvaya. Sa paṇ summarizes it as follows: In his Caturmudrā[nvaya], noble Nāgārjuna said this: If, through not having known the karmamudrā, One remains ignorant of the dharmamudrā, It is impossible for one to understand Even the name mahāmudrā. (Sdom gsum rab dbye 3.178) Mathes points out that Padma dkar po had correctly shown in his Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod32 that the above passage is not attested or supported in the Caturmudrānvaya which says something altogether different. What the relevant passage of this text in fact states, as Padma dkar po had correctly noted, is that only the uncontrived dharmamudrā (which gives rise to the coemergent nature), and not the contrived karmamudrā (the tantric consort), can be the cause of mahāmudrā, in the same way that it is only from a cause of a specific kind (e.g. a rice grain) that a result (fruit) of this same kind (e.g. a rice sprout) can arise. In other words, because something of a contrived nature cannot be the cause of something that is uncontrived by nature (at least, not without violating the canonical Indian logical principle of ‘like causes like’), the contrived bliss resulting from sexual union with a karmamudrā or tantric consort cannot be a cause of mahāmudrā, whereas the uncontrived dharmamudrā can.33 In 31 It is worth noting that Sa paṇ outlines the mudrās in a sequence different from the text: mahāmudrā should have been represented as the third, not fouth. 32 Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod: 61.8-66.10. 33 See Mathes 2013 for a detailed account of this controversy along with supporting references and quotations. ZAS 44 (2015) 61 corroborating Padma dkar po’s rejection of Sa paṇ’s interpretation on the basis of an extant Sanskrit manuscript of the Caturmudrānvaya, Mathes at the same time settles a recent dispute over the meaning of Sa paṇ’s passage by two Tibetanists, Michael Broido and David Jackson34, neither of whom consulted any Sanskrit version of the text. The implications of this revised reading are significant: for, when the scriptural source of Sa paṇ’s restrictive definitions of what counts as valid mahāmudrā doctrine and practice is interpreted correctly, there is very little to support his influential rejection of non-gradual Mahāmudrā systems and the special methods they employ, such as the Guru’s direct introduction, these being, after all, hallmarks of the Indian Buddhist siddha tradition from which the Sa skyas also claimed descent.35 Padma dkar po’s responses to Sa paṇ’s criticisms were well-known to his student Sangs rgyas rdo rje and the latter does not hesitate to defend Yang dgon pa’s siddha-inspired non-gradual Mahāmudrā interpretations, and his teacher’s assimilation of them, against the Sa skya critic Klu sgrub rgya mtsho. Sangs rgyas rdo rje begins his defence of ’khrul lugs phyag chen by confirming that it was “Yang dgon pa who [first] emphasized it as a term and convention (ming dang tha snyad)”. He proceeds to quote the opening line of a passage that Yang dgon pa had “appended to a discourse” on the ’khrul lugs phyag chen. The passage in question is Yang dgon pa’s testimonial validation of his experience of mahāmudrā in the mode of error which occurs in the his Ri chos yon tan kun ’byung ba rin po che ’bar ba immediately following his explication of ’khrul lugs phyag chen. In it we are given a rare glimpse of the creative inception of an idea and a vivid example of the validation of doctrinal innovation by means of firstpersonal attestation. We include here the opening section of the passage: All you children, consider [this]! By arriving fully at an understanding of this mahāmudrā in the mode of error, I swallowed saṃsāra whole 34 See Broido 1987 and Jackson 1990. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Virūpa, who the Sa skyas regarded as their spiritual progenitor, extols amanasikāra, which he equates with mahāmudrā, in his dohās. See Dohākoṣa (D 2280: 2686-7): “When one is free from any mental engagements, the immaculate [reality] is undoubtedly [realized]. Since knowledge and its object are purified away, the nature of things directly manifests.” gang yang yid bral na dri med the tshom med | | shes dang shes bya dag pas chos nyid mgnon sum ’char | | He goes on to identify “focusing the mind on the abiding nature” (gnas lugs yid la byed) as a cause of deviation (gol ba’i rgyu). Virūpa’s understanding of amanasikāra as non-reifying mental activity (rather than a simple absence of all mental activity) is firmly in line with Maitrīpa’s interpetations of amanasikāra. 35 ZAS 44 (2015) 62 and made a round trip journey to buddhahood.36 I sealed appearance and existence and overturned saṃsāra from its depths. Not finding amidst the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa so much as a hair tip of anything to reject, they were taken as the shifting display (yo langs) of the three spiritual embodiments (kāyas).37 Sangs rgyas rdo rje goes on to unravel the meaning of this cryptic testimonial: In the post-composure state of yogis who have seen the abiding condition face to face by depending on the practice of Unsurpassed Guhyamantra[yāna], the constellation of previous latent tendencies may resurface as the reflected images of thoughts and emotions, arising as the whole spectrum of their unceasing modes of expression. But when [these yogis] fully recognize the nature [of these thoughts and emotions] without reacting to them unreflectively in the manner of ordinary people, and thus take [them] as the creative energy (rtsal) of their practice, then these [thoughts and emotions] are displayed from the very start as the interdependent [aspects] of the two form embodiments (rūpakāya). This was emphasized with those words [of Yang dgon pa]. From the standpoint of what appears as error, there are afflictive emotions such as aversion. [But] from the standpoint of recognizing their nature, they are mahāmudrā [in the form of] the mirror-like wisdom and the rest.38 36 Sangs rgyas rdo rje ends the quotation here. I have provided the rest of the introductory section. 37 Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces bya ba’i bstan bcos la rtsod pa spong ba’i gtam srid gsum rnam par rgyal ba’i dge mtshan, in Sangs rgyas rdo rje gsung ’bum vol. 4: 4342-4: ’khrul lugs phyag rgya chen po’i ming dang tha snyad la rtsal ’don mdzad mkhan rgyal ba yang dgon pa yin te khong gi gsung ’phros su | ngas ’khrul lugs phyag rgya chen po ’di la go ba legs par thebs pas ’khor ba la khyur mid rgyab | sangs rgyas la nyin khugs btang ba yin zhes gsungs ’dug | The passage ascribed to Yang dgon pa (the first part is given in full here) is found, with minor variation, in Ri chos yon tan kun ’byung ba rin po che ’bar ba, 4841 right after his explanation of the ’khrul lugs phyag chen: bu kun sems shig | ngas ni ’khrul lugs phyag rgya chen po de ka go bas | ’khor ’das la khyur mid rgyab | sangs rgyas la brnyen bkur byas | snang srid rgya thebs su song | ’khor ba dong nas sprugs | ’khor ’das kyi chos la dor rgyu skra’i rtse mo tsam cig kyang ma rnyed pas | sku gsum gyi yo langs byas paa yin no | | atext: ba 38 Ibid. 4345-4352: gsang sngags bla med kyi nyams len la brten nas gnas lugs kyi rang zhal gzigs pa’i rnal ’byor pa rnams kyi rjes thob tu | sngon gyi bag chags tsho rnam rtog dang nyon mongs kyi gzugs brnyan du lhongs te ma ’gags pa’i ’char sgo ji snyed ’byung yang | de la tha mal pa bzhin rang gar mi spyod par | rang bzhin yongs su shes pa’i nyams len gyi rtsal du khyer nas ZAS 44 (2015) 63 Now, on Sangs rgyas rdo rje interpretation, Yang dgon pa’s idea of “mahāmudrā in the mode of error” is perfectly intelligible to the tantric yogi who has come “face to face” with mahāmudrā because it clarifies how this abiding mode remains discernable in all post-composure experiences by virtue of its pervasive, invariant nature. Stated otherwise, the fleeting thoughts and feelings that resurface in post-meditation due to residual karmic imprints/ tendencies (bag chags) are, in the words of Yang dgon pa, the “shifting display (yo langs) of the three kāyas,” and thus available to the yogin as the creative energy (rtsal) of practice. Recognized as they are, this flux of thoughts and feelings dissipate on their own. Yang dgon pa’s interpretation had previously been explicated by the second ’Brug chen II Rgyal dbang rje in terms of “error being liberated in its own source, like ice naturally melting into water,” with the implication that “apart from recognizing what error really is, one [need] not seek wisdom as something separate.”39 The point of these authors is that one does not discern the three kāyas in spite of the shifting flux of thoughts and feelings that surface but in and through them. As Yang dgon pa later explains in a discussion of innate ignorance, the three kāyas generally escape notice not because they are too remote but because they are too close40, like the eye one sees through but does not see. In other words, they are ‘transparent’ not in the sense of being ‘self-evident’ but in the opposite sense of being ‘see-through’. Padma dkar po’s transposition of Yang dgon pa’s distinction On first glance, one of the more noteworthy features of Padma dkar po’s assimilation of Yang dgon pa’s distinction41 is the extent to which he has transposed this teaching from an idiom of direct personal instruction into the more scholastic register of second-order philosophical exposition. Although Padma dkar po does use the distinction in one of his spiritual songs to express gzugs sku gnyis kyi rten ’brel de thog nas sgrig pa la de skad du bsnyad pa ste | ’khrul pa ltar snang ba’i cha nas zhe sdang sogs nyon mongs | rang bzhin shes pa’i cha nas me long lta bu’i ye shes sogs phyag chen | 39 Phyag rgya chen po lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi khrid yig, Kun dga’ dpal ’byor gsung ’bum vol. 2, 1662: …chu dang chub rom ngang gi zhu ba ltar | ’khrul pa rang sar grol ba’am | ’khrul pa’i de nyid shes pa las gzhan pa’i ye shes logs su mi ’tshol te | … 40 This is also how Mi bskyod rdo rje clarifies the sense of this analogy in his Hwa shang dang ’dres pa'i don mdzub tshugs su bstan pa, 10852-3: “For example, as is said in worldly talk, due to being too close, the eye cannot see itself by itself…” dper na ’jig rten gyi kha ngag tu | nye drags pas mig gis mig ma mthong ba lta bur gyur te | … 41 Yang dgon pa’s account of the distinction is given detailed treatment in a forthcoming monograph Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way. ZAS 44 (2015) 64 the natural and carefree quality of mahāmudrā experience42, the content and contexts are otherwise mostly exegetical and, in some cases, also distinctly polemical. This notable change in discursive form is accompanied by an equally radical shift in communicative persona43—from the role of a yogi giving immediate verbal expression to a lived experience he has had or (in the case of extemporaneous utterances) is in the process of having, to the more narratively mediated role of a commentator. As a rule, the claims to legitimacy of a commentator tend to be more doctrinal and philosophical than testimonial, based as they are on well-established traditional Buddhist canons of scriptural (āgama) and rational (yukti) validation. In Yang dgon pa’s case, both the discursive context and norms were strikingly different. Because the distinction was directly communicated to his circle of disciples and subsequently codified within a cycle of structured esoteric precepts (man ngag) intended for retreatant yogis, the testimonial account of his own transformative experience was considered a sufficient verification of their relevance and validity. 44 42 Dpal padma dkar po'i rdo rje'i glu'i ’phreng ba snga ma, 4173-5: “Carefree and at ease— freely at ease in the range of mahāmudrā’s abiding mode. Carefree and at ease—the specific characteristics of saṃsāra’s error mode are freely at ease in awareness. Carefree and at ease—whatever now manifests is freely at ease in being groundless and rootles. Carefree and at ease—the appearances of the sixfold [cognitive] ensemble are freely at ease in the space of illusion.” blo bde po gu yangs pa gnas lugs phyag rgya chen po'i ngang du blo bde po gu yangs pa | | blo bde la gu yangs pa ’khrul lugs ’khor ba'i rang mtshan rig pa blo bde po gu yangs pa | | blo bde po gu yangs la da lta gang shar gzhi med rtsa bral blo bde po gu yangs pa | | blo bde po gu yangs pa tshogs drug snang sgyu ma'i klong du bde po gu yangs pa | | 43 On types of communicative persona in literature ranging from more to less immediate, see Albert Hofstadter’s essay “On the Interpretation of Works of Art,” The Concept of Style. ed. Berel Lang. Cornell University Press, 1987: 104-133. As Hoftstadter observes, “[i]n any communication, taking it as a whole, there is implicit the overall persona whose communication it is represented as being. This persona occurs inside the communicative form as part of the meaning it embodies… [It is] a necessary condition of the intelligible unity of the communicative form. It is the representation, inside the form, of the communicating subject, the one with whom communication is an act of com-munion [italics mine].” Variations in degrees of mediacy in communicative persona correspond in various ways to degrees of cognitive distance separating the direct, existential, involvement in a situation from more distant empathetic and spectatorial forms of acquaintance. 44 A more rigorous attempt to account for these stylistic differences than can be attempted here would have to consider how the sweeping changes that had occurred in Tibetan religo-cultural mileux between the 13th and 16th centuries (classical and post-classical eras) with the ascendancy of large monastic institutions and ZAS 44 (2015) 65 Padma dkar po takes up Yang dgon pa’s distinction in several treatises, collectively representing a broad range of Mahāmudrā and tantric contexts: A listing of the works containing philosophical treatment of Yang dgon pa’s distinction, along with relevant information and page numbers both of the text and the relevant passages, is given below in order of their occurrence in the Darjeeling (1973) edition of Padma dkar po’s Collected Works: (1) Lam zab kyi rnam par bshad pa Zab lam gyi snye ma, vol. 10, 333-464: 3525 f.: a detailed exegesis of ’Brug pa Dkar brgyud pa guruyoga practice written at Gnyal Yangs pa can at behest of A’o Mgon po, the chos mdzad ruler of Rkyen; (2) Skyes bu gsum gyi lam gyi mchog rin po che’i ’phreng ba, vol. 10, 537-603: 5701 f.: a commentary on Phag mo gru pa’s path summary Skyes bu chen po’i lam rim; (3) Dpal kye’i rdo rje’i spyi don grub pa’i yid ’phrog, vol. 15, 365-549: 4006 f.: a general summary of main points of doctrine and practice in the Hevajra tantra written at Rgyal byed tshal in Gtsang; (4) Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, vol. 21, 7-370: 624 f.: a detailed exegesis and polemical defence of main lines of Mahāmudrā theory and practice followed by the ’Brug pa Dkar brgyud pa tradition; written at Gnyal Yangs pa can at the behest of Sgam po pa Spyan snga Bkra shis rnam rgyal, Bla ma ’od zer dbang phyug and Gzhan phan chos skyong bde legs; (5) Bsre ’pho’i lam dbye bsdu, vol. 22, 303-633: 4581 f.: a thematically structured summary of esoteric Mahāmudrā practices according to the Bsre ’pho (“Merging and Transference”) cycle of teachings of tantric yoga in the tradition of the Six Doctrines of Nāropa (na ro chos drug). Common to all these treatments is Padma dkar po’s endeavour to clarify and validate central ’Brug pa views on mahāmudrā as ground, path and goal in relation to standard sūtric and tantric theories of buddha nature, cognition, truth, and error. Examining them collectively, it is possible to identify certain presuppositions regarding the unity of truth/reality that he sought to clarify with the aid of Yang dgon pa’s distinction. It is only in his lengthy account of consolidation of sectarian identities may have influenced the kinds of roles and expectations imposed on these ’Brug pa hierarchs, both as lineage holders and preceptors. It would also have to assess the extent to which their contrasting discursive styles followed standard Indian literary genre conventions pertaining to different types of texts (prose, poetry, song etc.), commentaries (vyākhyā etc.) and treatises (śāstra). ZAS 44 (2015) 66 the distinction in the Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod that his treatment turns decidedly polemical.45 A good starting point for understanding Padma dkar po’s philosophical reappropriation of Yang dgon pa’s distinction is a passage in his Hevajra commentary that concludes a discussion of how adamantine mind (sems kyi rdo rje : cittavajra)—an important tantric concept in Padma dkar po’s philosophical ouevre which he identifies with buddhahood and ground mahāmudrā46— remains invariant throughout the many transformations it appears to undergo. For additional clarification, he draws on the second ’Brug chen II Rgyal dbang rje’s distinction between the ground proper (gzhi) which is without error and the temporal(ized) ground (dus gzhi) which is identified as the precondition of error. To support this view, Padma dkar po cites Yang dgon pa’s distinction between the two modes of mahāmudrā, and then links these with the sūtric idea of buddha nature as being obscured by adventitious stains and the similar tantric idea of immanent buddhahood: Consequently, Rgyal ba’i dbang po stated that there is no error in the ground, [yet] there is error from the time of the temporal ground (dus gzhi dus nas). And Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa spoke in terms of “mahāmudrā in its abiding mode” and “mahāmudrā in the mode of error”. As for the meaning of this: in short, this adamantine mind (sems kyi rdo rje: cittavajra) is precisely the nature, buddhahood. When obscured by adventitious stains, there is saṃsāra. Once these distortions have been cleared away, one will attain the goal of non-abiding nirvāṇa. As the Hevajratantra [II, iv, 69] states: Sentient beings are actually buddhas Though [their nature is] shrouded by adventitious stains. When these [stains] are cleared, they are indeed buddhas.47 45 This treatment is only touched on here but translated and examind in detail in the forthcoming monograph „Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way.“ 46 Dpal kye’i rdo rje’i spyi don grub pa’i yid ’phrog, 3993: “Since this adamantine mind is perfect buddha[hood], ground and goal are inseparable. Since that is personally realized by each, it is called ‘path’. Since even that personally realized self-awareness is not apart from that [adamantine mind], it is called the ‘inseparability of ground and path’ and ‘inseparability of path and goal’.” de lta bu’i sems kyi rdo rje nyid rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas yin pas gzhi ’bras dbyer med | | de so so rang gis rtogs par byed pas lam so so rang rig de yang de las gzhan ma yin pa’i phyir gzhi lam dbyer med dang | | lam ’bras dbyer med ces bya ste | 47 Ibid., 4014--4021. de’i phyir rgyal ba’i dbang pos | gzhi la ’khrul pa med de dus gzhi dus nas ’khrul pa zhes gsungs pa dang | rgyal ba yang dgon pas | gnas lugs phyag chen dang ’khrul lugs phyag chen zhes gsungs pa yang don ’dis yin la | mdor bsdu na | sems kyi rdo rje ’di nyid rang ZAS 44 (2015) 67 In his detailed Kālacakra commentary, Padma dkar po explains ’Brug chen II Rgyal dbang rje’s distinction between the errorless ground (gzhi) and errorenabling temporal(ized) ground (dus gzhi) by means of a standard Indian example of epistemological error, the case of seeing a rope as a snake: “In this regard, the stippled rope has not become a snake, yet the mind that mistakes it for a snake projects it as a snake. Likewise, the superimposition of something as other than [its] the mode of being appears as that [to] the agent who succumbs to committing [this] error due to habituation to that [superimposition].”48 These philosophical themes are further elaborated in his Structured Summary of Merging and Transference (Bsre ’pho’i lam dbye bsdu) in support of the Madhyamaka and tantric thesis that ultimate truth is accessible only through conventional truth, and not as some metaphysical absolute lying above and beyond it. The passage occurs within a discussion of the completion stage (rdzogs rim) of Mahāmudrā practice leading to the prethematized experience of mahāmudrā in its abiding mode. For Padma dkar po, Yang dgon pa’s distinctions between two modes of mahāmudrā and between essence and manifestation help to clarify the inseparability of the two truths by interpreting the ultimate, mahāmudrā, as both the abiding ground of human reality and the condition of possibility of all appearance and error: [The ultimate] has in this way been explained as the ground of [both] the pure and impure, inasmuch as its unchanging essence (gshis) constitutes the reason for its natural purity, [while] its [unceasing] manifestation (gdangs) can occur in any way whatsoever. By virtue of this [account], on the side of the condition of ignorance, it is what possesses stains.49 Consequently, there is no error in the ground (gzhi), but there is error during the temporal ground. In this regard, Rgyal ba bzhin sangs rgyas | glo bur gyi dri mas bsgribs pa la ’khor ba | de sbyar ba byas pa las ’bras bu mi gnas pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i go ’phang du ’gyur pa yang ’di nyid las | sems can rnams ni sangs rgyas nyid | ’on kyang glo bur dri mas bsgribs | de nyid bsal na sangs rgyas nyid | ces gsungs pa’i phyir ro | | 48 Mchog gi dang po’i sangs rgyas rnam par phye ba gsang ba thams cad bshad pa’i mdzod, Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, 603-4: de yang thag khra sbrul du ma ’gyur te sbrul du ’khrul pa’i blos sbrul du btags pa bzhin no | | de bzhin gnas tshul las gzhan du sgro ’dogs pa ni ’khrul par byed du ’jug mkhan de la zhen pas der yang snang ste | 49 In other words, Mahāmudra in the mode of error is equivalent to buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha) which is traditionally described as thusness (tathatā) possessing stains. ZAS 44 (2015) 68 Yang dgon pa introduced the distinction between mahāmudrā as the mode of abiding and mahāmudrā in the mode of error.50 In his Explanation of the Profound Path (Lam zab kyi rnam par bshad pa), he relates the two modes, in typically syncretistic fashion, with non-tantric Mahāyanā ideas of dharmadhātu and dharmatā, with *sugatagarbha which “dwells within a sheath of manifold stains” (dri ma dgu’i sbubs na gnas pa), and with tantric notions of ever-present innate buddhahood such as ‘adamantine mind of awakening’ (byang chub kyi sems), ‘primal buddha’ (dang po’i sangs rgyas) as well as tantric accounts of consciousness in the analogous dying and completion stage (rdzogs rim) practices leading to the realization of luminosity. Such phenomena, he explains, must be understood to be empty of their respective intrinsic essences (rang rang ngo bos stong pa).51 The two modes of mahāmudrā are in this way linked with the unity of luminous clarity and emptiness: [This self-empty dharmatā] is also designated in regard to the “spiritual element possessing [modes of] consciousness” or “suchness possessing stains” as a ‘great emptiness’ (stong pa chen po)52 or ‘darkness’ (mun can : tama)53 or ‘imminence’ (nye bar thob pa : upalabdha)54. From the perspective of its intrinsic essence being free 50 Bsre ’pho’i lam dbye bsdu, 4582-4: de bas gshis ’gyur med nyid rang bzhin dag pa yin pa’i rgyu mtshan du song | gdangs gang du yang rung bas dag ma dag gi gzhir bshad de’i dbang gis ma rig pa’i rkyen ngor dri bcas | de’i phyir gzhi ’khrul med dang | dus gzhi dus nas ’khrul pa | ’di la rgyal ba yang dgon pas | gnas lugs phyag chen dang | ’khrul lugs phyag chen gyi rnam dbye mdzad do | 51 Lam zab kyi rnam par bshad pa, 3514-3524. 52 Darkness occurs in the penultimate stage of the dying process during which the psychophysical elements gradually dissolve. This process is mirrored in completion stage (rdzogs rim) practices wherein the reification of the physical body dissolves into the experience of an insubstantial illusory body (sgyu lus). The dying process is generally described in Bar do (Intermediate state) literature as involving the following stages: whitish illumination (snang ba), the reddish diffusion of light (mched pa) and the darkness (mun can : tamas) of imminence (nyer thob : upalabdhi) which may prefigure the dawning of the state of luminosity (’od gsal : prabhasvāra). For an overview of the parallel process in completion stage practice, see Tucci 1980: 61-2. 53 See previous note. In the context of Kālacakra sādhana, “darkness” is one of the signs of attainment that manifest before luminosity is realized. See Sekkodeśa 26, Orofino 1994: 133 (Skt.) and 62-3 (Tib.). 54 Imminence also occurs as the seventh of eight signs (brtags brgyad) that manifest during the yogic attainment of the illusory body (sgyu lus) which resembles the stages of dying. It is called ‘imminence’ or ‘near-attainment’ (nyer thob) because it is a state in which luminosity (’od gsal) is about to dawn. ZAS 44 (2015) 69 from all biases, it is without nature. Hence, by stating “Mind is no mind: mind’s nature is luminous,” [the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā 5b.1-2]55 establishes that everything is empty or luminous. Precisely this is translated as “coemergent wisdom” (lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes) based on the [Sanskrit] term sahaja (“coemergent”). As for this being present, it is mahāmudrā in the abiding mode. As for the former [aspects, they] are mahāmudrā in the mode of error.56 The preceding discussion has attempted to demonstrate the extent to which Padma dkar po not only adopted Yang dgon pa’s distinction but also adapted it to his own philosophical aims, in particular his concern to elucidate the inseparable unity of the two truths and of appearance and emptiness and to thereby trace a common doctrinal thread running through Mahāyāna, Mantrayāna and Mahāmudrā discourses. We can now look more closely at how he redeploys this distinction to argue for the “unity of truth” thesis and to defend it against rival views. The two faces of mahāmudrā and the unity of reality In a section of Padma dkar po’s commentary on Phag mo gru pa’s Stages of the Path of the Great Individual (Skyes bu chen po’i lam rim) devoted to “dispelling error on the path” (lam ’khrul pa sel ba), the author begins with the topic of “ascertaining the view of the two truths” (bden gnyis kyi lta ba gtan la phab).57 Here, within the framework of a structured summary of the essentials of the Mahāyāna path, Padma dkar po uses the distinction between modes of abiding and error to support his thesis that the conventional and ultimate truths are ultimately commensurable. In a series of responses to questions, he explains how the abiding mode or ground is nothing whatsoever and yet makes everything possible, including the adventitious arising of dualistic perceptions. This being the case, the joy of nirvāṇa must be understood not as 55 The corresponding passage from the Sanskrit are given in Schmithausen 1977: 41 as lines E.b.1–2 tathā hi tac cittam acittam | prakṛtiś cittasya prabhāsvarā | | 56 Lam zab kyi rnam par bshad pa, Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 10: 3525 f.: rnam par shes pa dang bcas pa’i khams sam dri bcas de bzhin nyid la stong pa chen po’am mun can dang | nye bar thob pa zhes kyang bya’o | | rang gi ngo bo nyid phyogs thams cad dang bral ba’i cha nas rang bzhin med pa ste | sems ni sems ma mchis te sems kyi rang bzhin ’od gsal ba’o | | zhes pas thams cad stong po’am ’od gsal du bzhag | de kha sa ha dza’i sgra las lhan cig skyes pa’i ye shes su bsgyur ba’i yin no | | gnas ’di la gnas lugs phyag rgya chen po | snga ma la ’khrul lugs phyag rgya chen po | | 57 This is the first of three topics; the second is “practicing the cultivation of [their] unity” (zung ’jug gi sgom pa nyams su blangs) and the third is “engaging in the conduct of the six perfections” (phar phyin drug gi spyod pa la ’jug pa). ZAS 44 (2015) 70 an achievement but as what remains, even if it has no ontological status, when the wholly unreal adventitious factors that impede it are purified away. Therefore, error does not exist in the mode of abiding any more than the water exists in a mirage and is able to slake one’s thirst. Query: What is necessary so that one attains the joy of nirvāṇa once one is free from the sufferings of saṃsāra? Reply: It is necessary to purify away error. It is necessary to destroy error. In this very purification or destruction of error, aside from conventionally imputing the notion of “attaining the joy of nirvāṇa,” there is [actually] nothing to be achieved (bsgrub rgyu) on the side of the “joy of nirvāṇa” Query: What is necessary in order to purify away error? Reply: It is necessary to recognize the mode of being (yin lugs) of error. It is necessary to understand [its] abiding mode (gnas lugs). Query: Then what are the mode of abiding and the mode of error like? Reply: The ground which is the fundamental abiding mode of reality (gzhi dngos po gshis kyi gnas lugs)—the nature of phenomena, the complete purity of suchness—is nothing that can be established in any way as entities or characteristics, like the centre of the sky. That is “ultimate truth”. In that way, from within the sphere of that expanse of phenomena (chos dbyings) which is like the centre of the sky, driven by ignorance as cause and the five [karmic] winds as conditions, awareness mistakes its essence (ngo bo rig pa ’khrul pas) whereby apprehending and apprehended manifest as the whole variety of deluded perceptions (’khrul pa’i snang ba). These are experienced as the variety of joys and sorrows etc. of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. For example, it is like the adventitious arising of clouds in the clear sky or the adventitious arising of turbidity in clear water. In that way, the conventional, lacking any mode of being, nonetheless appears, like a mirage. At the very time of arising, it is emply like the moon [reflected on] water. Query: How is this abiding mode present? Reply: It is present as the nonduality of appearance and emptiness, like a conch shell and its whiteness. Moreover, just as when a mirage appears as if it were water one cannot enjoy even a single drop of water, so too error does not exist in the mode of abiding.58 58 Skyes bu gsum gyi lam gyi mchog rin po che’i ’phreng ba, 5701-5713: ’khor ba’i sdug bsngal dang bral nas mya ngan las ’das pa’i bde ba thob par byed pa la ci dgos na | ’khrul pa ’dag dgos | ’khrul pa ’jig dgos | ’khrul pa dag pa’am zhig pa de kha la mya ngan las ’das pa’i bde ba thob pa ZAS 44 (2015) 71 Padma dkar po concludes that appearance and emptiness, the mode of error and abiding, are inseparable, for “just as one does not know how to discriminate a conch shell from its whiteness, so one does not know how to discriminate the appearance of phenomena (chos can snang ba) from emptiness which is the nature of phenomena (chos nyid stong nyid).”59 To say that one discovers the ultimate in the conventional means really that one discovers the ultimate in the absence of the conventional or pseudo-reality. Herein lies the unity of the two truths or, more precisely, the unity of truth/reality. When we look more carefully at the coiled snake, we see it is only a stippled rope after all. The snake never in any sense existed in the rope, though the rope was a necessary condition of its being misperceived as a snake. Here, it is critically important to try to understand the sense of “unity” (zung ’jug : yuganaddha) that Padma dkar po endorses. It may be helpful to introduce a distinction between symmetrical and asymmetrical kinds of unity: By symmetrical unity I mean a relationship wherein two relata (say, x and y) stand to one another in some type of symmetrical relation (correlation) either of identity (x = y) where x is the same as y, or reciprocal determination (x ⇐⇒ y) where x and y complementary to one another or require one another for their very definition. By asymmetrical unity I mean a relationship of unity wherein two relata stand to one another in an asymmetrical relation of ontological priority such that one (x) is a condition of possibility for the other (y). To expand on a traditional metaphor, waves are not different from the river on which they appear but they do derive from it. On this logic of asymmetrical unity, thoughts are dharmakāya to the extent that they derive from it and have no independent existence apart from it. ces tha snyad du btags pa las mya ngan las ’das pa’i bde ba logs na bsgrub rgyu med | ’khrul pa ’dag par byed pa la ci dgos na | ’khrul pa’i yin lugs shes dgos | gnas lugs go dgos | ’o na gnas lugs ci | ’khrul lugs ci lta bu snyam na | gzhi dngos po gshis kyi gnas lugs chos nyid de bzhin nyid kyi rnam par dag pa nam mkha’i dkyil lta bu dngos po dang mtshan ma gang du yang grub pa med pa’i | de ni don dam pa’i bden pa’o | de ltar chos dbyings nam mkha’ dkyil lta bu de’i ngang nas rgyu ma rig pas byas | rkyen rlung lngas byas nas ngo bo rig pa ’khrul pas gzung ’dzin ’khrul pa’i snang ba sna tshogs su shar te | ’khor ba dang mya ngan las ’das pa’i bde ba dang sdug bsngal la sogs pa sna tshogs nyams su myong ba yin te | dper na nam mkha’ dangs pa la sprin glo bur du byung ba’am chu dangs la rnyog ma glo bur du byung ba lta bu | de bas na kun rdzob ni yin lugs med pa la snang ba smig rgyu lta bu | snang ba’i dus nyid na stong pa chu zla lta bu | gnas lugs ji ltar gnas na snang ba dang stong pa nyid gnyis su med par gnas pa dung dang dung gi dkar po lta bu | de yang smig rgyu la chur snang ba’i dus nyid na chu thigs pa gcig kyang yod ma myong ba bzhin ’khrul pa gnas lugs la med pa ste | 59 Ibid., 5713: dung dang dung gi dkar po ’byed mi shes pa bzhin | chos can snang ba dang chos nyid stong pa nyid ’byed mi shes pa ste | ZAS 44 (2015) 72 In the Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, Padma dkar po completes his discussion of the distinction between the two modes of mahāmudrā with a summary of the views of ground, path and goal mahāmudrā endorsed by his ‘Brug pa Bka’ brgyud tradition. He begins with the distinction between the abiding modes of reality of body and mind which he aligns with the traditional categories of adventitious stains and buddha nature respectively. The former, he says, is “posited in the context of error” and thus is held to possess adventitious stains. “As for the abiding reality of the mind, it is that purity itself, the primordially pure, which is, from this perspective, the ‘natural purity’ (rang bzhin gyis dag pa) as it is called in common parlance.” He explains: Although not established in essence and manifestation as something adventitious, it [nonetheless] appears as essence and manifestation and is therefore described in that language. As examples, it is similar to what, in a thangka painting, appears to be in relief with protruding [foreground] and receding [background]60, or like a [white] conch which appears to be yellow to one afflicted with bile disease [such as jaundice]. This yellowness is not established either in the essence of the conch shell or the manifestation of the conch shell, and yet there are causes for something to appear to one afflicted with bile disease and also reasons why the ailment clears [when] the methods to progressively alleviate it [are applied].61 In the same sense that the ‘yellowness’ of a conch has never existed because it is not perceived by a person who is not afflicted by jaundiced vision, so error has never existed. In accounting for how error (e.g., yellowness) nonetheless 60 This refers to the illusion of three dimensions on a flat, two dimensional surface that is achieved in thangka painting (and many other styles of painting) through effects such as overlapping of objects and figures, changes in their relative sizes and placements (smaller is farther), shading, linear perspective (the illusion that objects grow smaller and converge toward a “vanishing point” at the horizon line), relative hue and value, and atmospheric perspective (which operates when objects placed in upper part of painting, and understood to be farther away, are given less contrast, detail and texture). On the history of the representation of three-dimensional space in the twodimensional surface of a painting, see Damisch, Hubert (1994). The Origin of Perspective, Translated by John Goodman. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 61 Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, 1901-3: glo bur ba yang gshis dang gdangs gnyis la ma grub kyang | gshis dang gdangs su snang bas de skad brjod de | dper na thang ga la 'bur kyong dod par snang ba bzhin nam | mkhris nad can la dung ser por snang ba bzhin | ser po de dung gi gshis sam dung gi mdangs la ma grub pa dang | mkhris nad can la snang rgyu byung ba dang | yang nad dag rim gyis zhi tshul yang 'thad byung bas so | | ZAS 44 (2015) 73 appears, the author traces the source of error to a mistaken identification of the definiendum, i.e., the thing which exemplifies a term or definition (mtshan gzhi): whereas dharmakāya is the true definiendum, a conceptual construct is taken as the definiendum, as in the instance of 'grasping the very conch that is imputed as yellow as the definiendum, both in seeing the conch as yellow and not seeing the conch as yellow.' Hence, conventional truth or pseudo-reality consists in taking the imputation for the basis of designation, and thus confusing the map with the terrain. Padma dkar po concludes that the two truths are inseparable because they share a single unchanging ground or definiendum—dharmakāya, the adamantine nature of mind, mahāmudrā in the abiding condition. As an illustration of the difference between the ground and what obscures it, he compares the changeless sky and our shifting perspectives of it as it becomes overcast by clouds: [A]t the time the sky has clouds, it has not changed from [when it was] unobscured because, if it was altered, then it would not be able to become cloudless [again]. In that way, just as it is demonstrated that the sky remains unchanging from its own side (rang ngos nas), though the ways of seeing it change, so also since there is no error within the adamantine [nature] of mind (sems kyi rdo rje) in its own right (rang ngos la), error does not exist in the ground. If error existed in the nature, one would not be able to clear [what obscures it], just as charcoal cannot be turned white, even when it is cleansed with streams of milk.62 The type of asymmetrical unity of truth thesis advocated by Padma dkar po did not go uncriticized by his contemporaries. For, at bottom, didn’t his framing of the tantric and Madhyamaka “unity of truth” theory in terms of a single errorless ground end up commiting him to a metaphysical monism no less absolutist than the Jo nang dualist ontology he was criticizing? The opponent could easily be led to this conclusion by the author’s repeated claim, along the lines of the classical Buddhist distinction between adventitious phenomena (dharma) and their unconditioned nature (dharmatā), that the mode of delusion is purely incidental and parasitic upon a more fundamental 62 Ibid., 1905-1911: gzhan yang sprin dang bcas pa'i dus na nam mkha' mi sgrib pa las ma 'gyur te | 'gyur na sprin med du 'gro mi tshugs pas so | | de bas na de nam mkha' rang ngos nas 'gyur ba med la | mthong tshul 'gyur bar ston pa bzhin | sems kyi rdo rje rang ngos la 'khrul pa med pas | gzhi la 'khrul pa med | rang bzhin la 'khrul pa yod na sbyang mi thub ste | sol ba 'o ma'i rgyun gyis bkrus kyang dkar por mi 'gyur ba lta bu'o | | ZAS 44 (2015) 74 continuum of reality from which it derives. But such a conclusion is averted to some extent by the author’s perspectival account of the two truths which construes both the conventional and ultimate as relative value judgements ascribed to the mutable somatic and immutable cognitive modalities of an undifferentiated ground or continuum of experience which remains invariant throughout its apparent modifications: In terms of this ground itself, in the context of [it] being taking as [something] mutable, it is the abiding mode of the body and posited as conventional truth. In the context of seeing it as immutable, it is the abiding mode of the mind and posited as ultimate truth. [Yet] at the time this ground [seems] to have undergone change, it has not become something ‘bad’. At the time it is understood as changeless, it has not become something ‘good’. Since it thus remains just as it is, there is no reason to dichotomize it in terms of the two truths. This is what is presented as the “inseparability of the two truths”.63 On this understanding, the two truths are inseparable not only in the sense that the conventional has never existed independently of the ultimate, but also in the sense that both are equally without inherent nature and beyond discursive elaboration. To reify the two truths and posit them as separate orders of existence is to allow a useful model of reality to harden into the reality of the model. The same may be said of the two modes of mahāmudrā. In the final analysis, ultimate and conventional are value judgements superimposed on a groundless ground—human reality in its most ontologically primary condition—which is as little changed by them as the sky is by the clouds that drift across it. It is this elusive groundless ground, mahāmudrā in its mode of abiding, which remains ever-present, and ever-available to the aspirant within the state of confusion. 63 Ibid., 1914-1921: de kas rnam par 'gyur ba 'dra bar bzung ba'i cha nas lus kyi gnas lugs te | kun rdzob kyi bden par bzhag 'gyur ba med par mthong ba'i cha nas sems kyi gnas lugs don dam bden par bzhag go | gzhi de 'gyur bcas su song dus ngan par ma song | 'gyur med du rtogs dus bzang por ma red | de ka rang du bsdad pas bden pa gnyis su 'byed rgyu med pa 'di la bden gnyis dbyer med ces rnam par gzhag go | | ZAS 44 (2015) 75 Bibliography Primary Sources D: Derge edition of bsTan ’gyur. The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Taipei Edition. Taipei, Taiwan: SMC Publishing 1991. Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan ______. Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa rang ’grel. In The Collected Works (gsung ’bum) of Kunmkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361). 1 vol. Paro: Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimay, 1984, 585-666. ______. Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho. Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho zhes bya ba mthar thug thun mong ma yin pa’i man ngag. Pecing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998. Karma Chags med. ______. Chags med ri chos. Zhang kang: Zhang kang then mā dpe skrun khang, 2003. ______. Ri chos mtshams kyi zhal gdams. Solu: Rtsib ri par khang, 1970. Klong chen rab ’byams pa ______. Rdzogs pa chen po sgyu ma ngal gso'i bsdus don man dā ra ba'i phreng ba. In Rdzogs pa chen po ngal gso skor gsum. Reproduced from xylographic prints from A ’dzom ’brug pa chos sgar blocks. New Delhi: 3 vols. 1999, 579-591. Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho ______. Sdom gsum rab dbye’i dka’ ’grel sbas don gnad kyi snying po gsal byed Phyag chen rtsod spong skabs kyi legs bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer. In The Collected Works of Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho. 6 vols. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 1999, vol. 5, 111-206. Mi bskyod rdo rje, Karma pa VIII ______. Hwa shang dang ’dres pa'i don mdzub tshugs su bstan pa, Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum, 26 vols. Lhasa, 2004, vol. 15, 1083-1093. Padma dkar po, ’Brug chen IV ______. Bsre ’pho’i lam dbye bsdu. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 22, 303-633. ______. Dpal kye’i rdo rje’i spyi don grub pa’i yid ’phrog. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 15, 365-549. ______. Dpal padma dkar po'i rdo rje'i glu'i ’phreng ba snga ma. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 20, 347-449. ______. Lam zab kyi rnam par bshad pa Zab lam gyi snye ma. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 10, 333-464. ______. Mchog gi dang po’i sangs rgyas rnam par phye ba gsang ba thams cad bshad pa’i mdzod. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 13, 1-533. ZAS 44 (2015) 76 ______. Padma dkar po gsung ’bum. Collected Works (gsung-’bum) of Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po. 24 vols. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang: 1974. ______. Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. Full title: Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 21, 7370. Also: Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. Varanasi: Vajra Vidya Institute Library, 2005. ______. Rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba’i snying po’i rnam par bshad pa. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 24, 349-516. ______. Skyes bu gsum gyi lam gyi mchog rin po che’i ’phreng ba. In Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 10, 537-603 Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po ______. Ri chos bdud rtsi bum pa. In: Phag mo gru pa rdo rje rgyal po’i gsung ’bum. Lhun grub steng: Sde dge par khang: 2010, vol. 2: 389-397. Rgyal dbang rje Kun dga’ dpal ‘byor, ’Brug chen II ______. Phyag rgya chen po lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi khrid yig. In: Kun dga’ dpal ’byor gsung ’bum. 2 vols. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1982, vol. 2, 159-172. Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol ______. Chos thams cad kyi snying po phyag rgya chen po’i don yang dag pa rab tu gsal bar byed pa dri ma med pa’i sgron ma. In Mkhas grub chen po rtse le sna tshogs ran grol mchog gi gsung gdams zab ’ga’ zhig phygs gcig tu bsgrigs pa. Kathmandu: Khenpo Shedup tenzin and Lama Thinley Namgyal, 2007, 169-268. ______. Nges don phyag rgya chen po’i phyogs nas dri ba la lan du bgyis pa, In The Complete Works of Rtse-le Rgod-tshaṅ-pa Padma-legs-grub. 8 vols. Gangtok: Mgon po tshe brtan, 1979, 389-450. ______. Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam Phyag rgya chen po’i gnad don gyi dri ba lan du phul ba Skal bzang dga’ byed bdud rtsi’i ’dod ’jo, in Dkar rnying gi skyes chen du ma'i phyag rdzogs kyi gdams ngag gnad bsdus nyer mkho rin po che’i gter mdzod (Rtsib ri spar ma), Darjeeling: Kargyu sungrab nyamso khang, 1978-1985, vol. 26, 842-86. Sa skya Paṇḍita ______. Sdom gsum rab dbye. Edited by Rhoton, Jared D. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Codes: Essential Distinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems. SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies. New York: SUNY. Sangs rgyas rdo rje, Mkhas dbang ______. Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod ces bya ba’i bstan bcos la Rtsod pa spong ba’i gtam srid gsum rnam par rgyal ba’i dge ZAS 44 (2015) 77 mtshan. In: The Collected Works of Mkhas-dban Sangs rgyas-rdo-rje. 6 vols. Kathmandu: Āchārya Shedrup Tendzin, 1998, vol. 4, 293-636. Virūpa ______. Dohākoṣa-nāma. Tb. Do ha mdzod ces bya ba. D 2280. Yang dgon pa, Rgyal ba ______. Ri chos yon tan kun ’byung ba rin po che ’bar ba. In Collected Writing[s] (gsung ’bum) of Rgyal-ba Yaṅ-dgon-pa rgyal-mtshan-dpal. 3 vols. Thimphu: Tango monastic community, 1984, vol. 1, 443-548. References Broido, Michael M. 1987. Sa-skya Paṇḍita, the White Panacea and the Hvashang Doctrine. The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10 (1), 27-68. Hofstadter, Albert. 1987. On the Interpretation of Works of Art. In The Concept of Style. Ed. Berel Lang. Cornell University Press. 104-133. Hubert, Damisch. 1994. The Origin of Perspective, Tr. John Goodman. Cambridge MA:MIT Press. Jackson, David. 1990. Sa skya Paṇḍita the ‘Polemicist’: Ancient Debates and Modern Interpretations. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 13 (2), 17-116. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2013. bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: “Chinese rDzogs chen” or the Teachings of the Siddhas? In Tibet after Empire. Culture, Society and Religion between 850-1000. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2011. Edited by Christoph Cüppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 267-294. Millar, Willa. 2013. Secrets of the Vajra Body: Dngos po’i gnas lugs and the Apotheosis of the Body in the Work of Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University. Monier-Williams, Monier. 1956. A Sanskrit English Dictionary. Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: The Clarendon press. Reprint of 1899 edition. Negi, J.S. 1993-2005. Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Dictionary Unit, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Orofino, Giacomella. 1994. Sekoddeśa. A critical edition of the Tibetan Translations. Rome: L'Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Smith, Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau. Sommerville: Wisdom Publications. Tucci, Giuseppe. 1980. Tr. Geoffrey Samuels. Religions of Tibet. Berkeley: University of California Press. ZAS 44 (2015) 78 ZAS 44 (2015)

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s Distinction between gnas lugs phyag chen and ’khrul lugs phyag chen. Andiast (Schweiz): Zentralasiatische Studien (ZAS), 44 (2015), pp. 51-77.

The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s Distinction between gnas lugs phyag chen and ’khrul lugs phyag chen. Andiast (Schweiz): Zentralasiatische Studien (ZAS), 44 (2015), pp. 51-77.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS