The Essence of Other-Emptiness Tåranåtha
The Essence of Other-Emptiness
Translated and Annotated by Jeffrey Hopkins In collaboration with Lama Lodrö Namgyel
Please notice that: • Full bibliographical references are given in the footnotes at first citation.
• For translations and editions of texts, see the Bibliography.
• The names of Indian Buddhist schools are translated into English in an effort to increase accessibility for non-specialists.
• For the names of Indian scholars and systems cited in the body of the text, ch, sh, and øh are used instead of the more usual c, Ÿ, and ø for the sake of easy pronunciation by non-specialists; however, cch is used for cch, not chchh. In parentheses the usual transliteration system for Sanskrit is used.
• Transliteration of Tibetan is done in accordance with a system devised by Turrell Wylie; see “A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 22 (1959): 261-267,
• The names of Tibetan authors and orders are given in “essay phonetics” for the sake of easy pronunciation. The system is used consistently, with the result that a few well-known names are rendered in a different way; for example, “Lhasa” is rendered as “Hla-Ôa,” since the letter “h” is pronounced before the letter “l.” In the table below, the Wylie transliteration form of Tibetan letters is on the left of each column and my “essay phonetics” form is on the right.
ka = „a kha = ka ga = ga nga = nga or Ìga ca = Á cha = cha ja = ja nya = nya or Ìya ta = «a tha = ta da = da na = na or Ìa pa = œa pha = pa ba = ba ma = ma or Îa tsa = «za tsha = tsa dza = dza wa = wa zha = sha za = sa ’a = a ya = ya ra = ra la = la sha = Ôha sa = Ôa ha = ha a = a
Introduction
Tåranåtha was born in 1575 in a family descended from the famous Translator Gya Dor-jay-sang-œo (rgya lo tså ba rdo rje bzang po) in an area between the two major provinces of central Tibet. At birth he was given the name Àün-ga-½ying-œo (kun dga’ snying po), meaning “Essence of Total Joy.” The name Tåranåtha (sgrol ba’i mgon po) itself means “Liberating-Protector,” and Gareth Sparham speculates that his preference for this “Sanskrit form of the honorific title reflects the importance he gave to his knowledge of Sanskrit, and to his contacts with pilgrims from western India.” Sparham points out Tåranåtha wrote many works on the Kålachakra Tantra and Cakrasaôvara Tantra in particular, and also translated a book on grammar, the Sarasvatavyåkaraòac into Tibetan…he met and studied with—besides Buddhagupta-[nåtha], Premånanda and PÒròånanda, etc.—the learned Sanskrit grammarian paòçita K¸øòa of Varaòås¦. This connection with Indian religious figures is unusual at so late a period of Tibetan history.
Tåranåtha’s vast writings are contained in twenty-three volumes, several of which have been translated. His famed History of Buddhism in India, written in 1608 at age thirty-four, was translated Russian by V.P. Vasil’ev in 1869 and into German by A. Schiefner in the same year, and into English by E. Obermiller in 1932 and Lama Chimpa and Alaka Chattopadhyaya in 1970. His Story of the Lineage Endowed with Seven Transmissions,d biographical sketches of fifty-nine tåntrikas, was first translated into German by Grünwedel in 1914 and into English by David Templeman in
1983. His Long History of the Yamåntaka-Tantra-Råja Cycle [Called “Causing] Wondrous Belief,” written in 1631, has been translated into English by Gareth Sparham but not yet published. His Essence of Ambrosia has been translated into English by Willa Baker in 2005.b His Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning, which contrasts the views of Shåkya Chok-denc and Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen,d has been translated into English by KlausDieter Mathes in 2004 and is the supplementary text translated in the present book.
Tåranåtha was recognized as the fourteenthf in a long line of reincarnations, among whom was Jam-Âang-chö-jay, the Ge-lukœa savant who founded Dre-œungi Monastic University in the HlaÔaj area in 1416, which eventually became the largest educational institution in Tibet with over ten thousand members before the Chinese Communist invasion in 1959. Jam-Âang-chö-jay’s writings evince a penchant for the Jo-nang-œa doctrine of other-emptiness and were controversial in Ge-luk-œa circles.
At the Jo-nang seat in Jo-mo-nang, in 1615 Tåranåtha founded a monastery named Permanent Stable Wonderful Land (rtag brtan phun tshogs gling). Later, in the midst of political turmoil it was taken over by the government of the Fifth Dalai Lama and converted into a Ge-luk-œa monastery. As Gareth Sparham says:
The later suppression of the Jo nang pa school in general, and of Tåranåtha’s works in particular, by the emergent dGe lugs pas under their leader the Fifth Dalai Lama cannot be traced to any injunction in the works of Tsong kha pa or his immediate disciples. One suspects the consolidation of power over central Tibet and the need to retain the undivided loyalty of powerful Mongolian backers better explains why it occurred…
The death of Yon tan rGya mTsho, the fourth Dalai bLa ma in 1616, brings us to the time of Tåranåtha. We know that Tåranåtha, like other learned and religious Tibetans, was also courted by Mongolians seeking religious knowledge. It is even said that during this period, which marks the final chapter in the struggle between the bKa’ brGyud and the gTsang Princes on the one side and the dGe lugs pa on the other, Tåranåtha spent more than twenty years teaching and establishing monasteries in Mongolia. The extent to which he was held in high regard by a
ection of the Mongolians is shown by the fact that he was known as rJe brTsun dam pa (“Holy Lord”) and after his death his reincarnations as the Khal kha rJe brTsun dam pas continued in Mongolia down into the twentieth century. Not only this, but, as mentioned earlier, Tåranåtha was also connected with the last of the great rulers of gTsang, the Rin sPungs prince Karma bsTan sKyong dBang po, who had supplied him with the means to build his own monastery and reprint many of the important Jo nang pa works. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that when soon after the death of Tåranåtha…Karma bsTan sKyong dBang po was defeated by Gu shri khan on behalf of the [[fifth Dalai
Lama]], Tåranåtha’s monastery, so closely associated with the ruler of gTsang and a possible focus of Mongolian devotion, was turned into a dGe lugs pa monastery, and the views of the Jo nang pa sect which were championed by Tåranåtha condemned as the worst heresy. The Glorious Fifth and his advisors wanted to take no chances with another power center developing in gTsang, particularly when it was associated with a scholarly and religious figure much loved by many Mongolians. To declare the views of the sect antithetical to those of Tsong kha pa, and by extension to the Dalai Lamas who had inherited his spiritual mantle, was a draconian measure no doubt, but it was a sure way to prevent their further spread amongst the Mongolians which might sway them from unwavering and single-pointed support.
Tåranåtha died in Mongolia in 1634 in the Wood Dog year, taking rebirth in 1635 there as Ío-sang-«en-œay-gyel-tsen, the fifteenthb in the line of his reincarnations.
As Willa Baker reports, “Tåranåtha’s life example so inspired Jamgon Kongtrul that he devoted three days a year in his retreat center to the celebration of Tåranåtha’s memory, an honor he extended to no other single lineage holder.”
THE TEXT: THE ESSENCE OF OTHER-EMPTINESS
In the Jo-nang-œa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rapgyel-tsen and Tåranåtha are recognized as its two leading exponents. Döl-œo-œa is commonly called “Omniscient” (kun mkhyen), and Tåranåtha is commonly called “Holy Leader” (rje btsun). Dölœo-œa wrote what became the fundamental text of the system, his Mountain Doctrine, Ocean of Definitive Meaning: Final Unique Quintessential Instructions. In this massive treatise he authenticates the doctrine of other-emptiness through citing a huge number of Indian scriptural sources and through presenting an elaborate argument establishing other-emptiness, and not self-emptiness, as the ultimate. Three centuries later, Tåranåtha’s concise The Essence of Other-Emptiness places the doctrine of other-emptiness in the context of schools of tenets, primarily the famed four schools of Buddhist India, while also mentioning three non-Buddhist schools.
Non-Buddhist Schools
Lokåyataa (Hedonists)
Såôkhyab (Enumerators)
Nirgranthac (The Unclothed), also known as Jainad (Followers of Jina)
Buddhist Schools
Lesser Vehicle (h¦nayåna)e
1. Great Exposition Schoolf
2. SÒtra School
Great Vehicle (mahåyåna)
3. Mind-Only Schoolh
4. Middle Way Schooli Ordinary Middle Way
a rgyang ’phan pa. b grangs can pa. c gcer bu pa. d rgyal ba pa. e The term “Lesser Vehicle” (theg dman, h¦nayåna) has its origin in the writings of Great Vehicle (theg chen, mahåyåna) authors and was, of course, not used by those to whom it was ascribed. Substitutes such as “non-Great Vehicle,” “Nikåya Buddhism,” and “Theravådayåna” have been suggested in order to avoid the pejorative sense of “Lesser.” However, “Lesser Vehicle” is a convenient term in this particular context for a type of tenet system or practice that is seen, in the tradition presented in this book, to be surpassed—but not negated—by a higher
system. The “Lesser Vehicle” is not despised, most of it being incorporated into the “Great Vehicle.” The monks’ and nuns’ vows are Lesser Vehicle, as is much of the course of study in Tibetan monastic circles. (“Lesser Vehicle” and “Low Vehicle” are used interchangeably in this book.) f bye brag smra ba, vaibhåøika. Tåranåtha’s text compartmentalizes schools by way of philosophical perspective in a Buddhist tradition that dates back to Indian works such as the Blaze of
Reasoning a by Bhåvaviveka (500-570? C.E.) and the Compendium of Principlesb by the eighth-century scholar Shåntarakøhita, with a commentary by his student Kamalash¦la, both of whom visited Tibet. In Tibet itself there were lengthy presentations such as the Precious Treasury of Tenets: Illuminating the Meaning of All Vehiclesc by the fourteenth-century scholar Íongchen-rap-jamd of the Óying-ma sect, ‚zong-ka-fla’se The Essence of Eloquence f of the Ge-luk-œa sect, and the Explanation of “Freedom from Extremes through Understanding All Tenets”: Ocean of Eloquence g by the fifteenth-century scholar ‚ak-tsang ðhay-rap-rin-
a rtog ge ’bar ba, tarkajvålå. This is Bhåvaviveka’s commentary on his Heart of the Middle (dbu ma’i snying po, madhyamakah¸daya). For a partial English translation of the latter (chap. III, 1-136), see Shßtarß Iida, Reason and Emptiness (Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1980).
b de kho na nyid bsdud pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa, tattvasaôgrahakårikå. A translation into English is available in G. Jha, The Tattvasaôgraha of õåntirakøita, with the Commentary of KamalaŸ¦la, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, vols. 80 and 83 (Baroda, India: Oriental Institute, 1937-1939; rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986).
c theg pa mtha’ dag gi don gsal bar byed pa grub pa’i mtha’ rin po che’i mdzod. d klong chen rab ’byams / klong chen dri med ’od zer, 1308-1363. e tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1357-1419.
f drang ba dang nges pa’i don rnam par phye ba’i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po; P6142, vol. 153. My annotated translation of the General Explanation and the Section on the Mind-Only School is to be found in Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). For a translation of the complete text, see Robert A. F. Thurman, Tsong Khapa’s Speech of Gold in the Essence of True Eloquence (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984). A Chinese translation was completed in Hla-Ôa on the day commemorating Buddha’s enlightenment in 1916 by Venerable Fa Zun, “Bian Liao Yi Bu Liao Yi Shuo Cang Lun,” in Xi Zang Fo Jiao Jiao Yi Lun Ji (Taipei: Da Sheng Wen Hua Chu Ban She, 1979), vol. 2, 159-276.
g grub mtha’ kun shes nas mtha’ bral grub pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa legs bshad kyi rgya mtsho. chen of the ða-„ya sect. Tåranåtha’s text is in the tradition of brief presentations of tenets, such as those found in Jay-«zün Chö-„yigyel-tsen’sb Presentation of Tenets,c the Second Dalai Lama Ge-düngya-tso’sd Ship for Entering the Ocean of Tenets,e and Paò-chen ðönam-drak-fla’sf Presentation of Tenets: Sublime Tree Inspiring Those of Clear Mind, Hammer Destroying the Stone Mountains of Opponents. These brief presentations provide a valuable way for students to gain an overview of their respective school’s outlook without being overwhelmed by source quotes and extended arguments.
As Tåranåtha’s title, The Essence of Other-Emptiness, indicates, his specific intention is to focus, though not exclusively, on tenets that serve to highlight the special doctrine of other-emptiness in the highest system, the Great Middle Way, through comparing other schools’ opinions on the status of the noumenonh and phenomena. A central point is the position of each of the schools on true establishment (bden par grub pa). (See chart next page.)
The SÒtra School and above do not make a distinction between true existence and true establishment, but the Great Exposition School holds that all phenomena are truly established but only individual minute particles and individual moments of consciousnesses are truly existent; gross objects composed of particles as well as continuums composed of moments of consciousness are not
School Truly established Existing but not truly established
Great Exposition all phenomena—compounded and uncompounded, conventional and ultimate
SÒtra present minute particles present moments of consciousness gross objects continuums
uncompounded phenomena
non-associated compositional factors
Mind-Only consciousness devoid of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject continuums
uncompounded phenomena
non-associated compositional factors
Ordinary Middle Way all phenomena—compounded and uncompounded, conventional and ultimate Great Middle Way matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus
self-cognizing, self-illuminating pristine wisdom
all ultimate Buddha-qualities primordially in-dwelling intrinsically
immutable thoroughly established nature all compounded phenomena all adventitiously posited uncompounded phenomena self-emptiness truly existent. The movement up the ladder of tenets is through greater and greater denial of true establishment, until in the Ordinary Middle Way School it goes too far, even denying the true establishment of the ultimate, the noumenon. This is corrected in the Great Middle Way through asserting that ultimate truth—also called self-arisen pristine wisdom, matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus, and so forth—is truly established.
THE SUPPLEMENTARY TEXT: TWENTY-ONE DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE PROFOUND MEANING
In the Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning Tåranåtha presents opinions of a prominent fifteenth-century scholar of the ða-»ya sect, Shåkya Chok-den, and then counters these with the favored views of the fourteenth-century primary expositor of his own Jo-nang-œa sect, Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen. About Shåkya Chok-den’s place among fifteenth-century ða-»ya thinkers, Yaroslav Komarovski says:
Shåkya Chokden (gser mdog paòchen Ÿåkya mchog ldan, 1428-1507) was educated in the Sakya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism under Rongtön Sheja Kunrik (rong ston shes bya kun rig, 1367-1449 ), Ngorchen Kunga Sangpo (ngor chen kun dga’ bzang po, 1382-1456), and other important thinkers of the fifteenth century. His writings contributed to many areas, such as logic and epistemology, Buddhist history, bridging tantric and non-tantric views, theories of perception, etc. Within the Sakya tradition, Gorampa Sonam Senge (go ram pa bsod nams seng ge, 1429-1489) is considered to be the most influential philosopher of the past five centuries by far. Yet during his lifetime Gorampa’s influence was closely rivaled by that of Shåkya Chokden, whose works until recently received little or no attention among modern scholars.
Although the views of Shåkya Chokden and Gorampa often differ greatly on many points of Madhyamaka, their contribution was similar in that they both greatly clarified the views of their own tradition through numerous commentaries on Indian and Tibetan treatises, and also through their original treatises and critical texts aimed at the views of Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa, 1357-1419) and his followers, known as Gelukpa.
The lineage of most of Gorampa’s works, which are traditionally transmitted orally through reading and explanation, has survived unbroken until the present day. However, the lineage of transmission of Shåkya Chokden’s works was broken. Shåkya Chokden’s works commanded a lesser following because many Sakyapas, facing the problem of whether to follow Gorampa or Shåkya Chokden, had chosen to follow the former, since, according to many Sakya scholars, his approach more correctly expresses the views held by Sakya Paòçita Kunga Gyaltsen (sa skya paòçita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, 1182-1251), the supreme authority of Sakya tradition, and other Sakya masters of the past.
Given Shåkya Chok-den’s importance in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and his opposition to many of Döl-œo-œa’s view, Tåranåtha formulated a debate between these two masters. Tåranåtha sees all of the twenty-one differences as stemming from the single topic of the nature of non-dual pristine wisdom, which Shåkya Chokden takes to be impermanent and Döl-œo-œa takes to be permanent (132):
Concerning those, the reasons for the arising of that many different incidental assertions mostly stem from one root. What is that one? The paòçita named Shåkya asserts that non-dual pristine wisdom has a nature not of singularity but of multiplicity and is impermanent, not abiding for an instant. The Omniscient Jo-nang-œa asserts that although non-dual pristine wisdom is indeed definite in actual fact as not one or many, for the time being he takes a presentation of it as singular to be correct, since it is asserted as being partless, all-pervasive, devoid of proliferation, and devoid of predication. In brief, they differ in asserting it to be impermanent and permanent.
In the course of his exposition, Tåranåtha explains that according to Döl-œo-œa self-arisen pristine wisdom:
• withstands analysis by the reasoning of dependent-arising, the lack of being one or many, and so forth and hence is truly existent
• is an established base but neither an effective thing nor a nonthing, both of which are necessarily conventionalities and compounded
• is cognitionb but neither an effective thing nor a non-thing, both of which are necessarily conventionalities
• is partless and all-pervasive
• is permanent and steady and is the actual uncompounded and thus is not impermanent, momentary, or compounded, even though others claim that non-things are uncompounded.
Near the end of this text Tåranåtha, sensitive to problems involved in explaining what it means for self-arisen pristine wisdom to be permanent and yet be neither an effective thing nor a non-thing, approaches the issue first by detailing what it does not mean. About real permanence he says that:
• It is not just the mere opposite of impermanence, which would be a permanent non-thing.
• It is also not what non-Buddhist Forders assert to be a permanent effective thing,e which does not even occur among objects of knowledge. (This does not imply that self-arisen pristine wisdom is not an object of knowledge, for, as Döl-œoœa clearly says,a it is.)
• It is also not a case of calling a never-ending continuum “permanent,”b which actually is compounded and not permanent, since it is uncompounded.
• It is also not a negative permanence that is a mere meaninggenerality.c (This does not imply that self-arisen pristine wisdom is not a negative, since Döl-œo-œa repeatedly saysd that other-emptiness is an affirming negative.)
• It is also not a positive self-powered permanence.e
Then, Tåranåtha declares that self-arisen pristine wisdom is the immutable basic elementf released from the proliferations of impermanent positive effective thingsg and negative permanent non-things.h Nevertheless, it is immutablei and hence solelypermanent,j a term reminiscent of Óying-ma teachings that the great completenessk is a “great permanence,”l a term intended to
a See Mountain Doctrine, 33-35.
b rgyun gyi rtag pa. c dgag pa’i rtag pa don spyi tsam. d See Mountain Doctrine, 22. e sgrub pa rang dbang can gyi rtag pa. The objection here is perhaps to “self-powered,” since Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 470, 535) speaks of positive attributes in the ultimate. f dbyings. g dngos po sgrub pa mi rtag pa. h dngos med dgag pa rtag pa. i mi ’gyur ba. j rtag pa kho na. k rdzogs pa chen po. l rtag pa chen po. For instance, Mi-pam-gya-tso says, “...the body of pristine wisdom—a great permanence like a vajra never fluctuating from the sphere of reality—is a great uncompoundedness; it is not compounded.” See The Meaning of Fundamental Mind, Clear Light, Expressed in Accordance with the Transmission of Conqueror Knowledge-Bearers: Vajra Matrix (gnyug sems ’od gsal gyi don rgyal ba rig ’dzin brgyud pa'i lung bzhin brjod pa rdo rje'i snying po) presented in Mi-pam-gya-tso, Fundamental Mind: The Nyingma View of the Great Completeness, with commentary by raise this type of permanence above the dual category of impermanence and permanence.
I wish to express my gratitude to Yaroslav Komarovski for making many helpful suggestions concerning the translation of Tåranåtha’s Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning.
Jeffrey Hopkins Emeritus Professor of Tibetan Studies University of Virginia
Khetsun Sangbo Rinbochay, trans. and ed. by Jeffrey Hopkins (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2006), 132.
The Essence of Other-Emptiness by Tåranåtha
(Since Tåranåtha’s presentation closely follows the views of Dölœo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen, illustrative passages from Döl-œo-œa’s Ocean of Definitive Meaning are added in clearly marked indents, mostly in the section on the Great Middle Way. Other explanatory material is also added in clearly marked indents.)
Oô svasti.
Here the entity of the Great Vehicle definitive middle will be identified. It has three parts: a general indication of presentations of tenets, identifying the presentation of the middle, and clearing away extremes imputed by others about the middle.
I. GENERAL INDICATION OF PRESENTATIONS OF TENETS NON-BUDDHIST SCHOOLS OF TENETS
The view and tenets of other schools, the [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders, are devoid of a path of liberation, whereas the view and tenets of our own Buddhist schools are related with a path of liberation. Although the Forders do not have a path of liberation, some do and some do not have doctrines [for achieving] high statusb [within cyclic existence]. Nihilists,c such as the Flung-Afard and so forth, who
deprecate actions and their effects, and so forth, and who propound harmful actions as the chief doctrine, do not have even a pure path to high status. However, Enumerators, Naked Ones, some followers of a supreme deity, and meditating Forders have a path to high status, because they come to be reborn as humans and gods of the Desire Realm through abandoning ill-deeds and achieving virtues, come to be reborn in the Form Realm through meditatively cultivating the four concentrations, and come to be reborn in the Formless Realm through meditatively cultivating the four formless meditative stabilizations. (See chart, next page.)
The reason why Forders do not have a path of liberation is that they do not abandon this awareness that apprehends the “I” as self, called the “apprehension of a self of persons.” For:
• on top of having a steady awareness apprehending the “I” as a self that has continuously come from beginningless cyclic existence, through their tenets they also prove that just that I-self d exists with many attributes, meditate on its meaning, and
• they also do not have anything else that is an antidote to this apprehension of self, due to which they cannot abandon the apprehension of self, and
• this apprehension of self is the cause even of all other afflictive emotions. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (117): The Descent into Laºk› SÒtra says:
Mahåmati said, “The matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus taught in other sÒtras spoken by the Supramundane Victor was said by the Supramundane Victor to be naturally radiant, pure, and thus from the beginning just pure. The matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus is said to possess the thirty-two marks [of a Buddha] and to exist in the bodies of all sentient beings.
Chart 1: Cyclic Existence: The Three Realms and Nine Levels
(from the highest levels to the lowest)
III. Formless Realm (gzugs med khams, årÒpyadhåtu)
9. Peak of Cyclic Existence (srid rtse, bhavågra)
8. Nothingness (ci yang med, åkiôcaya)
7. Limitless Consciousness (rnam shes mtha’ yas, vijñånånantya)
6. Limitless Space (nam mkha’ mtha’ yas, åkåŸånantya)
II. Form Realm (gzugs khams, rÒpadhåtu)
5. Fourth Concentration (bsam gtan bzhi pa, caturthadhyåna)
4. Third Concentration (bsam gtan gsum pa, trit¦yadhyåna)
3. Second Concentration (bsam gtan gnyis pa, dvit¦yadhyåna)
2. First Concentration (bsam gtan dang po, prathamadhyåna) I. 1. Desire Realm (’dod khams, kåmadhåtu)
(a) Gods of the Desire Realm (’dod khams kyi lha, kåmadhåtudeva)
Those Who Make Use of Others’ Emanations (gzhan
’phrul dbang byed, paranirmitavaŸavartin)
Those Who Enjoy Emanation (’phrul dga’, nirmåòarati)
Joyous Land (dga’ ldan, tuøita)
Land Without Combat (’thab bral, yåma)
Heaven of Thirty-Three (sum cu rtsa gsum, trayastriôŸa) Four Great Royal Lineages (rgyal chen rigs bzhi, cåturmahåråjakåyika)
(b) Demi-gods (lha ma yin, asura)
(c) Humans (mi, manuøya)
(d) Animals (dud ’gro, tiryañc)
(e) Hungry Ghosts (yi dvags, preta)
(f) Hell-beings (dmyal ba, nåraka)
“The Supramundane Victor said that like a precious gem wrapped in a dirty cloth, the matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus is wrapped in the cloth of the aggregates, constituents, and sense-spheres, overwhelmed by the force of desire, hatred, and ignorance, and dirtied with the defilements of conceptuality.
“Since this which is dirtied with the defilements of conceptuality was said to be permanent, stable,b and everlasting,c Supramundane Victor, how is this propounding of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus not like the [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders’ propounding of a self? Supramundane Victor, the Forders teach and propound a self that is permanent, the agent, without qualities, pervasive, and non-perishing.”
The Supramundane Victor said, “Mahåmati, my teaching of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus is not like the Forders’ propounding of a self. O Mahåmati, the completely perfect Buddhas, Ones-Gone-Thus, Foe Destroyers,d teach a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus for the meaning of the words emptiness, limit of reality, nirvåòa, no production, signlessness, wishlessness, and so forth. So that children might avoid the fear of selflessness, they teach through the means of a matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus the state of non-conceptuality, the object [of wisdom] free from appearances.
“Mahåmati, future and present Bodhisattvas—
75.2.2): “Because of being worthy of worship by the world of gods, humans, and demi-gods, they are called Arhants.”
Also, they were aware of Haribhadra’s twofold etymology in his Illumination of the Eight Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra. In the context of the list of epithets qualifying the retinue of Buddha at the beginning of the sÒtra (see Unrai Wogihara, Abhisamay›laôk›r›lok› Prajñ›p›ramit›-vy›khy›, The Work of Haribhadra [[[Tokyo]]: Toyo Bunko, 19321935; reprint, Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1973], 8.18), Haribhadra says:
They are called arhant [Worthy One, from the root arh “to be worthy”] since they are worthy of worship, religious donations, and being assembled together in a group, and so forth. (Wogihara, Abhisamay›laôk›r›lok›, 9.8-9: sarva ev›tra pÒj›-dakøiò›gaòa-parikarø›dy-›rhatayarhanta¯; P5189, vol. 90, 67.5.7: ’dir thams cad kyang mchod pa dang // yon dang tshogs su ’dub la sogs par ’os pas na dgra bcom pa’o).
Also:
They are called arhant [[[Foe Destroyer]], arihan] because they have destroyed (hata) the foe (ari ). (Wogihara, Abhisamay›laôk›r›lok›, 10.18: hat›ritv›d arhanta¯; P5189, vol. 90, 69.3.6: dgra rnams bcom pas na dgra bcom pa’o).
(My thanks to Gareth Sparham for the references to Haribhadra.) Thus, we are dealing with a considered preference in the face of alternative etymologies—“Foe Destroyer” requiring a not unusual i infix to make arihan, with ari meaning “enemy” and han meaning “to kill,” and thus “Foe Destroyer.” Unfortunately, one word in English cannot convey both this meaning and “Worthy of Worship”; thus I have gone with what clearly has become the predominant meaning in Tibet. (For an excellent discussion of the two etymologies of Arhat in Buddhism and Jainism, see L. M. Joshi, Facets of Jaina Religiousness in Comparative Light, L.D. Series 85 [Ahmedabad, India: L.D. Institute of Indology, 1981], 53-58.)
great beings—should not adhere to this as a self. Mahåmati, for example, potters make a variety of vessels out of one mass of clay particles with their hands, manual skill, a rod, water, string, and mental dexterity. Mahåmati, similarly the Ones-Gone-Thus also teach the selflessness of phenomena that is an absence of all conceptual signs. Through various [[[techniques]]] endowed with wisdom and skill in means—whether they teach it as the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus or as selflessness—they, like a potter, teach with various formats of words and letters.
“Therefore, Mahåmati, the teaching of the matrixof-One-Gone-Thus is not like the teaching propounding a self for Forders. Mahåmati, in order to lead Forders who are attached to propounding self, the OnesGone-Thus teach the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus through the teaching of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Thinking, “How could those with thoughts fallen into incorrect views conceiving of self come to be endowed with thought abiding in the spheres of the three liberations and come to be quickly, manifestly, and completely purified in unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment?” Mahåmati, for their sake the OnesGone-Thus, Foe Destroyers, completely perfect Buddhas, teach the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Consequently, that is not the same as propounding the self of Forders. Therefore, Mahåmati, in order to overcome the view of Forders, they cause them to engage the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus, selflessness. It is this way: this teaching of the emptiness of phenomena, non-production, non-dualism, and absence of inherent nature is the unsurpassed tenet of Bodhisattvas. Through thoroughly apprehending this teaching of the profound doctrine, one thoroughly apprehends all sÒtras of the Great Vehicle.”
However, the better Forders have a path to high states, because they also have good views, meditation, and behavior:
• meditation on the coarse impermanence of birth, aging, sickness, and death, and so forth
• knowledge of this lifetime and the Desire Realm as painful
• assertion that gross things such as forms are truthlessb
• fewer desires and knowing satisfaction
• love and compassion
• the equanimity of meditating on enemies and friends as equal, and so forth
• abandoning the four roots,c and so forth.
BUDDHIST SCHOOLS OF TENETS
Buddhist schools of tenets are fourfold: Great Exposition School, SÒtra School, Mind-Only School, and Middle Way School. The first two of those are Lesser Vehicle Hearer schools, and the latter two are Great Vehicle schools. With respect to positing them as Lesser Vehicle and Great Vehicle, they are designated this way because of accepting the scriptural collections of the Lesser Vehicle as the finality of Buddha’s word and accepting the scriptural collections of the Great Vehicle as the finality of Buddha’s word [respectively]. Consequently, these accord with their renown as Lesser Vehicle schools of tenets and Great Vehicle schools of tenets, called “Lesser Vehicle Proponents” and “Great Vehicle Proponents.”
However, with respect to positing persons as persons of the Lesser Vehicle and persons of the Great Vehicle, there is no onepointed certainty as to school of tenets. For:
• those who have generated attitudes and practices of Great Vehicle paths in their continuums are persons of the Great Vehicle
• those who have generated attitudes and practices of Lesser Vehicle paths in their continuums are persons of the Lesser Vehicle, and
• if one has not generated any of those two in their continuums, no matter what scriptures one reads and no matter what texts one holds, one is not either a person of the Great Vehicle or a person of the Lesser Vehicle.
Moreover, there are cases of:
• holding Great Vehicle tenets but entering a Lesser Vehicle path
• holding Lesser Vehicle tenets but entering a Great Vehicle patha
a The Ge-luk-œa scholar Jam-Âang-shay-œa (’jam dbyangs bzhad pa ngag dbang brtson grus, 1648-1722) views this as barely possible (Jeffrey Hopkins, Maps of the Profound: Jam-yang-shay-ba’s Great Exposition of Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views on the Nature of Reality [[[Ithaca]], N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2003], 255): Except for not negating the bare possibility that there might be Bodhisattvas having the Great Vehicle lineage among the two early Hearer schools, there mainly are only those having the Lesser Vehicle lineage:
• because the intended trainees of the scriptures of those two schools are necessarily only those having the Lesser Vehicle lineage, and
• because this is the thought of sÒtras and the great chariots
[that is, the great scholar-yogis]…
Någårjuna’s Precious Garland (stanza 390) says:
Bodhisattvas’ aspirational wishes, deeds, and dedications [of merit]
Were not described in the Hearers’ Vehicle. Therefore how could one become A Bodhisattva through it?
Hence, since the two early Hearer schools are not extensive about mainly seeking others’ welfare…they do not have the complete mode of sustaining the objects of observation and subjective aspects of the altruistic intention to become enlightened…due to which it is not generated with all of its characteristics. For although there are cases of their wishing to attain Buddhahood, the entanglements of self-cherishing are not
• holding Great Vehicle tenets and entering a Great Vehicle path
• holding Lesser Vehicle tenets and entering a Lesser Vehicle path.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: a Therefore, in accordance with Ke-drup’s Opening the Eyes of the Fortunate:
• Hearer persons must have entered the Hearer path, and even if they not only accept the Great Vehicle scriptural collections but have realized meanings found therein, their strength of attitude [that is, motivation] is small, and hence are involved in their own welfare, as was the case, for instance, with Shåriputra and so forth.
• Lesser Vehicle tenet-holders are those who accept mere enlightenment as well as the path in accordance with the Lesser Vehicle scriptural collections but who do not accept the word of the Great Vehicle or even if they do accept it, do not assert that the meanings expressed therein are uncommon. Consequently, how could Hearer persons and Lesser Vehicle tenet-holders be one!
Also, there are a great many who hold tenets but have not entered a path; however, there is not at all a person who has entered the path but does not have tenets.
severed, whereby such does not serve as a cause of perfect enlightenment, like, for example, the fact that although a Solitary Realizer’s generation of motivation involves a wish to attain Buddhahood, it does not serve as a cause of perfect enlightenment. a 194.
Great Exposition School
From among those [[[four Buddhist schools]] of tenets], the Great Exposition School asserts that:
• consciousness—the two, minds and mental factors
Nga-Ûang-flel-den’s Annotations: There are forty-six mental factors:
FIVE DEFINITE GROUPS
• ten mental factors that accompany all main minds: feeling, intention, discrimination, aspiration, contact, intelligence, mindfulness, mental engagement, interest, and stabilization
• ten virtuous mental factors that accompany all virtuous states: faith, conscientiousness, pliancy, equanimity, shame, embarrassment, non-attachment, nonhatred, non-harmfulness, and effort
• six great afflictive emotions that accompany all afflicted states: obscuration, non-conscientiousness, laziness, non-faith, lethargy, and excitement
• two non-virtuous mental factors that accompany all non-virtuous states: non-shame and non-embarrassment
• ten lesser afflictive emotions: belligerence, resentment, dissimulation, jealousy, verbal spite, concealment, miserliness, deceit, haughtiness, and harmfulness
EIGHT MISCELLANEOUS MENTAL FACTORS
• desire, anger, pride, doubt, investigation, analysis, sleep, and contrition.
When five mental factors—forgetfulness, non-introspection, distraction, afflicted view, and non-obscuration—are added to the forty-six mental factors described in Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Manifest Knowledge, there are the fifty-one mental factors described in Asaºga’s Treatises on the Grounds, Vasubandhu’s Work on the Five Aggregates, Asaºga’s Summary of Manifest Knowledge, and so forth.
• objects—the ten, forms and so forth [that is, visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, eye sense-power, ear sense-power, nose sense-power, tongue sense-power, and body sense-power]
• non-associated compositional factors such as production and disintegration
Nga-Ûang-flel-den’s Annotations: b There are fourteen nonassociated compositional factors:
1. acquisition. This is asserted to be what causes a person to possess virtuous and non-virtuous actions and so forth, like a rope tying up goods.
Acquisition of acquisition and so forth are similar.
2. non-acquisition
3. similar lot
4. one having no discrimination
5. absorption without discrimination. This and the next are mindless compositional factors. There are also Proponents of the Great Exposition who assert that these are subtle minds.
7. life faculty. This is the support of warmth and consciousness.
8. production
9. aging
10. abiding
11. disintegration
12. group of stems. Stems indicate entities.
13. group of words. Words [that is, stems with case endings and so forth] indicate specifics, such as
“compounded phenomena are impermanent.”
14. group of letters. Letters are vocalizations that are the bases of setting up stems and words, such as ka in ka dam pa [a type of tree with fragrant orange blossoms]. In general, go, for instance, is a letter, and it is also used as a name for cow, whereby they assert that stems and letters are not mutually exclusive.
• the three uncompounded [[[phenomena]]]a—space and so forthb—and
• past and future thingsc are individually substantially established,d and each have factors of true establishment.e They assert that gross things and things that are continuums are not truly existent.f They say a that a
a ’dus ma byas, asaôsk¸ta.
b The three renowned uncompounded phenomena are uncompounded space, analytical cessations, and non-analytical cessations. A non-analytical cessation occurs as a result of the incompleteness of the conditions for its production, such as the lack of hunger at the time of intensely concentrating on conversation. Once the moment has passed, the fact that one had no desire for food at that time will never change, and for this reason, its cessation is said to be permanent. An analytical cessation is the state of having eradicated an obstruction such
that it will never occur again, as in the case of a complete cessation forever of a particular type of desire through meditation on the four noble truths. c The past of a thing occurs after its present existence, that is, after its present existence has passed. The future of a thing occurs before its present existence, that is, when its present existence is yet to be. d rdzas su grub pa, dravyasiddha. e bden grub, satyasiddha. f bden med. From Tåranåtha’s switching between “truly established” and “truly existent” it likely is his position that in the Great Exposition School:
• All phenomena are substantially established and truly established, and individual minute particles and individual moments of consciousnesses are also truly existent (as are uncompounded phenomena).
• However, coarse, or gross, objects such as pots are not truly existent, and continuums such as a stream of consciousness are not truly exis-
consciousness is produced from a truly established object and a truly established sense-power and that an eye [that is, a eye sensepower] actually sees a form. Among them, those who hold better tenets—the Kashmiri Proponents of the Great Exposition and so forth—assert that all compounded phenomena are impermanent in the sense of disintegrating momentarily and assert that a self of persons, except for being only imputed by an awareness, does not substantially exist. The proponents of worse tenets, such as the Saômit¦yas and so forth, say that although compounded phenomena are impermanent due to finally disintegrating, they do not disintegrate momentarily. ‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo’s Presentation of Tenets: All tent. a Here, the term “say” (zer) implies that neither of these assertions is true. In the system of the Great Middle Way consciousnesses (rnam shes), as well as all impermanent phenomena, are necessarily not truly established, whereas self-arisen pristine wisdom (rang byung ye shes) necessarily is truly established.
compounded phenomena are necessarily impermanent but do not necessarily disintegrate moment by moment, for the Proponents of the Great Exposition assert that following production there is the activity of duration, and then the activity of disintegration occurs.a Therefore, they assert all sorts of effective things that are
chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo identifies the Proponents of the Great Exposition in general as asserting that the activities of production, duration, and disintegration occur serially, whereas Tåranåtha identifies only the “Saômit¦yas and so forth” as asserting this. For more discussion of the characteristics of compounded phenomena in the Great Exposition School and SÒtra School, see Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 240-242.
a Sopa and Hopkins (Cutting through Appearances, 195-196) comment: All Buddhist schools agree that coarse impermanence is the production of a thing such as a table, its lasting for a period of time, and finally its disintegration such as its being consumed by fire. Buddhist schools also assert a subtle impermanence that, except for developed yogis, is not accessible to direct experience. For example, death, which is an instance of coarse impermanence, is commonly experienced, but the momentary aging of a person, which is a subtle impermanence, is not.
The Proponents of the Great Exposition differ from the other Buddhist schools in asserting that the factors of production, abiding, aging, and disintegration are external to the entity that undergoes these. All other systems hold that production itself is a cause or sufficient condition for disintegration; disintegration begins with, and not after, the very first moment of production. In all systems except the Great Exposition School, that which is produced is that which abides and that which disintegrates. This is because production is understood to be the arising of a new entity due to certain causes; abiding is the continued existence of that type of entity; disintegration is its quality of not lasting a second moment; and aging is the factor of its being a different entity from the entity of the previous moment. In this way, the four can occur simultaneously. The Great Exposition School, however, asserts that the factors of production, duration, aging, and disintegration act on the object and occur in series, one after the other.
continuums. They assert that, although a permanent, unitary, and self-powered I-self as is imputed by the [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders does not exist, in general the mere I-self is substantially established and truly established.
‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo’s Presentation of Tenets: b From among the eighteen subschools of the Great Exposition School, the five Saômit¦ya subschools do not assert that a person’s emptiness of being substantially existent in the sense of being self-sufficient is the subtle selflessness because they consider that a substantially existent or selfsufficient person exists.
‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo’s Presentation of Tenets: c
Objection: In that case, the Våts¦putr¦ya [a subschool of the Great Exposition School] would not be proponents of Buddhist tenets because they assert a self of persons. Answer: There is no such fallacy because the self that they assert is a self-sufficient, substantially existent self whereas the selflessness of the four seals refers to the absence of a permanent, unitary, independent self and that [[[selflessness]]] is asserted even by the five Saômit¦yas schools [—the Våts¦putr¦yas being one of the five—although they do assert an inexpressible self].
Even if they not do actually have a path of liberation due to the fallacy of a view of self, they go for refuge to the Three Jewels and have ethics motivated by a wish for liberation as well as the three— hearing, thinking, and meditating—whereby they gradually come to have the fortune of attaining liberation. The Proponents of the Great Exposition assert that the Seven Sections of Manifest Knowledge are the word of Buddha.
‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo’s Presentation of Tenets: The Proponents of the Great Exposition assert that the Seven Sections of Manifest Knowledge were spoken by Buddha [and written down by Foe Destroyers].
However, they say that many within the Sets of SÒtras have a thought behind themb and require interpretation.
as or different from the aggregates, whereas a self-sufficient, substantially existent person is necessarily able to stand by itself separate from the aggregates. Thus, although ‰ön-chok-jik-mayÛang-œo agrees with Jam-Âang-shay-œa that the selflessness mentioned in the four seals refers to “the absence of a permanent, unitary, independent self,” he does not agree with Jam-Âangshay-œa’s position that the Våts¦putr¦yas do not assert a substantially existent person. In holding that the Våts¦putr¦yas assert a substantially existent person, ‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo is probably following his teacher, Ëang-„ya Röl-flay-dor-jay, who, in his Presentations of Tenets (77.5-84.12), gives a long refutation of Jam-Âang-shay-fla on this topic. However, ‰ön-chok-jik-mayÛang-flo does not accept Ëang-„ya’s conclusion (84.4) that the Våts¦putr¦yas, though Buddhist, are not actual proponents of Buddhist tenets. ‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-flo maintains that they are actual proponents of Buddhist tenets by holding…that the selflessness indicated in the four seals refers to “the absence of a permanent, unitary, independent self.” In this way, ‰ön-chokjik-may-Ûang-flo does not agree completely either with his previous incarnation, Jam-Âang-shay-fla, or with his teacher Ëang„ya.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: Certain Proponents of the Great Exposition assert, in accordance with the description in Bhåvaviveka’s Blaze of Reasoning, that all of [[[Buddha’s]]] word is just of definitive meaning [that is, literal] and do not assert that there are interpretable meanings. In addition, there are also [some] who assert that there are both definitive meanings and meanings requiring interpretation. Not only that, but also all later Proponents of the Great Exposition and even the Vats¦putr¦yas assert that even Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras require interpretation, saying that:
• The statements that non-production and the absence of true existence refer to the type of production and truth imputed by Forders such as the Såôkhyas and so forth.
• Likewise, the statements of the non-existence of nature, the non-existence of attainment, abandonment, and so forth and the non-existence of things also are in consideration that the nature and so forth and permanent effective things as imputed by Forders do not exist.b Consequently, they assert that views and practices must be asserted in accordance with the system found in the “treatise”; that treatise, furthermore, is identified as [[[Vasumitra’s]]] Exposition of Particulars.
SÒtra School
The Proponents of the SÒtra Schoola assert that from among the aforementioned phenomena:
• Uncompounded [[[phenomena]]] and non-associated composi-tional factors are “imputedly existent,”b that is, only imputed by an awareness and hence do not truly exist.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: c Uncompounded phenomena must be neither substantially existent nor substantially established because: • a mere negative of obstructive contact is posited as “space”; non-production due to incompleteness of conditions is posited as a “non-analytical cessation”; and a mere state of having separated from any [level of ] afflictive emotions through the wisdom of individual investigation is posited as an “analytical cessation,”
• their entities are not demonstrable separately as “It is this,” the way forms and feelings are,
• and their functions also are not demonstrable separately as “It does such-and-such,” the way eyes and so forth are…
• Among forms and so forth gross objects and continuumsd are not truly established, and among consciousnesses continuums
Chinese monk-scholar Fa Zun (aka blo bzang chos ’phags) only in 1949 but is, as yet, unpublished. Because they hold that their tenets must be asserted in accordance with the Exposition of Particulars, they are called Proponents of the Great Exposition. a Tåranåtha does not make a division of the SÒtra School into a SÒtra School Following Scripture and a SÒtra School Following Reasoning, as Ge-luk-œa scholars uniquely do. His presentation of the SÒtra School is more like Ge-luk-œa presentations of the SÒtra School Following Scripture.
c Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 271. d rags rgyun. are not truly established.
• Past and future phenomena also are only imputedly existent.
• Only present minute particles and only present moments of consciousness are partless and truly established.
• An eye [that is, an eye sense-power] does not see forms.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: b Physical sense powers are not fit to be valid cognitions because of being matter and because of not being able to comprehend their objects and because of being empty of luminosity and knowing…
Objection: If consciousness [alone] is what sees, then it would see even what is obstructed by a wall and so forth. Answer: That is not so because an eye consciousness is not produced with respect to what is obstructed and, not being produced, it does not apprehend an object. Question: Are eye consciousnesses not produced with respect to anything obstructed or intervened?
Answer: There is no certainty; despite intervention by a glass vessel, mica, a crystal, or water, [[[objects]]] are seen. Therefore, even the statement by you Proponents of the Great Exposition that [an eye consciousness] does not see what is intervened is uncertain. For an eye consciousness is produced with respect to whatever form has no obstacle to its appearing even while it is obstructed, and an eye consciousness is not produced with respect to what has an obstacle to its appearing.
• Even an eye consciousness does not explicitly see forms. That which is seen by an eye consciousness is a dawning of an appearance of a form, which is consciousness in an aspect of form [or representation of form]. However, for that aspect to dawn, there is an external object, a visible form and so forth, that casts an aspect [of itself to the consciousness].
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets:a The position of the Proponents of the Great Exposition is that:
An unaspected sense awareness Directly knows aggregations of particles.
In order to refute this, Proponents of SÒtra and above…say:
It is not suitable to know objects that illumine themselves without aspect [that is, without the medium of a representation] because those objects are not entities illuminating themselves and because if objects were luminous, then just as blue [being blue does not depend on a consciousness apprehending it], those objects would be illuminated even without depending on consciousness. Therefore, that which luminously perceives a present object is consciousness. Proponents of SÒtra assert that the minute particles that are the basis of an appearance as blue, long, and so forth exist as external particles. The distinguishing feature of the Proponents of Mind-Only and the Proponents of the Middle who assert an emptiness of duality [of subject and object] is that there are no external particles that are the with the convention of comprehending it.
About this, it follows that many earlier Tibetans saying that the Proponents of SÒtra assert that the [external] object is obscure (don lkog na mo) is not feasible because the Proponents of SÒtra also assert that an eye consciousness directly sees form (gzugs mngon sum du mthong ba), since they assert that an eye consciousness clearly perceives [its object] by way of having [been generated in its] aspect.
a Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 274-275. basis of appearance.
All of our own proponents of [[[consciousness]] as] having aspects [that is, the SÒtra School and above] assert that it is like the fact that when a person looks at a clear piece of glass the far side of which has been painted, both the glass and the paint are similar in being seen, but the glass is realized from its own entity and the color is realized in the manner of an image. [About the Proponents of SÒtra] the master Bodhibhadra says:
When a person looks at a glass the color of which has been affected by shell-paint, the eye apprehends both glass and paint; the glass is apprehended directly and the paint is apprehended in the manner of an image, whereby the person apprehends two apprehended objects. These Proponents of SÒtra propound that accordingly:
• that which is perceived directly is an aspect of only consciousness
• the basis of the consciousness’ appearing as color and shape is a separate collection of minute particles
• the consciousness is [generated into having the aspect of] those entities without contacting them [directly] whereby there are two apprehended objects.
• The Seven Sections of Manifest Knowledge and so forth are not the word of Buddha.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: Certain Proponents of SÒtra say that the Seven Sections are not the word [of Buddha] because they were composed by seven Foe Destroyers such as Shåriputra and so forth…For most Proponents of SÒtra, not only are the Seven Sections not the word [of Buddha], they are not even the word of Foe Destroyers because [those treatises] propound that space is a permanent substance, and so forth, and Superiors would not assert such, since they are fully empowered as persons who have valid cognition with respect to [[[understanding]]] phenomena. [These treatises] were composed by ordinary beings having the same names [as For Destroyers]… Question: If the Seven Sections are not [the scriptural division of ] manifest knowledge, then because [the scriptural division of ] manifest knowledge is not to be observed [anywhere else], it would not be feasible for the Supramundane Victor to speak of “the three scriptural divisions.”
Answer: Although it is true that [the scriptural division of ] manifest knowledge is not separate, there is no fallacy of unsuitable non-existence of three scriptural divisions, since the scriptural division of manifest knowledge is the descriptions of the specific and general characters of phenomena here and there in the sets of discourses and the discipline.
• Since treatises, such as [[[Vasumitra’s]]] Exposition of Particulars, contain mistakes, tenets must be [delineated] in concert with the Sets of SÒtras. Both of these schools of proponents of tenets [that is, the Great Exposition School and the SÒtra School] also say that the word of Buddha is just these scriptural collections spoken for the sake of Hearers and that all these renowned as Great Vehicle sÒtras, such as the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras, the Pile of Jewels SÒtra, the Buddhåvataôsaka SÒtra, and so forth are not the word of the Conqueror [[[Buddha]]].
Nga-Ûang-œel-den’s Annotations: a [Earlier members of Hearer schools say:]
• It follows that the subject, the Great Vehicle scriptural collections, were not spoken by Buddha because of not being included in the three scriptural collections and because of teaching other paths such as attaining purification and release through bathing, fasting, and repeating mantra, as is the case, for example, with the Vedåntins…
• It follows that the subject, the Great Vehicle scriptural collections, were not spoken by Buddha because of deprecating—as not truly existent—all, that is to say, actions and their effects, the four truths, the Three Jewels, and so forth, as is the case, for example, with the Ayatas…
• It follows that the subject, the Great Vehicle scriptural collections, were not spoken by Buddha because of not being included in the texts of the eighteen [Hearer] schools, as is the case, for example, with the opinions
interpretation…According to some Proponents of SÒtra such as Saºghagupta there is a thought behind the words of the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras and so forth saying, “All phenomena do not exist, do not exist,” because it would be unsuitable for the meaning of the statement that “phenomena do not exist” to be that phenomena utterly do not exist, and, therefore, scripture and reasoning establish that the meaning is to be taken as referring to the lowliness and smallness
of [[[impermanent]]] objects…With respect to the statements in the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras [that all phenomena] are nothings and so forth, since effective things are momentary, they are said to be nothings and so forth, these being terms of lowliness…Also, since non-things are plentiful and effective things are fewer, [all phenomena] are called “non-things.” And they are called natureless, unproduced, unceased, and so forth because of not being produced beforehand and passing away afterwards, as, for example, when someone with little wealth is said to have no wealth. a Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 195-196. of the Vedåntins…
• It follows that the subject, the Great Vehicle scriptural collections, are not included within those eighteen,
1. because of not being gathered on the occasion of the first gathering together of [[[Buddha’s]]] word, and
2. because even if they came to be distinguished later, they were not included by those making the second gathering together of [[[Buddha’s]]] word, and so forth, and
3. because of contradicting the statement that all products are impermanent by teaching that a One-Gone-Thus is permanent, and
4. because of contradicting the statement that all phenomena are selfless by teaching a pervasive matrix of One-Gone-Thus and a consciousness that takes [[[rebirth]], that is, a mind-basis-of-all], and
5. because of contradicting the statement that nirvåòa is peace by teaching that a Buddha does not pass beyond sorrow [that is, pass into nirvåòa, or die], and
6. because they prophesy [[[Buddha-enlightenment]] for] Hearers, and
7. because they intensely deride Foe Destroyers, and
8. because they teach that it is suitable to pay obeisance to householders, and
9. because they praise Bodhisattvas as surpassing Ones-Gone-Thus, and
10. because the prayers of Bodhisattvas such as for the sky-treasury are only words, and
11. because the entire teaching becomes twisted by their propounding that Shåkyamuni is an emanation [of a being who attained enlightenment much earlier], and
12. because it is not correct that [a Buddha] is always in meditative equipoise, and
13. because many [[[Great Vehicle]]] sÒtras set forth fruitless praises [of its practices], and
14. because they teach that actions have no effects by propounding that even very great ill-deeds are destroyed from the root, and
15. because other Very Vast SÒtras were taught, and
16. because they are not indicated among the divisions [of the Buddhist schools to come in the future as depicted] in [[[King]]] K¸k¸’s dream. Therefore, this Great Vehicle was not set forth by the Buddha. It is definite that devils composed many various things to deceive beings of bad intelligence and fools.
They say that the Great Vehicle and Lesser Vehicle differ in terms of the activities of persons but there are not different scriptures.
All of their assertions of true establishment and their refutations of the Great Vehicle are faults of mistaken tenets. Others— such as the selflessness of persons, momentary impermanence, and so forth—are unmistaken in themselves.
Nga-Ûang-œel-den’s Annotations:
Proponent of the Great Exposition: Although whatever is a compounded thing is necessarily impermanent, it is non-momentary.
Proponent of SÒtra: It follows that things made upon the collection and aggregation of causes and conditions are momentary because they last only for the moment of production. Compounded phenomena such as forms and so forth are seen to be included among what disintegrate, and the entity due to which forms and so forth finally disintegrate exists from the very production of those compounded phenomena; hence, they disintegrate immediately after being produced. Therefore, it is clear that forms and so forth are momentary.
Proponent of the Great Exposition: The entity of production is one entity, and the entity of final disintegration another.
Proponent of SÒtra: That cannot be said because there are the faults that:
• If these two entities are not different from the thing [for example, a form], it [absurdly] follows that [the two entities themselves] are not different.
• If the thing [for example, a form] is not different from these two entities, it follows that [the two entities are not (?)] different. The first consequence contradicts your own assertion [that the two entities are different]. If the second is accepted, [then your assertion that things] are not momentary falls apart.
Proponent of the Great Exposition: Mountains and so forth, which abide for a while, are produced by their own causes as having the nature of abiding temporarily.
Proponent of SÒtra: Just that very nature that they have at the time of production is just what they have at the end; hence, mountains and so forth never would not remain. Therefore, if something is produced as having a nature of abiding in the second moment, just as at the time of the first moment it has the nature of abiding for two moments, so at the time of the second moment it also would necessarily have the nature of abiding for two moments. Hence, it would never disintegrate.
Proponent of the Great Exposition: Due to the fact that mountains and so forth are produced by their causes as having a steady nature, they indeed would not change into other entities even in the end, but another cause that makes them cease causes them to disintegrate.
Proponent of SÒtra: It is not reasonable [to say that something produced as having a steady nature is later made to disintegrate by another cause]:
• because something that has the nature of non- disintegration would not disintegrate when a cause of disintegration approaches, and
• because to say, “Although it does not have an inner nature of disintegration, it will disintegrate due to such and such” is a contradiction of your own words, like saying, “Although Devadatta has the quality of not dying, he will die.”
Proponent of the Great Exposition: Although initially it does not have an inner nature of disintegration, when a cause of cessation approaches it is generated into an entity possessing an inner nature of disintegration.
Proponent of SÒtra: When a cause of cessation approaches, the prior nature of non-disintegration either continues or does not continue. If it continues, the contradiction would accrue of saying that it is both nondisintegrative and disintegrative. If it does not continue, then because the production and cessation of the two—the nature and that which has the nature—are not different, the former thing [which has the nature] also would not exist; thus what would be generated into having an inner nature of disintegration? For, there would be no basis to be generated into having an inner nature of disintegration, just as it is not suitable for a flower in the sky to be generated into having an inner nature of disintegration. Therefore, since it is not suitable for something that does not have an inner nature of disintegration to disintegrate, and products such as forms are also seen to disintegrate, they are produced by their own causes into just having an inner nature of disintegration. For this reason they necessarily disintegrate immediately after their production, whereby they are established as momentary…
Proponent of the Great Exposition: The temporary abiding of mountains and so forth is produced by causes.
Proponent of SÒtra: It [absurdly] follows that they would never fail to abide because in just the way they are produced by causes, so they would also be just that way in the end.
The Proponents of Mind-Only assert that external objects are cases of consciousness itself appearing as this and that, like dream-forms and so forth. Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s Great Exposition of Tenets: With respect to the teaching of other-powered natures by way of eight examples, they are taught as being like:
• [a magician’s] illusions in order to overcome the doubt wondering how one could observe objects
• mirages in order to overcome doubt wondering how minds and mental factors arise without external objects
• dreams in order to overcome doubt wondering how, if there are no external objects, one gets involved in activities of desire and non-desire
• reflections in order to overcome doubt wondering how, if there are no external objects, one could accomplish the wanted effects of virtuous actions and the unwanted effects of non-virtuous actions
• hallucinations in order to overcome doubt wondering how, if there are no external objects, the varieties of consciousness arise
• echoes in order to overcome doubt wondering how, if there are no external objects, the varieties of expressions arise
• a moon [reflected in] water in order to overcome doubt wondering how, if there are no external objects, the objects of activities of correct meditative stabilization arise
• emanations in order to overcome doubt wondering
how, if there are no external objects, Bodhisattvas are born in accordance with their thought [to accomplish the aims of sentient beings]. What appear this way do not exist externally. For example, to illustrate this with a form:
What is renowned to be an eye sense-power is the mind appearing in the aspect of an eye; therefore, legitimately qualified eyes do not exist. Also, what is renowned as a form is the mind appearing in the aspect of a form; legitimately qualified forms do not exist. Therefore, it merely seems that an eye consciousness is produced from those [that is, from an eye sense-power and a form]. Hence, the appearance of even all three of these as different is mistaken, and they are of the same substance in the entity of consciousness.c Consequently, an eye consciousness’ seeing a form is its seeing itself, and the establishment of a form that
(1) casts its aspect [to a consciousness] from the outside—other than consciousness—and
(2) is a cause of the dawning of the aspect of a form [in a consciousness] does not at all exist. However, they assert that in the perspective of non-investigation and non-analysis, “The eye sees a form,” and so forth, but when analyzed, form is not established, and a consciousness that appears as a form is truly established.
Therefore, they assert that:
The entities of all consciousnesses, such as a main consciousness and so forth, are truly established, but the two—the apprehended factor, which is the appearance of an object as existing externally, and an apprehending factor, which is the appearance of a knower as existing internally—are mistakes. Hence, the two, apprehended-object and apprehending-subject, do not exist, but consciousness devoid of the two, apprehended-object and apprehendingsubject, is truly established.
Consequently, they assert that since an apprehended-factor and an apprehending-factor are not established as different, this serves as the non-duality of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject, and the mere entity of consciousness is pristine wisdom. Although, in their own system, the Proponents of Mind-Only claim that they refute apprehended-object and apprehendingsubject, in the consideration of higher schools of tenets they have not come to refute apprehended-object and apprehending-subject because although they assert a mere non-difference of substantial entity of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject, they have come to assert that an apprehending-subject exists from its own side.c
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (251): Kalk¦ Può˜ar¦ka’s Stainless Light says, “Now let us set forth the yogic practitioners’ fallacy of an apprehending subject: Those who propound that all three existences are just consciousness assert consciousness,” and, “Even the yogic practitioners have an apprehender that is consciousness,”…If an apprehender exists, it is not fitting to be devoid of a self of phenomena. Thus, mistaken are their assertions that:
• Cognitionals that appear as external objects such as forms are truly established.
• The mere entity of consciousness in isolation is the pristine wisdom of non-duality of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject.c
• The entity of an apprehending-subject is not consciousness itself but is the mere factor that appears differently from the cognition appearing as an object.d
Their other [assertions] are non-erroneous.
The Middle Way School is of two types: Ordinary Middle Waye and Great Middle Way.
Ordinary Middle Way School
In the country of Tibet, the Ordinary Middle Way is renowned as self-emptiness, and in both India and Tibet [this school] is renowned as the Proponents of Non-Nature. This is the system of the masters Buddhapålita, Bhåvaviveka, Vimuktasena, and Shåntarakøhita, as well as their followers.
Although among them there are many different divisions with respect to tenets, they all agree in asserting that:
• All these phenomena—all compounded things (that is, the two, forms and minds, as well as non-associated compositional factors) and all uncompounded phenomena and non-things, such as space—are conventionalities.a
• The mere absence of true existence, which is their nature, is the ultimate.
• Those two [that is, conventional truthsc and ultimate truthsd] are inexpressible as either one entity or different entitiese and merely differ in the presentation of them. Since nothing at all exists in the entity of the ultimate basic element,f the voidness of proliferationsg is taught through the example of space. Through the example of a magician’s illusions, it is taught that although when conventionalities appear, they are empty of truth, their appearance is unimpeded.
• Both of these [that is, conventional truths and ultimate truths] are beyond all proliferations, such as existence and nonexistence, is and is not, and so forth.
the Great Middle Way, for as he says below (p. 92), “That Bhåvaviveka, Buddhapålita, and so forth are renowned as Proponents of Self-Emptiness and Proponents of Non-Nature is a case of mainly taking what is renowned to the ordinary world.” In Mountain Doctrine Döl-œo-œa cites these scholars (except for Shåntarakøhita, whom he does not cite at all) in the context of the Great Middle Way. For Buddhapålita, see Mountain Doctrine, 343 and 530; Bhåvaviveka or Bhåvaviveka the Lesser (legs ldan chung ba), 307 and 469; Vimuktasena, 428. a kun rdzob. b don dam. c kun rdzob bden pa, saôv¸tisatya. d don dam bden pa, paramårthasatya. e Ge-luk-œa scholars uniformly assert that the two truths are one entity and different isolates (ngo bo gcig la ldog pa tha dad ); for instance, see JamÂang-shay-œa’s presentation in Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 896ff.
f don dam dbyings. g spros bral.
Moreover, this system of tenets is mistaken in:
• asserting that the ultimate noumenonb is like space, a mere negation of proliferationsc
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (118): Because the uncompounded noumenon transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a Buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that [nonBuddhist] Forders impute to be permanent.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (470): Similarly, those who assert that in the mode of subsistence, except for exclusions and non-affirming negatives, there are not at all any inclusions, positives, and affirming negatives are extremely mistaken because I have repeatedly explained and will explain that:
• Natural exclusion, negation, and abandonment are complete in the mode of subsistence, since all flaws are naturally non-existent and non-established in the mode of subsistence.
• Natural realizations of the inclusionary, the positive, and affirming negatives are primordially complete [in the mode of subsistence], since all noumenal qualities are naturally complete in their basis.
• saying that a Buddha’s pristine wisdom and so forth are conventionalities and do not truly exist
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (329): Whereas the partless, omnipresent pristine wisdom of the element of attributesb always abides pervading all, the extreme of nonexistence is the deprecation that it does not exist and is not established and is empty of its own entity.
• asserting that even ultimate truth does not truly existc Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (342):
Objection: Since truth does not exist in any phenomenon, the ultimately true does not occur.
Answer: That is not so. If something is not true conventionally, it is not suitable as a conventional truth, and hence that which is a conventional truth is conventionally true and is not ultimately true. Just so, if something is not ultimately true, it is not suitable as an ultimate truth, and hence that which is an ultimate truth is ultimately true and is not conventionally true. and in particular, mistaken also is the Consequentialists’ nonassertion of anything—this being in order to avoid others’ debates—despite positing a presentation of tenets. ‚zong-ka-fla’s Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path: Nowadays some who wish to be Middle Way Consequentialists [say]: Our own system even conventionally does not have any assertions based on the ultimate or the conventional. For if we had such theses, then we would have to assert examples and reasons that prove them, in which case we would become Autonomists. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “own system” for Consequentialists since [[[Någårjuna]], Þryadeva, and Chandrak¦rti] say that Mådhyamikas have no position and no thesis. As Nagarjuna’s Refutation of Objections says:
If I had any thesis,
Then I would have that fault.
Because I have no thesis,
I am only faultless…
Response: If this which you propound is not the Middle Way system, then it is contradictory to establish it through citing passages from the Superior [[[Någårjuna]]] and his spiritual sons. Also, since [according to you] it cannot be posited as Chandrak¦rti’s or any other Buddhist system, it would be outside this [[[Buddhist]]] religion. [However] if you say that it is Middle Way and, from within that, the system of Chandrak¦rti, then it would contradict [your assertion] that Proponents of the Middle [in general] and Chandrak¦rti [in particular] do not have their own system.
Likewise, it is not feasible to propound—in hopes of being freed from assertions—that all presentations are solely from others’ viewpoints. For in saying, “The existence of forms and so forth should be asserted solely from the viewpoint of others,” though you do not assert the existence of forms and so forth, you certainly must assert a positing from others’ viewpoint, in which case you are not freed from assertions. Since at that time you must assert the others from whose viewpoint [these presentations] are posited, as well as the positers, and so forth, to propound that assertions are made solely from the viewpoint of others not only does not help but harms your [position of ] not having your own system.
And mistaken are the Consequentialists’ assertions that wrong conceptions are overcome even though an ascertaining consciousness is not generated, and so forth.
[This system of tenets] is not wrong [in asserting] that all phenomena included within apprehended-object and apprehendingsubject do not truly exist and that even the mere absence of true existence is not truly established, and so forth.
These two, Proponents of Mind-Only and Middle Way Proponents of Self-Emptiness, do not assert in their own systems the mystery of the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Blissb and a self-cognizing and self-illuminating ultimate pristine wisdom.c Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (106-107) explains away Chandrak¦rti’s objections to such a matrix-of-One-Goneto-Bliss as confined to opinions earlier in his life and even cites contrary evidence in Chandrak¦rti’s Supplement:
Objection: Is it not that the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus is refuted by the master Chandrak¦rti in the Supplement to (Någårjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle” ?
Answer: He clearly teaches it in his Clear Lamp Commentary on the Guhyasamåja because he says: The syllable oô is the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Since it gives rise to the unbreakable body of the yogi, it causes attainment of the vajra body. and:
The abode of all Buddhas is all sentient beings because of being the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus.
and so forth. Even in the Supplement to (Någårjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle” Chandrak¦rti says:
Whether Buddhas arise or not,
In actuality the emptiness Of all things is proclaimed As other-factuality.
Are the emptiness of other-factuality.
[and Chandrak¦rti’s own commentary says,] “Other-factuality is the supreme suchness. Its supremacy is just its permanent existence.”a Since such also appears, it is
a Chandrak¦rti gives a triple explanation of other-factuality as supreme, other, and transcendent (see Louis de La Vallée Poussin, Madhyamakåvatåra par Candrak¦rti, Bibliotheca Buddhica 9 [Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970], 339-340). Döl-œo-œa reads this as referring to three qualities of other-emptiness, whereas ‚zong-ka-œa (Illumination of the Thought [[[Sarnath]], India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1973], 439.13) sees it as explaining that “other-factuality” itself has three meanings:
• The emptiness of inherent existence (rang bzhin stong pa nyid) is supreme in the sense that it exists without ever deviating from the character of suchness.
• The non-conceptual pristine wisdom, the excellent supramundane pristine wisdom, is other, and the emptiness of inherent existence is the object realized by that pristine wisdom.
• The emptiness of inherent existence is transcendent in that “transcendent” refers to the limit of reality which here is the nirvåòa that is the extinction of cyclic existence.
Thus, for ‚zong-ka-œa, the passage is not about other-emptiness. He then is forced to explain the purpose of this separate emptiness since it repeats the emptiness of inherent existence, saying that it is for the sake of eliminating the qualm that suchness would truly exist if one asserted that it is the fundamental disposition of things, that it exists forever, and that it is the object of comprehension of suitable to analyze whether he speaks in self-contradiction. I wonder if earlier during his period of philosophical studies he generated qualms [about the matrix-of-One-GoneThus], but later through entering into profound secret mantra his mental development emerged, and his tenets changed. Due to not having heard informationa about these, earlier masters did not refute other-emptiness. However, later followers made refutations,b but not even a single one of them understood the essentials of the tenets of other-emptiness, and hence these are solely refutations in which the opposing position has not been apprehended.
The Great Middle Way is the Middle Way School of Cognition,c renowned in Tibet as Other-Emptiness. It is illuminated by the texts of the foremost holy Maitreya,d by the Superior Asaºga,e and by the supreme scholar Vasubandhuf and is greatly illuminated also
non-conceptual pristine wisdom. All three of these points as well as the implication that suchness truly or ultimately exists reflect Dölœo-œa’s and Tåranåtha’s opinion. a gnas tshul ma go ba. b In his Autocommentary on the “Supplement” Chandrak¦rti explains that the teaching of a matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss endowed with ultimate Buddha-qualities of body, speech, and mind requires interpretation, and ‚zong-ka-œa takes Döl-œo-œa’s presentation of other-emptiness as his main opponent in his The Essence of Eloquence; see Hopkins, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, 54ff., and Reflections on Reality, Part Four.
c rnam rig gi dbu ma. d Döl-œo-œa cites all Five Doctrines of Maitreya in Mountain Doctrine.
e In Mountain Doctrine Döl-œo-œa cites Asaºga’s Explanation of (Maitreya’s) “Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle,” Compendium of Bases, Grounds of Bodhisattvas, Summary of Manifest Knowledge, and Summary of the Great Vehicle.
f In Mountain Doctrine Döl-œo-œa cites Vasubandhu’s Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes,” Explanation of in the Superior Någårjuna’s Praise of the Element of Attributes.a Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (102-105):
Objection: Although others assert the matrix-of-OneGone-to-Bliss as of definitive meaning, it is not so asserted in the Middle Way School.
Answer: The honorable Superior Någårjuna asserts it.
His Praise of the Element of Attributes says:b
Homage and obeisance to [the sole jewel,] the element of attributes,
Definitely dwelling [pervasively] in all sentient beings,
Which if one does not thoroughly know [with pristine wisdom],
One wanders in the three existences.
From having purified [by means of the path the defilements of] just that [[[element]] of attributes]
Which serves as the cause of cyclic existence [due to being associated with adventitious defilement],
That very [[[element]] of attributes] purified [of defilement] is nirvåna.
The body of attributes also is just that.
[Due to being mixed with limitless defilement, the element of attributes is not seen;
For example,] just as due to being mixed with milk,
The essence of butter is not seen,
So due to being mixed with afflictive emotions The element of attributes also is not seen.
[From purifying defilement, it is seen;
For example,] just as due to having purified milk
(Maitreya’s) “Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras,” Principles of Explanation, The Thirty, and commentaries on the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras attributed to Vasubandhu in Jo-nang and to Daôøhþasena in Ge-luk. a chos kyi dbyings su bstod pa, dharmadhåtustotra; P2010, vol. 46. b P2010, vol. 46, 31.3.7-31.4.6; brackets are from Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rapgyel-tsen’s [Interlinear Commentary on Någårjuna’s] “Praise of the Element of Attributes,” 1b.2ff.
The essence of butter [is seen] without [obstructive] defilement,
So due to having purified [and extinguished] the afflictive emotions [through the path]
The very undefiled element of attributes [is manifestly seen].
[During the basal state of a sentient being, for example,]
Just as a butter-lamp dwelling inside a pot
Is not in the least perceived,
So the element of attributes also
Is not perceived inside the pot of afflictive emotions.
[During the path] from whatsoever directions [of proceeding on the grounds and paths]
Holes in the pot [of afflictive emotions] protrude, From just those directions A nature of [clear] light arises.
[Finally] when by the vajra meditative stabilization
The [obstructive] pot has [entirely] been broken, [The element of attributes] illuminates [And is seen] to the ends of space.
[Would the element of attributes which has ceased while one is a sentient being and is produced at the time of the path and fruit not be compounded?]
The element of attributes is not [newly] produced,
[And its entity] never ceases [while one is a sentient being].
At all times [during the basal state, the path, and the fruit] it is without afflictive emotions [in its nature]—
In the beginning [in the basal state], the middle [during the path], and the end [during the fruit primordially] free from defilement [in its nature].
[If the element of attributes exists luminously without ever being produced or ceasing, then why is it that all sentient beings, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas without distinction do not see it as luminous?]
Just as a vaiçÒrya gem
At all times is luminous
But dwelling inside an [obstructive] stone Its light is not manifest [to anyone],
So the element of attributes obscured
By afflictive emotions is very undefiled [in its nature],
But its light is not manifest in the cyclic existence [of afflictive emotions],
Becoming [manifestly] luminous in nirvåòa.
and:
[Although the element of attributes is naturally pure, it is obstructed by obstructing factors;
For example,] even the undefiled sun and moon
Are obscured by five obstructions—
Clouds, mist, smoke,
The face of råhu, and dust and the like.
Similarly, the mind of clear light [which is the nature of all sentient beings]
Is obscured by five obstructions— Desire, harmful intent, laziness, Excitement, and doubt.
[Therefore, although a Buddha in which all qualities such as the powers and so forth are integrally complete exists primordially in all sentient beings, the defilements are extinguished through striving at the path clearing away obstructions, but the clear light is not consumed; for example,]
When a garment [made from a hard mineral] that is stained
With various defilements and to be cleansed [of defilement] by fire
Is put in fire, its stains Are burned but it is not.
So, similarly, with regard to the mind of clear light
Which has the stains of desire and so forth,
Its stains are burned by the fire of wisdom [on the path]
But [since it does not burn the clear light, the qualities of the clear light do not become non-existent the way iron is consumed or worn away, and hence] that [[[path]]] does not [burn away] the clear light.
[Well then, since the sÒtras teaching emptiness spoken by the Conqueror indicate that all are emptiness, do they not refute that even the clear light is in the mode of being?]
All the sÒtras [such as the Mother SÒtras and so forth]
Spoken by the Conqueror that teach emptiness
Overcome the afflictive emotions [of conceiving self]
But do not diminish [and refute] the essential constituent.
[Ultimately the element of attributes cannot be refuted;
For example,] just as water existing on the sphere of earth
Resides [in its nature] without defilement,
So the pristine wisdom inside afflictive emotions
Similarly [always] abides without defilement [never suitable to be non-existent].
and:
[Though it exists, it is not seen if the obstructions are not purified;
For example,] just as a child exists in the belly
Of the womb but is not seen,
So the element of attributes covered
With afflictive emotions also is not seen [though always resident].
and:
[A single river has different states due to relation with other causes and conditions;]
Just as a river in summer
Is said to be “warm”
But that [same river] itself in cold season
Is said to be “cold,”
So when [the element of attributes is] covered with the nets of afflictive emotions,
It is called “sentient being,”
But when that [[[element]] of attributes] itself is separated from afflictive emotions,
It is called “Buddha.” and so forth. Hence, by way of many examples Någårjuna speaks at length of the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss that is equivalent to the element of attributes, body of attributes, mind of natural clear light, self-arisen pristine wisdom, and so forth.
Therefore, the assertion of both of the supreme Superiors [that is, Asaºga and Någårjuna] is other-emptiness.
In this system, the truthless [that is, those lacking true existence] are in brief:
1. all basal phenomena of cyclic existence—non-thingsb (that is, imputed uncompounded phenomena,c such as the three uncompounded phenomena asserted in the Mind-Only School
and below), forms and so fortha that are renowned to be external objects,b the eight collections of consciousness,c the fiftyone mental factors,d and so forth
2. all temporary phenomena included within paths 3. from among those included within the fruit, Buddhahood,
a These are forms, feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses. Included within the first are visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, eye sense-power, ear sense-power, nose sensepower, tongue sense-power, and body sense-power. b phyi don, båhyårtha. The specification of “external objects” is likely for the sake of excluding empty forms (stong gzugs), which are ultimates and truly established. As Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 215) says:
Also, the Mahåparinirvåòa SÒtra makes pronouncements within differentiating well between empty forms, and so forth, and nonempty forms, and so forth: Kauò˜inya, empty form—due to the condition of ceasing—attains release in the aspect of non-empty form. This should be known in extension likewise with regard to feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses. Concerning those, respectively the forms and so forth of adventitious defilements are empty of their own entities—an emptiness of non-entities—and the forms and so forth of the matrix-ofOne-Gone-to-Bliss are the ultimate, other-emptiness, emptiness that is the [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] nature of non-entities.
c The eight consciousnesses are the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mental consciousness, afflicted mentality, and mind-basis-of-all. Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 235) holds that these are also taught in Great Middle Way:
Those who assert that Maitreya’s Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes and so forth are proprietary texts of Mind-Only by reason of the fact that they teach the three natures, eight collections of consciousness, and so forth are mistaken, because these are also taught in sÒtras and tantras of the final Middle Way.
d See p. 34, and Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, 238-268. newly arisen factors and those [[[phenomena]]] included within the other-appearanceb of trainees that is to say, all appearing and renowned phenomena, or phenomena in the division of phenomena and noumenon,c or all phenomena included within apprehended-object and apprehending-subject, or—on this occasion of delineating the ultimate—all effective things and non-things, namely, all that are compounded and adventitiously posited.d
Self-cognizing, self-illuminating pristine wisdome that is nondual with the basic element is called the ultimate truth, the uncompounded noumenon. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (403-404):
Objection: The noumenon is the object to be known, and pristine wisdom is the subject knowing it; hence it is not feasible for those two to be equivalent, as is the case with a form and an eye consciousness. Answer: There is no fault:
• because the non-sameness of knower and object known is for conventional other-cognition, whereas ultimate self-cognizing knower and object known are the same
• and because the element of attributes itself is pristine wisdom cognizing itself by itself (rang gis rang rig pa’i ye shes), the ultimate mind of enlightenment, undifferentiable emptiness and compassion, undifferentiable method and wisdom, and undifferentiable bliss and emptiness • and because the union of those into one is the androgynous state (ma ning gi go ’phang)…
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (300): That which is selfarisen pristine wisdom, ultimate truth, abiding pervasively in all does not differ in anyone as to its natural purity, but through the force of persons there are the differences of purity from adventitious defilements and of impurity due to adventitious defilements, like the fact that the sole sky— which by its own nature does not exist as entities of clouds and is
purified of entities of clouds—is not purified of clouds in some areas and is purified of clouds in other areas. Therefore, it is not contradictory that just as sky that is not purified of clouds does not exist in any area, so sky that is purified of clouds does not exist in any area, but, due to the area, there is impure sky and there is pure sky. Similarly, while the naturally pure, sole, basic element of the ultimate abides together with defilements in some persons and abides without defilements in some, it is posited as the basis and the fruit through the force of the presence or the absence of defilements in persons, [but] the entity of the noumenon does not differ.
Hence, persons who have abandoned all adventitious defilements have no need to again practice true paths because they have completed training, and they have already attained the body of ultimate pristine wisdom. Persons other than them just need to practice true paths properly because although the final Buddha integrally abides in them, it has not been attained because of being obstructed by adventitious defilements.
Moreover, this cultivation of the path is not for the sake of producing a body of attributes:
• because the uncompounded basic element that has an immutable nature is not fit to be produced by any causes and conditions
• and because it has abided always primordially with a spontaneous nature without needing to be produced
• and because if though existent, it needed to be produced, it most absurdly would need to be produced endlessly.
It is only truly established, able to bear analysis by reasoning.a They assert that because, when analyzed, the space-like [absence of true establishment] asserted by the Proponents of Self-Emptiness is a non-thing,b it is not the ultimate truth.c These tenets are flawless
a In his Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning (133) Tåranåtha specifies this as “the reasoning of dependent-arising, the lack of being one or many, and so forth.”
Döl-œo-œa (213) defines self-emptiness as meaning that phenomena “that cannot withstand analysis and finally disintegrate are empty of their own entities.” Thus, for him also, pristine wisdom is able to bear analysis; Tåranåtha calls this capacity to bear analysis “true establishment,” whereas in Mountain Doctrine Döl-œo-œa favors “ultimate establishment.” Since the ultimate exists or is found by such analysis, it is said to ultimately exist or truly exist.
To counter this notion Ge-luk-œa scholars make the distinction that although emptiness is the ultimate truth because it is found by ultimate analysis, it does not ultimately or truly exist in that when it is taken as the object of analysis, it itself cannot bear analysis by reasoning; see the extensive explanation (Hopkins, Maps of the Profound, 737ff.) at the point of commenting on Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s root text:
Whatever truly exists must exist in the perspective of reasoning because of being truly established. But what exists for that is not necessarily truly established, like the noumenon. Although there are objects found by a rational consciousness, what is able to bear analysis by it must stand to be truly established because true establishment is being analyzed. Establishment as bearing analysis by a rational consciousness is true establishment, the object of negation here. b dngos med.
c See Döl-œo-œa’s long exposition that self-emptiness is not the and endowed with all good qualities.
All those proponents of the Great Vehicle [that is, the MindOnly School, the Ordinary Middle Way School, and the Great Middle Way] assert all Great Vehicle sÒtras as the word of Buddha, but:
• The Proponents of Mind-Only hold the SÒtra Unraveling the Thought,a the Descent into Laºkå SÒtra,b the SÒtra on the Heavily Adorned Array,c and the Buddhåvataôsaka SÒtrad to be of definitive meaninge and assert that the others require interpretation.f The authors of this tenet systemg are five hundred earlier masters.
• Those holding the Ordinary Middle Way School propound that all sÒtras of the final wheel of doctrine require interpretation and that the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras of the middle wheel of doctrine are the finality of the definitive. Those ascertained as the authors of this tenet systemh are just those mentioned above, Buddhapålita and so forth. According to their own assertions,i they assert that the eight Proponents of NonNature, such as Råhulabhadra [that is, Saraha] and even the master Någårjuna, hold only this tenet system.j
ultimate in Mountain Doctrine in a section titled “Extensive explanation of damage to the assertion that self-emptiness, the ultimate, and so forth are synonyms,” 254-315. a dgongs pa nges par ’grel pa’i mdo, saôdhinirmocanasÒtra; P774, vol. 29. b lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo, laºkåvatårasÒtra; P775, vol. 29. c rgyan stug po bkod pa’i mdo, ghanavyÒhasÒtra; P778, vol. 29.
d sangs rgyas phal po che zhes bya ba shin tu rgyas pa chen po’i mdo, buddhåvataôsakanåma-mahåvaipulyasÒtra; P761, vols. 25-26. e nges don, n¦tårtha. f drang don, neyårtha. g grub mtha’ byed pa po. h grub mtha’ byed pa po yin nges.
i ’di rnams kyi rang rig gi ’dod pas; translation doubtful.
j Tåranåtha’s point is that, despite this claim, Någårjuna and so forth are actually Proponents of Other-Emptiness. As he says later (92), “That Bhåvaviveka, Buddhapålita, and so forth are renowned as Proponents of Self-Emptiness and Proponents of Non-Nature is a case of mainly taking
• Those of the Great Middle Way rely on all sÒtras of the three stages of wheels of doctrine. In particular, in reliance on (1) many sÒtras of the first wheel of doctrine such as the SÒtra of Advice to Katyåyanaa and the Great SÒtra on Emptiness,b (2) many sÒtras of the middle period wheel of doctrine, such as the Questions of Maitreya Chapterc and the Five Hundred Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra,d and (3) many sÒtras of the final wheel of doctrine, such as the four sÒtrase and so forth, they composed common, coarse tenets teaching that the noumenon is truly established.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (231):
Objection: Since the final wheel of doctrine together with the SÒtra Unraveling the Thought are proprietary texts of the Proponents of Mind-Only, the explanation that they are the final Middle Way is not right.
Answer: There are no pure sources indicating that those are proprietary texts of the Proponents of MindOnly.
Objection: They are proprietary texts of Mind-Only because the three natures are taught in them.
Answer: In that case, the Mother of the Conquerors [that is, the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras] would be proprietary
what is renowned to the ordinary world.” a In Påli this is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. b In Påli this is the Mahasuññata Sutta.
c Cyrus R. Stearns (The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen [[[Albany]], N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1999], 218 n. 29) identifies this as the seventy-second chapter of the Twenty-Five Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra and the eighty-third chapter of Eighteen Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra and states that a Questions of Maitreya Chapter “is not found in other versions of the Prajìåpåramitå.”
d ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa lnga brgya pa, åryapañcaŸatikåprajñåpåramitå; P0738, vol. 21.
e These are the SÒtra Unraveling the Thought, the Descent into Laºkå SÒtra, the Heavily Adorned Array, and the Buddhåvataôsaka SÒtra, which were mentioned above in connection with the Mind-Only School.
texts of Mind-Only, because the three natures are taught in them. Moreover, the Medium Length Mother [that is, the Twenty-five Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra] says:
The Supramundane Victor said to the Bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, Bodhisattvas practicing the perfection of wisdom and dwelling in skill with regard to distinguishing phenomena should know to designate distinctions of forms by way of three aspects, and they should know to designate distinctions with regard to feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses through to the qualities of Buddhahood as follows: This is imputational form; this is imputed form; this is noumenal form.
It similarly applies this at length to feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses through to the qualities of Buddhahood. Respectively, these are imputational, other-powered, and thoroughly established forms.
Moreover, that same text says that the basis of the emptiness of the imputational nature and of the otherpowered nature is the basic element of the ultimate, the thoroughly established nature:
Whether the Ones-Gone-Thus appear or not, the noumenon and the basic element of the source of attributes just abide. The noumenon’s forms are imputed forms’ absence of the nature of imputational forms and absence of a self of phenomena—suchness and limit of reality—for permanent, permanent time and stable, stable time. These are the noumenon’s feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses through to the noumenon’s qualities of a Buddha.” Thus Buddha said.
and moreover the same text speaks of how the three natures are set forth within applying such through to the qualities of Buddhahood: Maitreya, these imputational forms [that is to say, the ultimate existence imagined in forms] should be viewed as not substantially existing [because of not existing at all]. These imputed forms [that is, forms themselves] should be viewed as substantially existing because conceptuality substantially exists and not because forms operate under their own power. Noumenal forms should be viewed as neither not substantially existing nor as substantially existing but as distinguished by being the ultimate.
and so forth.
• And, similarly, in reliance on many sÒtras teaching the finality of definitive meanings, such as the Matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus SÒtra, the Great Drum SÒtra,b the Aºgulimåla SÒtra,c the Shr¦målådev¦ SÒtra,d the Mahåparinirvåòa SÒtra,e the Cloud of Jewels SÒtra, the Magical Meditative Stabilization Ascertaining Peace SÒtra, and so forth, those of the Great Middle Way composed—as secret discourse—the detailed, uncommon tenets that just that basic element of reality, the matrix of One-Gone-Thus, the body of attributes, the permanent-stableeternal, and all ultimate Buddha-qualities primordially indwell intrinsically. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (185-188):
Objection: If the ultimate Buddha intrinsically exists in all sentient beings, then they intrinsically would have final abandonment [of defilements] and have final realization [of the truth].
Answer: This must be taught upon making a distinction. Hence, there are two types of abandonment— abandonment of all defilements that is their primordial absence of inherent establishment and extinguishment of adventitious defilements upon their being overcome by antidotes…Although the second abandonment [that is, the extinguishment of adventitious defilements upon being overcome by antidotes] does not exist in sentient beings who have not cultivated the path, this does not involve a fault in our tenets, because it is not asserted that all sentient beings are Buddhas or have attained Buddhahood and because it is not asserted that conventional Buddhahood exists in all sentient beings.
Similarly, there are also two types of Buddharealization, the self-arisen pristine wisdom that is the primordial realization of the noumenon—knowing itself by itself —and the other-arisen pristine wisdom that is realization produced from having cultivated the profound path… Therefore, since the first type of realization [that is, self-arisen pristine wisdom that is primordial realization of the noumenon] is indivisibly complete in the noumenon, it is the case that where that noumenon exists, this realization also exists. Although the second type of realization [which is produced from having cultivated the profound path] is not complete in sentient beings who have not entered the path and although they have not directly realized selflessness, this does not involve a fault in our tenets; the reasons are as before…
Therefore, very many distorted challenges such as, “If Buddha exists in sentient beings, all karmas, afflictive emotions, and sufferings would not exist,” and so forth, and “Sentient beings would realize all knowables,” and so forth are babble by those who do not know the difference between existence [that is, presence] and being such and such. This is because existence does not establish being such and such. If it did, then since explanations exist in humans, are humans explanations?
The author of texts illuminating the meaning of the sÒtras is the regent, the Superior Maitreya. In his Ornament for Clear Realization he sets this forth briefly with rough religious vocabulary; in his Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras, Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes, and Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon he speaks about it clearly and extensively; and in his Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle he delineates the detailed, uncommon tenets that are the meaning of the sÒtras on the matrix.
The authors of commentaries on the thought of those texts are Asaºga and Vasubandhu. In Asaºga’s Explanation of (Maitreya’s) “Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle,” the uncommon tenets are very vast and clear, and, in general, the Middle Way of OtherEmptiness is clear in all of the treatises by the two brothers [Asaºga and Vasubandhu]. In Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the TwentyFive Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra: Conquest Over Objections, and Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon” it is clear and extensive.a
The general tenets of other-emptiness are explained at length by many good students in the lineage of Dignåga, Sthiramati, and so forth, and the uncommon tenets, being difficult to fit in others’ minds, were spread in the manner of transmission from ear to ear. Later, in dependence upon its happening that many in India confused this Middle Way of Other-Emptiness and the tenets of Mind-Only, most Tibetans mistook them to be the same. In Tibet, many translators and scholars translated texts, but those who purely held the tenets are those following the meditative system of the Doctrines of Maitreyab—the translators Su Ga-way-dor-jay,c ‚zen Kha-wo-che,d and so forth. In particular, the one who pervasively spread the profound other-emptiness on the earth with the roar of a lion is the great omniscient Döl-bu-flae ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen.
II. IDENTIFYING THE PRESENTATION OF THE MIDDLE
Maitreya’s Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes says:
Duality does not exist there. Emptiness exists here.
Daôøþasyana, and so forth; see Hopkins, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, 225-233 (especially 231-233) and 335-341.
a For Döl-œo-œa’s citations of these treatises, see the index to Mountain Doctrine.
b For the Five Doctrines of Maitreya see the Bibliography. c gzu dga’ ba’i rdo rje. Perhaps he is gzu chos kyi rdo rje mentioned in the next note.
d btsan kha bo che, born 1021. Gene Smith (TBRC) reports:
1076. Together with Rngog Blo-ldan-shes-rab, Rwa Lo Rdo-rjegrags-pa, Khyung-po Chos-kyi-brtson-’grus traveled to Kashmir to study with Sadzdza-na and others. Worked with Gzu Choskyi-rdo-rje.
1089. Return to Tibet and begins to teach the Byams chos sde lnga at Yar-stod Brag-rgya. His school of exegesis of the Byams chos sde lnga became known as the Btsan lugs.
Also that exists in that. Not empty and not non-empty, Thereby all are explained.
Due to existence and due to non-existence, existence.
Therefore that is the middle path.a
a I.1-1.2; P5522, vol. 108, 19.4.5. The Sanskrit, from Gadjin M. Nagao, Madhyåntavibhåga-bhåøya (Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964), 17, is:
abhÒta-parikalpo ’sti dvayan tatra na vidyate/ ŸÒnyatå vidyate tv atra tasyåm api sa vidyate// na ŸÒnyaô nåpi cåŸÒnyaô tasmåt sarvvam [Pandeya: sarvaô] vidh¦yate/ satvåd asatvåt satvåc [Pandeya: sattvådasattvåt sattvåc ] ca madhyamå pratipac ca så//
See also Ramchandra Pandeya, Madhyånta-vibhåga-Ÿåstra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), 9, 13. With bracketed additions reflecting Tåranåtha’s commentary, the stanzas read:
Unreal ideation exists [[[Wikipedia:conventionally|conventionally]]]. Duality [of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject and so forth] does not exist there [in ideation]. [The pristine wisdom of ] emptiness [truly] exists here [in unreal ideation in the manner of being its noumenon]. Also that [unreal ideation] exists [as an entity without true existence] in that [[[Wikipedia:noumenon|noumenon]]]. [The noumenal wisdom is] not empty and [conventionalities are] not non-empty,
Thereby all are explained.
Due to the [the noumenal wisdom’s true] existence and due to the non-existence [of change within it, it always] exists. Therefore that is the middle path. ‚zong-ka-fla cites these stanzas in his The Essence of Eloquence (Hopkins, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, 182); with bracketed additions reflecting his commentary, the stanzas read:
Unreal ideation [[[ideation]] being the main other-powered nature] exists [by way of its own character in that it is produced from causes and conditions]. Duality [of subject and object in accordance with their appearance This is saying that:
In terms of delineating obscurational truths,a mere unreal ideationb—that is to say, a consciousness to which various
as if distant and cut off] does not exist in that [[[ideation]]]. [The thoroughly established nature which is the] emptiness [of being distant and cut off] exists [by way of its own character as the mode of subsistence] in this [[[ideation]]].
Also that [[[ideation]]] exists [as an obstructor] to [[[realization]] of] that [[[emptiness]]].
[Thus, other-powered natures and thoroughly established natures] are not empty [of establishment by way of the object’s own character] and are not non-empty [of subject and object being distant and cut off].
Thereby all [of the mode of thought in the teachings in the Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras, and so forth, of not being empty and of not being non-empty] is explained [thoroughly].
Due to the existence [of the other-powered nature that is the erroneous ideation apprehending object and subject as distant and cut off, the extreme of non-existence is avoided] and due to the non-existence [of distant and cut off object and subject—in accordance with how they are apprehended by that ideation— as their mode of subsistence, the extreme of existence is avoided, and ideation and emptiness] exist.
Therefore that [thoroughly established nature which is the emptiness of distant and cut off object and subject and which is the voidness of the two extremes in other-powered natures] is the middle path [that is to say, is established as the meaning of the middle].
a kun rdzob bden pa, saôv¸tisatya. b To unpack the term “unreal ideation” (yang dag pa ma yin pa’i kun tu rtog pa / yang dag ma yin kun rtog, abhÒtaparikalpa) Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 530) cites Maitreya’s Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon:
Concerning this, the character of phenomena Is unreal ideation in which there is
Appearance of duality and concordance with verbalization; Because the non-existent appears, it is unreal.
Since all those are non-factual
appearances dawn—exists conventionally. However, the factor of the object apprehended and the factor of apprehender that appear to that [[[ideation]]] do not exist even conventionally, since they are merely mentally imputed.a Consequently, obscurational truths are released from the two extremes: ideation is released from the extreme of nonexistence and from the extreme of annihilation through asserting that it conventionally exists, and ideation is released from the extreme of permanence and the extreme of existence through being beyond all superimposed factors of relative phenomena,b such as the factors of object apprehended and apprehender, and so forth.
The pristine wisdom of emptiness, beyond proliferation, truly exists in that unreal ideational consciousness in the manner of being its noumenon. On the occasion of defilement, those consciousnesses exist in that noumenon as subjectsc [having as their nature the noumenon], entities without true existence—adventitious defilements suitable to separated, defilements to be abandoned. Consequently, ultimate truths also are “devoid of the two extremes”: emptiness is truly established, and all phenomena included within the two, apprehended-object and apprehendingsubject, such as ideation and so forth, are without true existence, and therefore [[[ultimate truths]]] are beyond the two extremes of existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation.
Hence, conventionalities—the two, apprehendedobject and apprehending-subject—except for only being the dawning of mistaken appearances, are empty of their own entities due to being unestablishable by way of their own entities.d And something established as an other-entity from within the division of the pair, self and other, does
And mere conceptualization, it is ideation.
a blos btags pa tsam.
b ltos chos. c chos can. d rang gi ngo bos grub rgyu med pa.
not occur among objects of knowledge. Therefore, conventionalities are empty in all respects and hence are not nonempty. The noumenal wisdom is primordially established by way of its own nature and never changes; hence, it is not empty of its own entity and always exists.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (329): Concerning this, whereas conventional phenomena do not at all exist in the mode of subsistence, the extreme of existence is the superimposition that they do. Whereas the partless, omnipresent pristine wisdom of the element of attributes always abides pervading all, the extreme of non-existence is the deprecation that it does not exist and is not established and is empty of its own entity. That which is the middle devoid of those extremes is the basis devoid of all extremes such as
existence and non-existence, superimposition, and deprecation, permanence and annihilation, and so forth, due to which it is the Final Great Middle. It is non-material emptiness, emptiness far from an annihilatory emptiness, great emptiness that is the ultimate pristine wisdom of Superiors, five immutable great emptinesses, six immutable empty drops, a which is the supreme of all letters, Buddha earlier than all Buddhas, primordially released One-GoneThus, causeless original Buddha, aspectlessness endowed with all aspects—insuperable and not fit to be abandoned. Not to be deprecated, it is the inconceivable element of attributes beyond phenomena of consciousness and not in the sphere of argument; it is to be realized in individual self-cognition by yogis.
Consequently, those who come to the conclusion that:
• the “middle” is exhausted as designated to the mere voidness of all extremes
• “even the middle is empty of the middle”
• “even the ultimate is empty of the ultimate”
and so forth do not accord with the thought of the Conqueror because, for the character of the emptiness that is the final mode of subsistence, the mere emptiness of nonentities is not sufficient. Rather, the emptiness that is the [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] nature of non-entities [that is, emptiness that is the ultimate nature opposite from non-entities] is required.
Objection: But do the sÒtras not say that even the element of attributes is empty?
Answer: In general, despite being empty or being an emptiness, it is not necessary that it is empty of its own entity. Pristine wisdom is said to be “emptiness”b because it is empty of all proliferations that have the character of anything other than itself or is empty of all apprehended-objects and apprehending-subjects.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (364-368):c For the SÒtra Unraveling the Thought says:
Based on just the naturelessness of all phenomena and based on just the absence of production, the absence of cessation, quiescence from the start, and naturally passed beyond sorrow, the Supramundane Victor turned a second wheel of doctrine, for those engaged in the Great Vehicle, very fantastic and marvelous, through the aspect of speaking on emptiness. Furthermore, that wheel of doctrine turned by the Supramundane Victor is surpassable, affords an occasion [for refutation], requires interpretation, and serves as a basis for controversy.
Similarly, it should be understood that all statements—in these and those texts of the middle wheel of doctrine—of the non-self-empty as self-empty are just of interpretable meaning with a thought behind them. [[[Understanding]]] this depends on the lamp of unique quintessential instructions of good differentiation [found in the three cycles of Bodhisattva commentaries].
Here the purpose of speaking in consideration of such is to thoroughly pacify apprehension, discrimination, and conceptualization of the element of attributes and so forth as this or that. About the damage to their being of definitive meaning, it is because:
• the element of attributes, thusness, limit of reality, and so forth are all said to be ultimate deities, mantras, tantras, maòçalas, and mudrås—the final Buddha, four bodies, five wisdoms, letter e, bhaga, source of attributes, water-born [that is, lotus], secrecy, great secrecy, letter a, perfection-of-wisdom-goddess, vishvamåtå, vajravarah¦, and so forth; the syllable vaô, great bliss, drop, vajra, heruka, suchness, self-arisen Buddha, and so forth; Vajradhara, Vajrasattva, the syllables evaô, Kålachakra, Vajrabhairava, Vajraishvara, Chakrasaôvara, Guhyasamåja, Hevajra, and so forth—and those also are said to be the noumenon, thusness, and so forth
• and those are said to be entities of endless attributes such as the powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth that are non-self-empty qualities. Here, with regard to the basis in [[[Buddha’s]]] thought, such was said in consideration that all [[[Wikipedia:conceptual|conceptual]]] apprehensions as those (that is, as the element of attributes and so forth) and all subjects involved with those [[[Wikipedia:conceptual|conceptual]] apprehensions] are self-empty. This is because all phenomena, forms and so forth, are said to be in three categories [imputational, other-powered, and thoroughly established natures], and from among them those said to be self-empty are in consideration of imputational and other-powered forms and so forth…
Similarly, with respect to the statement:
Because the element of attributes is void, Bodhisattvas do not apprehend a prior limit. Because thusness, the limit of reality, and the inconceivable basic element are void, Bodhisattvas do not apprehend a prior limit. you should also understand that although it is not void of itself, it is void of others, and through having become mindful again and again of this unique profound essential of quintessential instructions that also explain well the many occasions of non-establishment, purity, intensive purity, thorough purity, ceasedness, cessation, extinction, separation, intensive separation, purity, abandonment, and so forth, you will understand well:
• the meaning of the emptiness of its own entity and the emptiness of other entities
• the meaning of empty emptiness and non-empty emptiness
• the meaning of the emptiness of non-entities and the emptiness that is the [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] nature of non-entities [that is, emptiness that is the ultimate nature opposite from non-entities]
• the mere emptiness of the phenomenon that is the object negated and the emptiness that has many synonyms such as basis of emptiness, noumenon, thusness, and so forth.
Concerning that, from among the three characters—imputational, other-powered, and thoroughly established:
1. Imputational characters are all objects apprehended through mental superimposition:
• all non-things—space and so forth
• factors of the appearance of objects—the forms and so forth that appear to conceptual consciousnesses
• the relationship of name and meaning—in which names are adhered to as meanings and meanings are mistaken as names
• external and internal, center and ends, big and small, good and bad, directions, time, and so forth.
2. Other-powered charactersb are just consciousnesses to which there are appearances as the actualities of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject, because [such consciousnesses] appear through having come under the other-influence of the predispositions of ignorance.
3. The thoroughly established characterc is self-illuminating selfcognition devoid of all proliferations. Noumenon,d element of attributes, thusness,f and ultimate truth are synonyms [of the thoroughly established character].
Regarding these [three characters], although the two—otherpowered characters and imputational characters—are equally without true existence, are equally mistaken appearances, and are equally conventionalities and falsities, the necessity to distinguish their characters individually is that imputational characters do not exist even conventionally and other-powered natures conventionally exist.i Since the thoroughly established character does not conventionally exist but ultimately exists, it truly exists.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (233) summarizes presentations of the three natures as indicating that:
• The basis of the emptiness of the imputational nature is other-powered natures.
• The basis of the emptiness also of those [otherpowered natures] is the thoroughly established nature.
• A basis of the emptiness of that [thoroughly established nature] does not occur…
• Both of the former two [that is, imputational natures and other-powered natures] are imputational natures.
• The basis of the emptiness of them is the ultimate.
• A basis of the emptiness of that [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] does not occur.
Similarly, imputational characters imputedly exist; otherpowered characters substantially exist,b and although the thoroughly established character does not exist in either of those two ways, it exists without proliferations. Imputational characters are non-existent-empty; other-powered characters are existent-empty; and the thoroughly established character is the ultimate emptiness. The holy leader [[[Maitreya]]] says [in the Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras]: When one knows non-existent-emptiness
And likewise existent-emptiness
And the nature-emptiness, It is said that one knows emptiness.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (219-220): The imputational nature is empty in the sense of always not existing.
Other-powered natures, although tentatively existent, are
empty in the sense of not existing in reality; those two are fabricated and adventitious. It is said that the noumenal thoroughly established nature exists because the emptiness that is the [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] nature of non-entities [that is, the emptiness that is the ultimate nature opposite from nonentities]—due to being just the fundamental nature—is not empty of its own entity, and it is also said that it does not exist because of being empty even of other-powered natures. Imputational characters are character-non-natures;a other-powered characters are production-non-natures;b and the thoroughly established character is the ultimate-non-nature. [[[Vasubandhu’s]] The Thirty says:]
a mtshan nyid ngo bo nyid med pa, lakýaòani¯svabh›va. Imputational characters are called character-non-natures because they lack the nature of existing by way of their own character, since they are only imputed and do not exist even conventionally.
b skye ba ngo bo nyid med pa, utpattini¯svabh›va. Other-powered characters are called production-non-natures because they lack the nature of being produced under their own power, since they arise in dependence upon causes and conditions.
In reliance on three aspects of non-nature
Of the three aspects of nature, [[[Buddha]]] taught that all phenomena Are natureless.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (401): Imputational natures are natureless in that they are do not exist by way of their own character; aside from being established as mere conventionalities, or as unreal conventionalities, they are not established even as conventional truths, or real conventionalities. Other-powered natures are natureless in that although they exist as entities conventionally produced from others, they do not exist as entities produced from themselves, and in reality they are not established at all. Because in that way those two are self-empty, their
entities [that is, natures] do not exist. The basis of the non-existence of those two, the noumenal thoroughly established nature, is not without its own entity, but because it is the basis of the non-existence of the natures of conventional phenomena, which are other than it, it is the entity of the ultimate truth—the nature body or inherent body, natural clear light, natural innate pristine wisdom, natural purity, natural spontaneity, naturally abiding lineage.
It is said that when you know the system of naturelessness in that way, you realize the center that has not fallen to an extreme of existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation, and superimposition and deprecation, whereby you will not degenerate from the middle path.
In this system, all objects of knowledge are necessarily emptinessesa and are necessarily natureless.a Therefore, the assertion that
Philosophy 9 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991), 54; and Enga Teramoto, Sthiramati’s Triôçik›bh›øyaô (Sum-cu-pa¯i ¯Grel-pa): A Tibetan Text (Kyoto: Association for Linguistic Study of Sacred Scriptures, 1933), 79.14. a All conventionalities are self-emptinesses, and ultimates are otheremptinesses. Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 338) clearly states that the all phenomena are emptinesses and that an emptiness of all phenomena does not exist is the system of other-emptiness;b there are ultimate is an object of knowledge:
Hence, those who propound that all objects of knowledge are limited to the two, existing as an effective thing and not existing as an effective thing (dngos po yod med ), are reduced to only not having realized the ultimate mode of subsistence, since although it is an object of knowledge, it does not either exist as an effective thing or not exist as an effective thing. Consequently, it is also established as just a third category and the center or middle.
a All objects of knowledge are natureless in that, as stated just above, imputational characters are character-non-natures; other-powered characters are production-non-natures; and the thoroughly established character is the ultimate-non-nature.
b The two editions of Tåranåtha’s text have radically different readings of this line. There are four such conflicts (see also footnotes c on p. 92, f on p. 93, and a on p. 98) between the two editions likely due to variant readings of a contraction; it is possible that the Dzamthang edition is corrupt all four times but, to my mind, certainly in the final one. Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod edition, 8a.7: des na chos thams cad stong nyid dang/ chos thams cad stong nyid med par khas len pa gzhan stong lugs yin. Therefore, the assertion that all phenomena are emptinesses and that an emptiness of all phenomena does not exist is the system of other-emptiness.
Dzamthang edition, 8a.4: des na chos nyid stong nyid dang/ chos nyid stong nyid med par khas len pa gzhan stong lugs yin. Therefore, the assertion that the noumenon is emptiness and that an emptiness of the noumenon does not exist is the system of otheremptiness.
With regard to the first reading, how “all phenomena are emptinesses” is explained in the previous note about how all objects of knowledge are natureless; also, all conventional phenomena are self-emptinesses. It seems to me that in the statement “an emptiness of all phenomena does not exist” the term “all phenomena” (chos thams cad ) includes both phenomena and noumenon (chos dang chos nyid ), and since the noumenon is not empty of the noumenon, it cannot be said that the noumenon is empty of all phenomena; rather, it is empty of all conventional phenomena. In the same vein, it is not the case that all phenomena are empty of true or
internal contradictions in the system renowned a self-emptiness.a
ultimate existence, since the thoroughly established nature is not empty of true or ultimate existence.
Depending on how it used, sometimes the term “phenomena” includes the noumenon, and sometimes it does not, the latter being called “phenomena (chos) in the division of phenomena (chos) into phenomena (chos) and noumenon (chos nyid ).” Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 404405) uses the term in its more restrictive sense when addressing this same general issue:
Objection: If [[[other-emptiness]]] is empty of all phenomena, it would even be empty of the noumenon because the noumenon is also included within all.
Answer: An emptiness of all (thams cad kyi stong pa) does not occur because an emptiness of the noumenon does not occur. A basis of the emptiness of all phenomena (chos thams cad kyi stong pa’i gzhi) occurs; it is the noumenon. A basis empty of the noumenon (chos nyid kyi stong pa’i gzhi) does not occur because that is damaged by immeasurable, great, absurd consequences. Therefore, empty of all and empty of all phenomena are extremely different because the mode of
subsistence is empty of phenomena but is not empty of the noumenon (gnas lugs la chos kyis stong yang chos nyid kyis mi stong). This also clears away the assertion that phenomena and noumenon are one entity and different isolates (ngo bo gcig la ldog pa tha dad ) and the assertion that they are not at all different because those two are different in the sense of negating that they are the same entity (ngo bo gcig pa bkag pa’i tha dad ).
With regard to the second reading, the noumenon is emptiness in that the noumenon is other-emptiness, since it is empty of conventionalities. However, an emptiness of the noumenon does not occur because the noumenon is the final nature of all phenomena. Döl-œo-œa frequently calls the noumenon “the basis of emptiness, the ultimate other-emptiness” (stong gzhi don dam gzhan stong), in that it is empty of conventionalities, or compounded phenomena, but it is not empty of itself and hence is non-empty emptiness (mi stong ba’i stong nyid ).
a In Ge-luk, all phenomena, including the noumenon, are self-empty in that even emptiness, the noumenon, is empty of inherent existence. Hence, in Ge-luk “self-empty” does not mean that a phenomenon is empty of itself; rather, it means that a phenomenon is empty of its own Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (213): Moreover, if everything were self-empty, then the body of attributes of release also would be self-empty, and if that is accepted, it also would be totally non-existent.
Therefore, the pure self-emptiness set forth by Buddha is that conventionalities abide as self-empty, and naturelessness also is these three [non-natures described above]. Hence, those propounding self-emptiness without error and the definitive Proponents of Naturelessnessa are the Proponents of Other-Emptiness. That Bhåvaviveka, Buddhapålita, and so forth are renowned as Proponents of Self-Emptiness and Proponents of Naturelessness is a case of mainly taking what is renowned to the ordinary world.b Question: If the thoroughly established character exists as truly established, does it have the three (production, abiding, and cessation), going and coming, change and reversal, direction and time, one and many, and so forth?
Answer: No, whatever has those necessarily is without true existence. The thoroughly established character is without production, without abiding, and without cessation; it is without going and without coming; it is not one and not many; it is not a cause and is not an effect; by way of its own nature it has abandoned definition, definiendum, and illustration; it is devoid of all directions and times; by way of its own nature it is not related with any conventional phenomena. Because it does not have any pieces to be separated off, it is partless. Because it is the noumenon of all phenomena,c it is omnipresent and all-pervasive.
inherent existence. However, if it meant that all phenomena are empty of themselves, then even the ultimate would not exist; this is likely the contradiction to which Tåranåtha is referring. a ngo bo nyid med smra ba yin nges; that is to say, those who actually are Proponents of Naturelessness and do not stray into asserting that the ultimate lacks true existence.
b They are actually Proponents of Other-Emptiness, who indeed know how to propound self-emptiness and naturelessness properly.
c chos thams cad kyi chos nyid: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod edition, 8b.6. The Dzamthang edition (8b.2) reads chos nyid kyi chos nyid “the noumenon of the noumenon.” The noumenon is not empty of the
THE UNCOMMON MEANING
Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras says:a
Because thusness does not differ in all,
And its state of having been purified Is the One-Gone-Thus,
All transmigrating beings have its matrix.b
This means that thusness and One-Gone-Thus are one entity and that just this is the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Matrix-of-OneGone-Thus,c matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss,d and Buddha-matrixe are equivalent. Although it resides equally in all phenomenaf— Buddhas, sentient beings, and so forth—it resides in sentient beings in the manner of a matrix, and it resides in Buddhas in a manifest manner. Therefore, the [[Wikipedia:Absolute
(philosophy)|ultimate]] Buddha itself exists like a matrix in the middle of the mental continuums of sentient beings, and consequently it is said that all sentient beings possess the matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus. This matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss exists in sentient beings, and sentient beings’ matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss is also called the “naturally abiding lineage”g and “basic constituent.”a
noumenon, but I wonder whether the frequent description of the noumenon as the basis of emptiness (stong gzhi) might provide an avenue for positing an emptiness of the noumenon, or noumenon of the noumenon. a IX.37; Ùel-mang ‰ön-chok-gyel-tsen’s Blossoming Flower, 122.1; Lévi, Mahåyåna Sátrålaôkåra, 40: sarveøåmaviŸiøþåpi tathatå Ÿuddhimågatå/ tathågatatvaô tasmåcca tadgarbhåł sarvadehinał//.
b Döl-œo-œa (Mountain Doctrine, 82 and 247) cites this stanza twice, commenting that, “in consideration that the basal and resultant entities are the same in thusness, it is even said that the basal, or causal, continuum is the fruit continuum…” and, “That there is no one whose naturally abiding lineage is severed is extensively set forth in this very text.” c de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po, tathågatagarbha. d bde bar gzhegs pa'i snying po, sugatagarbha.
e sangs rgyas kyi snying po. f chos thams cad la: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod edition, 8b.6. The Dzamthang edition (8b.4) reads chos nyid la, “in the noumenon.” g rang bzhin gnas rigs.
Question: Therefore, since thusness does not reside in a Buddha in the manner of a matrix and a sentient being’s thusness resides in the manner of a matrix, would thusness be twofold?
Answer: It is not. Buddha is thusness itself. Even when “Buddha” is explained as having the meaning of a person, to itself [[[thusness]]] is manifest, non-hidden; consequently, when the meaning of matrix is taken as “abiding and hidden within,” the etymology of matrix as “hidden within” is not complete [in Buddha]. Although just that thusness of a Buddha abides in sentient beings, sentient beings do not perceive it from their own side, and hence it is a matrix that has the meaning of being hidden to sentient beings. [However] when matrix is explained as “immutability,” even a Buddha has the Buddha-matrix. Therefore, this matrix-of-OneGone-Thus is released from both effective things and non-things, due to which it is the actual uncompounded, the ultimate uncompounded.
Moreover, with respect to the secret uncommon mode of subsistence, there is no controversy over the fact that a Buddha’s element of attributes exists as an entity of all Buddha-qualities, and just it is not divisible from sentient beings’ element of attributes. Consequently, what unsuitability is there in the matrix-of-OneGone-to-Bliss in the continuums of sentient beings also abiding as an entity of all Buddha-qualities! Therefore, Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle says:f
[The uncontaminated basic element, the naturally] luminous [[[body]] of attributes,] is not compounded [from causes and conditions] And permeates undifferentiably [as the nature of all sentient beings];
It [[[primordially]] and spontaneously] just possesses all of the
[[[unlimited]]] Buddha-attributes
[Of the powers and so forth] beyond the [count of ] sands of the Ganges.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (99): This matrix-of-OneGone-Thus itself, the naturally luminous and uncompounded noumenon, is endowed undifferentiably with the inseparable qualities of Buddhahood passed beyond the count of the grains of sands of the banks of the Ganges.
Since it says that [the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss in the continuums of sentient beings] is endowed with all the qualities that are uncompounded entities, it has all the ultimate Buddha-qualities. Therefore, the pristine wisdom of the element of attributes necessarily is only an ultimate truth; although the other four pristine wisdoms are mainly the primordially abiding ultimate, each in a minor way has conventional portions that are newly attained through having cultivated the path.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (456-457): The pristine wisdom of the pure element of attributes is only ultimate, whereas there are compounded and uncompounded [types] with regard to the four—the mirror-like wisdom and so forth—whereby it should be known that there are conventional [ones] and there are also ultimate [ones].
The ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and so forth also are similar to those [[[four pristine wisdoms]] in mainly being the primordially abiding ultimate, but each in a minor way has conventional parts that are newly attained through having cultivated the path]. The qualities of exalted body (the marks, the beauties, and so forth) and the qualities of exalted speech (the sixty branches [of vocalization] and so forth) each equally has conventional and [[Wikipedia:Absolute
(philosophy)|ultimate]] portions. Likewise, the nature body is only ultimate; the body of attributes is mostly ultimate; the two, the complete enjoyment body and emanation bodies, have equal portions when a division of actual and imputed types is not made; moreover, the appearances of exalted activities in others’ perspectives are conventional, whereas the pristine wisdom of capable power is ultimate.
Hence, all exalted body, pristine wisdom, qualities, and activities that are included within the ultimate abide primordially in the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. When a person is Buddhafied, those are not newly attained and are merely separated from defilements obscuring them, but those that are conventional are newly attained. In past Buddhas and in future Buddhas those that are ultimate are one entity, and even those that are conventional are indivisible in nature upon attaining Buddhahood and thereafter but at the point of attainment are different; hence, they are unpredicable as either the same or different.a
Therefore, newly attained effects that are to be produced through cultivating the path are produced effects, due to which they do not truly exist, whereas the primordially abiding Buddha is merely separated from the covering over that Buddha through cultivating the path, due to which it is called a “separative effect,”b and the path also is called a “cause of its separation.”c
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (426-428): Thus, it is said that:
• separative effects, the body of attributes, are immutable thoroughly established natures, and separative qualities—the powers and so forth—are complete in the body of thusness
• produced effects, form bodies, are undistorted thoroughly established natures, and produced qualities— the marks and so forth—exist in those having correct pristine wisdom.
These [points] clear away the assertion by some that even the body of attributes is a produced effect, a conventionality, and the assertion by others that even form bodies are separative effects, ultimates…Likewise, the assertion by
thang edition, 9b.3 misreads nus mthus ye shes. a They are the same from one perspective and different from another perspective and thus inexpressible as either.
b bral ’bras. c de’i bral rgyu.
some that even the body of attributes does not exist in sentient beings from the beginning and the assertion by others that even form bodies exist in sentient beings from the beginning are very mistaken because [[[Maitreya’s]] Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle] says at length, “Like a [great] treasure [that naturally remains under the ground— not newly achieved through striving and exertion and containing inexhaustible resources—]and like a fruit tree [that gradually grows in a grove by way of being achieved through striving and exertion],” and so forth.
These are merely imputed cause and effect, not actual cause and effect. This separative effect also is not an analytical separationb described in Manifest Knowledge: “Separation is a mental extinguishment.” Rather, it is an ultimate separative effect and an ultimate true cessation in accordance with the statement in the Questions of King Dhåraò¦øhvara SÒtra, “Since it is primordially extinguished, it is called ‘extinguishment.’”
Objection: Since obstructions are abandoned through the power of the path, this would be equivalent to extinguishment by the mind.
Answer: It is not that obstructions are abandoned from the side of the element of attributes; they are abandoned from the side of the person. Hence, persons who are enlightened get the mere designation, “They have attained a separation that is an extinguishment.” However, since the element of attributes is primordially unpolluted by defilements, it is not a new extinguishment by the mind.
Therefore, the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss—the non-dual pristine wisdom pervading all phenomena equally—is adorned with all ultimate Buddha-qualities and is devoid of all proliferations. Just this which is endowed with all aspects of pristine wisdom but is devoid of all proliferations is the great immutable thoroughly established nature. Only this is the undistorted mode of subsistence and is an object
of experience by the unmistaken pristine wisdom of Superiors; hence, it is truly established, and because it is immutable, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting.c This matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss that abides in the manner of possessing the qualities of the marks and the beauties and so forth is mentioned in all tantra sets of secret mantra by way of many synonyms. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (271-272): These [texts] call “great seal” and “emptiness endowed with supreme aspects” just that undifferentiable element of attributes and self-arisen pristine wisdom, having a nature of:
• the final definitive phallic bliss
• perfection of wisdom goddess
• the letter A
• lotus
• thusness
• Vajrayogin¦
• lady lineage holder and so forth, and that also is the profound emptiness, which is not self-empty. Moreover, even these exalted sources speak of:
• the final great seal of undifferentiable basis and fruit
• great mother
• lady selflessness
• letter A
• lotus
• maòçala
• five pristine wisdoms
• thusness
• Vajrayogin¦
• lady lineage holder in consideration of:
• the basis empty of all phenomena
• noumenon
• matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss having a nature of all inseparable qualities
• thusness
• emptiness that is the [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] nature of non-entities [that is, emptiness that is the ultimate nature opposite from non-entities].
That thoroughly established nature is not polluted by, in brief, any appearing and consensual phenomena, whether these are called “conventionalities”b or “apprehended-object and apprehendingsubject”c or “mistaken appearances.” Moreover, with respect to this non-pollution, it is not that [conventionalities and the element of attributes] exist individually and separately, with conventionalities existing in facte but unable to pollute the element of attributes. Rather, because conventionalities are only mistaken appearances, they, like the horns of a rabbit, are not established in the mode of subsistence.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (537): Therefore, these mistaken karmic appearances of sentient beings are the private phenomena just of sentient beings; they utterly do not occur in the mode of subsistence, like the horns of a rabbit, the child of a barren woman, a sky-flower, and so forth. Consequently, they are not established even as mere appearances to a consciousness of the mode of subsistence, and appearing in the perspective of mistake does not fulfill the role of appearing in the mode of subsistence. In consideration of these, it is again and again said in many formats that all phenomena are not observed, non-appearing, unapprehendable, and so forth.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (527): [[[Vasubandhu’s]]] Commentary on the Extensive and Middling Mothers and so forth say that because in the mode of subsistence these imputational three realms are utterly non-existent like the horns of a rabbit, they do not appear to a consciousness of the mode of subsistence, just as the horns of a rabbit do not appear to an unmistaken consciousness.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (535-536): That the noumenon exists in the mode of subsistence and that phenomena do not exist in the mode of subsistence are set forth in many elevated, pure scriptural systems such as Maitreya’s Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon and so forth. If you are skilled in the thought of similar, extensive statements of existing and not existing in the mode of subsistence such as:
• the ultimate exists, but the conventional does not exist
• nirvåòa exists, but cyclic existence does not exist
• true cessation exists, but the other three truths do not exist
• the noumenal thoroughly established nature exists, but the other natures do not exist
• thusness exists, but other phenomena do not exist
• external and internal adventitious defilements do not exist, but the alternative supreme matrix-of-One- Gone-to-Bliss exists, you will know them within differentiating well existence and non-existence.
Hence [the thoroughly established nature] is not polluted in the sense that the causes of pollution do not exist. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (331): Since the ultimate’s own entity is even very established, it is not non-existent, and imputational things, which are other than that, do not arise or do not exist.
Therefore, the thoroughly established nature, the matrix-of-OneGone-to-Bliss, is never empty of its own entity but is primordially empty of others, that is, conventionalities. Hence, the thoroughly established nature, the ultimate truth, is other-empty, not selfempty. Consequently, conventionalities, in addition to being
empty of others’ entities, are also empty of their own entities, and the ultimate is empty of only others’ entities. Due to this, those who propound this mode are the Other-Empty Middle.
Concerning this, in order to overcome any and all attachments to the phenomena of cyclic existence, you should meditatively cultivate the intention definitely to leave cyclic existence, meditating on impermanence and suffering. Also, you should abandon taking to mind your own welfareb and inculcate in your continuum the altruistic intention to become enlightened. In order to abandon coarse attachments to conventionalities, you should delineate and then meditate on conventionalities as without true existence. In order also to abandon subtle attachments, you should meditatively cultivate non-conceptuality, withdrawing conceptuality of the conventional into the basic element. Through those, you will come to the non-conceptual matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss and gradually meet its face. Hence, all whatsoever meditative cultivations of the path are for the sake of encountering the thoroughly established nature.
III. CLEARING AWAY EXTREMES IMPUTED BY OTHERS
You should know about this from my Ornament of the Other-Empty Middle,c and also I will explain this at length elsewhere. However, let us give the essence in brief.
Others say: In the Descent into Laºkå SÒtra, [Mahåmati] asks, “If there is a One-Gone-to-Bliss endowed with the marks and beauties [of a Buddha], would it not be the same as the self of [nonBuddhist] Forders?” And in answer, [[[Buddha]]] says, “It is not the same because of being emptiness.” Hence, the matrix-of-OneGone-to-Bliss is without true existence, and if it had the marks, beauties, and so forth [of a Buddha], this would be the system of Forders, whereby non-establishment as anything, like space, is what is called the “matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss.”
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (117-118) cites the passage
in the Descent into Lankå SÒtra:
Mahåmati said, “The matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus taught in other sÒtras spoken by the Supramundane Victor was said by the Supramundane Victor to be naturally radiant, pure, and thus from the beginning just pure. The matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus is said to possess the thirty-two marks [of a Buddha] and to exist in the bodies of all sentient beings. “The Supramundane Victor said that like a precious gem wrapped in a dirty cloth, the matrix-of-One-GoneThus is wrapped in the cloth of the aggregates, constituents, and sense-spheres, overwhelmed by the force of desire, hatred, and ignorance, and dirtied with the defilements of conceptuality.
“Since this which is dirtied with the defilements of conceptuality was said to be permanent, stable, and everlasting, Supramundane Victor, how is this propounding of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus not like the [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders’ propounding of a self? Supramundane Victor, the Forders teach and propound a self that is permanent, the agent, without qualities, pervasive, and non-perishing.”
The Supramundane Victor said, “Mahåmati, my teaching of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus is not like the Forders’ propounding of a self. O Mahåmati, the completely perfect Buddhas, Ones-Gone-Thus, Foe Destroyers, teach a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus for the meaning of the words ‘emptiness,’ ‘limit of reality,’ ‘nirvåòa,’ ‘no production,’ ‘signlessness,’ ‘wishlessness,’ and so forth. So that children might avoid the fear of selflessness, they teach through the means of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus the state of non-conceptuality, the object [of wisdom] free from appearances.
“Mahåmati, future and present Bodhisattvas—great beings—should not adhere to this as a self. Mahåmati, for example, potters make a variety of vessels out of one mass of clay particles with their hands, manual skill, a rod, water, string, and mental dexterity. Mahåmati, similarly the Ones-Gone-Thus also teach the selflessness of phenomena that is an absence of all conceptual signs. Through various [[[techniques]]] endowed with wisdom and skill in means— whether they teach it as the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus or as selflessness—they, like a potter, teach with various formats of words and letters.
“Therefore, Mahåmati, the teaching of the matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus is not like the teaching propounding a self for Forders. Mahåmati, in order to lead Forders who are attached to propounding self, the Ones-Gone-Thus teach the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus through the teaching of a matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Thinking, ‘How could those with thoughts fallen into incorrect views conceiving of self come to be endowed with thought abiding in the spheres of the three liberations and come to be quickly, manifestly, and completely purified in unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment?’ Mahåmati, for their sake the Ones-Gone-Thus, Foe Destroyers, completely perfect Buddhas, teach the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus. Consequently, that is not the same as propounding the self of Forders. Therefore, Mahåmati, in order to overcome the view of Forders, they cause them to engage the matrix-ofOne-Gone-Thus, selflessness. It is this way: this teaching of the emptiness of phenomena, non-production, nondualism, and absence of inherent nature is the unsurpassed tenet of Bodhisattvas. Through thoroughly apprehending this teaching of the profound doctrine, one thoroughly apprehends all sÒtras of the Great Vehicle.”
Answer: The identification of all whatsoever emptinesses as meaning an absence of true existence and aspectless mere nonestablishment as anything is the fault of a mind adhering to one’s own bad tenets. The [Descent into Laºkå] SÒtra itself states—as the reason for non-similarity with the Forders—that [the matrix-ofOne-Gone-to-Bliss] is emptiness; it does not state that it is without the marks and beauties [of a Buddha]. Therefore, the statement that it explains that a matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss having the complete luminous marks and beauties requires interpretation is reduced to mere deception of the world with lies.
Also, saying that that assertion that the matrix is permanent is the system of [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders is reduced to being a refutation of sÒtras on the matrix. Moreover, it is not feasible to assert that the meaning of permanence is the permanence of a continuum because all of cyclic existence and of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject have a mere permanence of continuum and because if mere permanence of continuum served as permanence, then even all compounded things would be permanent.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (161-162): Furthermore, the superior presence Lokeshvara [that is, Kalk¦ Può˜ar¦ka] says that the pristine wisdom of thusness transcends momentariness: “This says that the pristine wisdom devoid of single or plural moments is the thusness of Conquerors”; and, moreover, the statements by the Conqueror, the holy protector Maitreya:
• that the noumenon, the nature body, is a permanent nature: Those are asserted as permanent due to the continuity Of being the nature and having an uninterrupted continuum.
• and that the final Buddha is uncompounded: “[Because of having a nature without the compounded attributes of production, abiding, and disintegration in the beginning, middle, and end, Buddha] is uncompounded, and [because of having an essence of the body of attributes in which the entirety of striving and exertion such as proliferations of body and speech, mental conceptuality, and so forth are pacified, exalted activities are] spontaneous,” and so forth, are in consideration that it is devoid of momentariness. Hence, those who assert that:
• all statements that the body of attributes or pristine wisdom are permanent are in consideration that their continuum is permanent and [the body of attributes or pristine wisdom actually] is impermanent due to being momentary
• and all statements that Buddha or pristine wisdom is uncompounded are in consideration that they are not compounded by actions and afflictive emotions are reduced to merely not realizing these meanings of great import because of just not seeing these profound scriptures.
Objection: Because initially it is defiled and later becomes undefiled, it is impermanent.
Answer: From the side of the element of attributes, it is not initially defiled and also does not later become undefiled. However, its becoming defiled and undefiled is relative to a person’s continuum; hence, the noumenon does not come to change in state due to changes in the states of sentient beings. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (405-406):
Objection: Thusness released from the coverings of afflictive emotions is not the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss because it is said: Supramundane Victor, just this body of attributes not released from the coverings of afflictive emotions is called the matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus.
Answer: Since some think this, let me explain. Although thusness residing pervasively during three phases of each individual person is said to be impure, impure-pure, and very pure, thusness—like space pervading an area whether or not there are groups of clouds—is neither onepointedly pure nor one-pointedly impure because it resides pervading all persons, whether they have defilements or not. Consequently, due to persons, that which is thusness itself, residing together with defilement in some, resides without defilement in some [others], but there are no divisions in thusness, like space in which there are and are not clouds. In consideration of this:
• The Excellent Golden Light SÒtra says that the entity itself of a One-Gone-Thus and the matrix-of-OneGone-Thus are equivalent.
• The Mahåparinirvåòa SÒtra and so forth say that Buddha-nature, natural nirvåòa, and basic element of self are synonyms.
• The Descent into Laºkå SÒtra also says that matrix-ofOne-Gone-to-Bliss, noumenon, and thoroughly established nature are synonyms.
• The Expression of Mañjushr¦’s Ultimate Names Tantra also says that vajra matrix, matrix of all Buddhas, and matrix of all Ones-Gone-Thus are synonyms of the ultimate.
• The Matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus SÒtra also says that Conqueror, matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus, self-arisen Buddha, Buddha ground, inexhaustible noumenon, treasure of attributes, noumenon of One-Gone-Thus, body of One-Gone-to-Bliss, body of a Conqueror set in equipoise, lineage of One-Gone-Thus, noumenon, precious pristine wisdom of One-Gone-Thus, nature, and pristine wisdom of Buddha are synonymous with matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss.
• Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle and Asaºga’s commentary say that body of attributes, OneGone-Thus, ultimate truth, and great nirvåòa are synonymous with matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss.
And others also say such at length. Hence, there is no fault in saying that [[[thusness]] and matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss] are equivalent and synonymous.
Objection: It is not feasible for the pristine wisdom of a Buddha to exist in the continuums of sentient beings.
Answer: This directly contradicts the statement, “Since the Buddha-pristine-wisdom permeates the groups of sentient beings…” Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (185-187):
Objection: If the ultimate Buddha intrinsically exists in all sentient beings, then they intrinsically would have final abandonment [of defilements] and have final realization [of the truth].
Answer: This must be taught upon making a distinction. Hence, there are two types of abandonment— abandonment of all defilements that is their primordial absence of inherent establishment and extinguishment of adventitious defilements upon their being overcome by antidotes. Concerning those, the first is complete within the noumenon because of containing the entire meaning of: Extinguishment is not extinguishment by antidotes.
Because of being extinguished from before, it is indicated as extinguishment... and, “At all times devoid of all obstructions,” and so forth, and because it is beyond the phenomena of consciousness, and because it is definitely released from all obstructions, and because of utterly having abandoned afflictive emotions, secondary afflictive emotions, and thorough afflictions as well as their predispositions, and because of the absence of dust, dustlessness, absence of defilements, abandonment of faults, and flawlessness. Hence, natural abandonment is primordially complete in the ultimate noumenal Buddha because the noumenon is the OneGone-Thus primordially released and because of being the Buddha prior to all Buddhas.
Although the second abandonment [that is, the extinguishment of adventitious defilements upon being overcome by antidotes] does not exist in sentient beings who have not cultivated the path, this does not involve a fault in our tenets, because it is not asserted that all sentient beings are Buddhas or have attained Buddhahood and because it is not asserted that conventional Buddhahood exists in all sentient beings.
Similarly, there are also two types of Buddharealization, the self-arisen pristine wisdom that is the primordial realization of the noumenon—knowing itself by itself —and the other-arisen pristine wisdom that is realization produced from having cultivated the profound path. The first is complete within the noumenon…Hence, natural fundamental abandonment and realization are complete in the ultimate noumenon…Therefore, since the first type of realization [self-arisen pristine wisdom that is primordial realization of the noumenon] is indivisibly complete in the noumenon, it is the case that where that noumenon exists, this realization also exists. Although the second type of realization [which is produced from having cultivated the profound path] is not complete in sentient beings who have not entered the path and although they have not directly realized selflessness, this does not involve a fault in our tenets; the reasons are as before.
Objection: It is not feasible for Buddha-qualities to exist in the continuums of sentient beings; for example, if the power of knowing sources and non-sources [that is, direct knowledge of cause and effect] existed in the continuums of sentient beings, sentient beings absurdly would understand all sources and non-sources.
Answer: This also is not correct, because we do not assert that whatever is [in] the continuums of sentient beings is a Buddha. And, if such necessarily follows due to the fact that Buddha and Buddha-qualities dwell in the continuums of sentient beings, then would it necessarily follow that, when a Buddha resides on a throne, even the throne would know all objects of knowledge?
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (188): Therefore, very many distorted challenges such as, “If Buddha exists in sentient beings, all karmas, afflictive emotions, and sufferings would not exist,” and so forth, and “Sentient beings would realize all knowables,” and so forth are babble by those who do not know the difference between existence [or presence] and being such and such. This is because existence, [that is, presence] does not establish being such and such. If it did, then since explanations exist in humans, are humans explanations?
Therefore, how could the eight collections of consciousness in the continuums of sentient beings be Buddha! Even the Buddha residing there does not reside in the manner of conventional support and that which is supported but resides there in the manner of being the ultimate noumenon [of the eight collections of consciousness].
At this point, let us speak a little about important vocabulary.b With regard to the three stages of the wheels of doctrine, the first is the wheel of doctrine of the four truths; the middle one is the wheel of doctrine of no character; the final one is the wheel of doctrine of good differentiation. The first is the Lesser Vehicle sÒtras, the scriptural collections spoken for Hearers. Although the middle one is, so to speak, the root sÒtras of the Great Vehicle, the intended meaning is hidden.d The final wheel of doctrine is, so to speak, its [that is, the middle wheel’s] explanatory tantra; it teaches the definitive meaning very clearly.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (207): By reason of teaching unclearly [in the middle wheel], clearly [in the third wheel], and very clearly [in tantra], there are great and also very great differences of being obscured, not obscured, and so forth with respect to the meaning of those. Therefore, even the statements of being surpassable or unsurpassable, affording an opportunity [for refutation] or not affording an opportunity, and so forth are due to differences in those texts with respect to whether the final profound meaning is unclear and incomplete or clear and complete, and so forth, and are not due to the entity of the meaning. From among the three natures—imputational, other-powered, and thoroughly established:
1. Imputational natures are twofold, apprehended imputational naturesb and apprehender imputational natures.c
2. Other-powered natures are twofold, impure other-powered naturesd and pure other-powered natures.e
3. Thoroughly established natures are twofold, immutable thoroughly established naturesf and undistorted thoroughly established natures.
From among these, actual imputational natures are the apprehended ones, and actual thoroughly established natures are the immutable ones and not the undistorted ones that are one entity with the immutable.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (425-427): Concerning this, the two exalted bodies are the ultimate body of attributes and the conventional form body—the sources of the fulfillment of one’s own and others’ welfare [respectively. Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle says]…that:
• separative effects, the body of attributes, are immutable thoroughly established natures, and separative qualities—the powers and so forth—are complete in the body of thusness
• produced effects, form bodies, are undistorted thoroughly established natures, and produced qualities— the marks and so forth—exist in those having correct pristine wisdom.
These [points] clear away the assertion by some that even the body of attributes is a produced effect, a conventionality, and the assertion by others that even form bodies are separative effects, ultimates.
Undistorted thoroughly established natures are included in pure other-powered natures. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (456): The undistorted thoroughly established nature—described as compounded—and the five pristine wisdoms delineated in Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras are equivalent.
Apprehender imputational natures and other-powered natures are one entity. When analyzed with reasoning, actual other-powered natures are included in imputational natures, and the mode of subsistence that is their noumenon is the thoroughly established nature. Hence, all phenomena are included in the two, imputational natures and thoroughly established natures.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (232-233): Even in many various textual systems of the Great Middle, such as [[[Vasubandhu’s]]] Commentary on the One Hundred Thousand Stanza, Twenty-Five Thousand Stanza, and Eighteen Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras, [[[Vasubandhu’s]]] Commentary on the One Hundred Thousand Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra, and so forth presentations of the three natures are set forth saying that:
• The basis of the emptiness of the imputational nature is other-powered natures.
• Furthermore, the basis of the emptiness of those [[[other-powered]] natures] is the thoroughly established nature.
• A basis of the emptiness of that [thoroughly established nature] does not occur. and also say that:
• Both of the former two [that is, imputational natures and other-powered natures] are imputational natures.
• The basis of the emptiness of them is the ultimate.
• A basis of the emptiness of that [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]] does not occur.
The divisions of three characters [imputational, other-powered, and thoroughly established] or the two classes of the conventional associated with consciousness and of the ultimate, pristine wisdom, are posited with respect to all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvåna.
Regarding the six perfections Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (323-324) says: Similarly, if you know the divisions of the three natures and the two truths with regard to the perfections of giving and so forth, you will not be obscured with respect to the Subduer’s word. Concerning this, the perfections included among other-powered natures and true paths that are bases empty of imputational natures are conventional compounded phenomena and, therefore, are not established in the dispositional mode of subsistence. The perfections of giving and
so forth that are bases primordially pure of those [imputational natures and conventional compounded phenomena] and are included in the noumenal thoroughly established nature are said to be just deities of ultimate pristine wisdom such as the ten shaktis, the ten lady sky-travelers, and so forth. And moreover, those are said to be the final ten seals [that is, consorts]— six, three, and one. Therefore, you should know that the meaning of pure and thoroughly pure noumenal perfections of giving and so forth is that they are naturally and spontaneously established deities.
This being so, since conventionalities such as forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and so forth are in the class of consciousness, they are without true existence, and since noumenal forms, sounds, and so forth are in the class of pristine wisdom, they are truly established.
Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (316): In that way thusness, the basis of emptiness, having many synonyms is the basis primordially empty and void of all adventitious phenomena and is the pure basis. Hence, primordially pure phenomena ranging from forms through omniscience are noumenal thoroughly established forms and so forth and also forms and so on passed beyond the three realms and the three times.
Also, the class of conventionalities is multifarious,b and ultimate phenomena are without the fallacies of combinations of contradictions. Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine (346):c Similarly, that:
• a non-fallacious combination of contradictories does not occur
• a third category does not occur with regard to direct contradictories [that is, with respect to dichotomies]
• objects of knowledge are limited to the two, effective thing and non-thing
and so forth are in terms of conventionalities, but ultimate truths are not included in any of those.
This also was written by the one called Tåranåtha at the hermitage of Chö-lung Jang-«zay upon requests by certain seekers.
Corrected once.
Twenty-one Differences
Regarding the Profound Meaning
by Tåranåtha
Contradictions in perspective among those
Seeing the profound do not occur, I think, But they speak differently due to perceiving Different trainees and needs.
Here although the two—the leader of doctrine, the Great Omniscient One Endowed with the Four Reliances [Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rapgyel-tsen], and the great paòçita, the Conqueror Shåkya Chokden—are of one essential regarding the view and meditation of the other-empty middle, I will identify many minor different tenets in their incidental delineations of the view.
1. One Having the Name Shåkya [Shåkya Chok-den]: All these views of the Consequence School and the Autonomy School are well foundedb meanings of the thought of the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings and are also the literal explicit teaching of the middle wheel of doctrine. [However] what is explicitly indicated in Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings and
in the final wheel of doctrine are not in agreement.
The Omniscient Great Jo-nang-œa [Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen]: Although the views of the Consequence School and the Autonomy School are claimed to be the thought of the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings, they are not their unblemished thought. Although they seem to connect with what is explicitly indicated in the bulk of passages in the Collections of Reasonings, there are also many cases where they do not. Since many passages in the middle wheel of doctrine clearly teach otheremptiness, what is explicitly indicated in the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings is not literal [that is, is not to be taken literally].
Concerning this, although what is explicitly indicated by the bulk of the passages in the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings does not contradict either the Consequence and the Autonomy schools or other-emptiness, those that are cited as sources for the uncommon tenets of what is reputed to be self-emptiness serve as bases for making mistakes about those, but they do not teach those respective tenets. Since [the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings] even have many uncommon passages—other than those— that contradict the systems of those [schools], and teach only otheremptiness, even the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings teach other-emptiness itself.
Nevertheless, the uncommon [[[tenets]] of] other-emptiness clearly and extensively occur only in the final wheel of doctrine and the commentaries on their thought, and those [that is, the middle wheel of doctrine and Någårjuna’s Collections of Reasonings] do not teach the uncommon tenets of the Consequence School and the Autonomy School that are reputed nowadays to be the view of self-emptiness. Rather, they extensively teach the self-emptiness that is the thought of the Conqueror [[[Buddha]]] as well as his children.
Shåkya Chok-den: That Maitreya’s Ornament for Clear Realization teaches both the tenets of self-emptiness and the tenets of otheremptiness is in consideration that:
• the self-emptiness [found] in the three—the Consequence School, the Autonomy School, and the model texts [of Någårjuna and Þryadeva]—is needed for eliminating proliferations through the view, and
• other-emptiness is needed for practice through meditation.
The four remaining Doctrines of Maitreya indeed teach only other-emptiness, but among them there are two types: Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle sets forth one final vehicle and refutes that there are those whose [[[spiritual]]] lineage is severed, whereas the other three texts describe three final vehicles and severance of [[[spiritual]]] lineage.
Döl-œo-œa: The Five Doctrines of Maitreya do not at all have separate tenet systems. The tenets reputed to be self-emptiness are not set forth in Maitreya’s Ornament for Clear Realization, and also Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle Sátras and so forth do not set forth an utter severance of [[[spiritual]]] lineage and do not set forth three final vehicles. 3. Shåkya Chok-den: Self-emptiness is more profound for eliminating proliferations by means of the view. Other-emptiness is more profound for practice by means of meditation.
Döl-œo-œa: The view of self-emptiness that is asserted by the Conqueror as well as his children is the supreme eliminator of proliferations, but since it is included in other-emptiness, view and practice are not separate. Self-emptiness—the view of the Consequence School, Autonomy School, and the model texts [of Någårjuna and Þryadeva]—as it is nowadays reputed in which it is asserted that ultimate truth is without true existence—is a mistake. Hence, it is not appropriate to be a view eliminating proliferations since it is a deprecation.
Shåkya Chok-den: Since other-emptiness surpasses Mind-Only, it suffices as Middle Way, but in terms of view self-emptiness is even higher than that. However, other-emptiness does not [thereby] come to be mistaken, since it accords with the meaning [[[realized]]] in meditation.b Döl-œo-œa: Since even self-emptiness surpasses Mind-Only, selfemptiness is merely included in the Middle Way from among the four schools of tenets, but self-emptiness is not the pure final [[[Middle Way]]]. The highest of views is only other-emptiness.
Shåkya Chok-den: As the reason for that, in the Doctrines of Maitreya as well as their followers, analysis is not performed with respect to non-dual pristine wisdom, but since in general terms even non-dual pristine wisdom does not withstand analysis when analyzed by reasoning, there is no possibility that anything withstands analysis by reasoning distinguishing the ultimate,d whereby the view of self-emptiness is more profound. Though non-dual pristine wisdom does not withstand analysis, the continuum of experiencing that pristine wisdom is unbroken, due to which the meaning [[[realized]]] in meditation abides in accordance with other-emptiness.
Döl-œo-œa: Since non-dual pristine wisdom withstands analysis by reasoning, analysis of it [that seemingly shows that it cannot withstand analysis] is your own mistake.
6. Shåkya Chok-den: Non-dual pristine wisdom is a momentary knowing; it not permanent; there is no opportunity for it to remain [for a second instant. Nevertheless, its continuum is unbroken.] Döl-œo-œa: Non-dual pristine wisdom is not momentary. Since it is released from the three times, it is permanent and steady.
7. Shåkya Chok-den: Because non-dual pristine wisdom is cognition, it is an effective thing.d Döl-œo-œa: Non-dual pristine wisdom is released from both effective things and non-things.
8. Shåkya Chok-den: Non-dual pristine wisdom is compounded. Döl-œo-œa: [Self-arisen] non-dual pristine wisdom is uncompounded.
9. Shåkya Chok-den: In harmony with Tibetan [[[scholars]]] in general, the following is asserted. Just this luminous knowing that is the self-isolate of all cognitions is the other-powered entity.b The imputational nature is from the viewpoint of the self-isolate of only the dualistic appearance that dawns to that [[[other-powered]] entity]; the other-powered nature is from the viewpoint of that luminous knowing together with that dualistic appearance; and the thoroughly established nature is from the viewpoint of the primordial non-pollution of dualistic phenomena in that luminous knowing. Hence, the other-powered nature and the thoroughly established nature are different from the viewpoint of their isolate factors and from the viewpoint of their defining characters, but the otherpowered entity itself and the thoroughly established nature are the same entity.
Döl-œo-œa: Imputational factors imputed by various conceptual awarenesses and appearance factors that are appearances as external objects—that is to say, the self-isolate of apprehended factorsc—are imputational natures. The self-isolate of cognitiond in minds and mental factors—that is, conventional cognitionse or cognitions included within consciousnessf—are other-powered natures. Naturally luminous knowingg devoid of proliferations is the thoroughly established nature. Therefore, although imputational natures do not exist as
different substantial entities from other-powered natures, they are very different from the viewpoint of their defining characters. Thoroughly established natures and other-powered natures not only are different in their isolate factors and defining characters, they are also not the same entity. The former presentation [by Shåkya Chok-den and other Tibetan scholars] is largely in harmony with Mind-Only, whereas the Middle Way is only this. That is [my, that is, Döl-œo-œa’s] thought.
10. For those reasons Shåkya Chok-den says: Imputational natures are necessarily without true existence. Thoroughly established natures necessarily truly exist. Other-powered natures have both types. Döl-œo-œa: Both imputational natures and other-powered natures necessarily are one-pointedly without true existence.
11. Likewise, Shåkya Chok-den says: All self-cognitions are only ultimates in terms of the self-isolate of self-cognition. Döl-œo-œa: Self-cognitions of conventional consciousnesses are only conventional. Hence, there are two—conventional and ultimate self-cognitions.
12. Shåkya Chok-den: Thoroughly established natures are emptinesses. Although imputational natures are just empty, they are not emptinesses. Emptinesses are necessarily ultimates. Döl-œo-œa: All phenomena and noumena must be said to be just emptinesses. Emptinesses are not necessarily ultimates. Do not apply modes of entailment with regard to the synonyms [of emptiness; the above two statements] are to be applied to the main meaning.
13. Likewise, Shåkya Chok-den says, largely in harmony with the general vocabulary of the texts of valid cognition, manifest knowledge, and so forth:
• Whatever is an established basea (gzhi grub) is necessarily either an effective thing (dngos po) or a non-thing (dngos med ).
• Whatever is a consciousness (shes pa) is necessarily an effective thing.
• The ultimate is an effective thing.b
• The uncompounded are the non-things space and so forth.
• Thusness (de bzhin nyid ) is not compounded by karma and afflictive emotions, and sheer luminous knowing (gsal rig tsam) is not newly compounded. Since these and others each have uncompounded factors, they are imputed to be uncompounded by way of verbal variants (rnam grangs kyi sgo nas), but they are not the uncompounded in the sense of having a character contradictory with compositional phenomena (’du byed ). Hence, they are imputed uncompoundeds (’dus ma byas btags pa ba) [but not actual uncompoundeds].
Döl-œo-œa: Those explanations in [the texts of] valid cognition, manifest knowledge, and so forth are a system mainly delineating conventionalities. On this occasion of the definitive meaning in
is a synonym of “emptiness,” it solely refers to other-emptiness and thus is solely ultimate, whereas “emptiness” refers to both self-emptiness (which is conventional) and other-emptiness (which is ultimate). a That is to say, an existent (yod pa).
b Both texts (Dzamthang edition, 215.2, and Leh edition, 787.4) read don dam dngos po min (“The ultimate is not an effective thing.”); however, given Shåkya Chok-den’s opinions expressed in items seven (“Because non-dual pristine wisdom is cognition, it is an effective thing.”) and eight (“Non-dual pristine wisdom is compounded.”) as well as the material following the present passage, it appears that this line should read don dam dngos po yin (“The ultimate is an effective thing.”) The Leh edition, which is photo-offset, exhibits signs of untutored altering of the photo, most likely changing yin to min. which the ultimate is mainly being delineated:
• Whatever is a conventionality is necessarily an effective thing or a non-thing, and also whatever is an effective thing or a nonthing is necessarily a conventionality.
• Since the ultimate is neither an effective thing nor a non-thing, whatever is an established base is not necessarily an effective thing or a non-thing.
• Since pristine wisdom is not an effective thing but is a cognition (shes pa), whatever is a cognition is not necessarily an effective thing.
• The assertion that a non-thing is an ultimate is very unreasonable, and the assertion that an ultimate is an effective thing is the system of Proponents of Effective Things (dngos smra ba).
• Since on this occasion even all non-things such as space and so forth—which the Proponents of Manifest Knowledge (mngon pa ba rnams) assert as uncompounded—are [actually] compounded, whatever is an effective thing or a non-thing is necessarily compounded. • The ultimate is the actual uncompounded (’dus ma byas dngos); space and so forth are imputed uncompoundeds.
Also, Shåkya Chok-den says: The self-natures of other-powered natures are the bases of emptiness, and their emptiness of the imputational nature that is the object of negationb is itself the ultimate empty of conventionalities (kun rdzob kyis stong pa’i don dam).
Döl-œo-œa: The bases of emptiness, thoroughly established natures, are empty of the two objects of negation, other-powered natures and imputational natures. This is the meaning of the ultimate empty of conventionalities. Other-powered natures’ emptiness of imputational natures is asserted only on an occasion of delineating just obscurational truths.
15. Shåkya Chok-den: Although “pure other-powered natures” (dag pa gzhan dbang) are renowned in general Tibet, in fact they are not other-powered natures, but are undistorted thoroughly established natures (phyin ci ma log pa’i yongs grub). Furthermore, undistorted thoroughly established natures are actual thoroughly established natures. Since even the convention “pure other-powered natures” has no clear source, the usage of this terminology is not considered to be good.
Döl-œo-œa: Although the convention “pure other-powered natures” does not clearly appear in the [source] texts, the meaning is contained there, due to which it
is suitable to use the convention. This is because the Buddha’s teaching is to rely on the meaning, and since all earlier Tibetans in harmony used the convention “pure other-powered natures,” it is fit to be an unmistaken quintessential instruction transmitted from Maitreya. Although among that [category of pure other-powered natures] certain pristine wisdoms of learner Superiors [such as other-arisen pristine wisdoms] are undistorted thoroughly established natures, those who have attained a [[[Bodhisattva]]] ground also have certain [[[pure]] other-powered natures]—such as perceiving the ground to be gold and so forth— that are undistorted thoroughly established natures. Hence, the presentation of that convention is considered to be good.
16. Shåkya Chok-den: It is asserted that whatever is a undistorted thoroughly established nature is necessarily a fully qualified thoroughly established nature.
Döl-œo-œa: Those are merely indicated to be enumerated thoroughly established natures, like calling even the twelve branches of scripture “thoroughly established natures.” Therefore, the undistorted that are adduced in a pair with immutable thoroughly established natures are pure other-powered natures and imputed thoroughly established natures. The undistorted thoroughly established natures that are the same as the immutable [thoroughly established natures] are called “ultimate undistorted thoroughly established natures”; they are only immutable [thoroughly established natures]. Hence, on occasions of delineating the mode of subsistence the thoroughly established nature is suchness, whereas on occasions of extensive descriptions of enumerations a twofold presentation is made.
17. Shåkya Chok-den: Even [certain] true paths are taken to be ultimate truths. Döl-œo-œa: True cessations in the division into four truths are asserted to be ultimates, and the other three truths are asserted to be conventionalities. In detail, fully qualified true cessations—that is to say, primordial true cessations—are necessarily only ultimate truths, and the other three truths and individual analytic cessations are necessarily conventionalities. Since this is the case,
• fully qualified true paths are necessarily conventionalities
• fully qualified true cessations are necessarily ultimate truths
• ultimate true paths are the same as the primordial, due to which they are just true cessations and hence imputed true paths.
18. Shåkya Chok-den: The matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss does not exist in the continuums of sentient beings. The clear light nature of the mind of a sentient being is the mere cause of and constituent of the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss.b Therefore, although a causal matrixof-One-Gone-to-Bliss or constitutive matrix-of-One-Gone-toBlissb exists in all sentient beings, it is not fully qualified. Just the pristine wisdom of a Buddha is the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss.
Döl-œo-œa: This one itself in the continuum of a sentient being is a fully qualified matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss. If a Buddha is fully qualified, then since it itself is the noumenon of sentient beings, sentient beings are established as possessing the matrix-of-OneGone-to-Bliss, and in particular, this is established by endless scriptures. Descriptions of it as constituent and cause are in consideration of basic element and separative cause,d not in consideration of producing constituente and producing cause.f
19. Shåkya Chok-den: That the matrix is said to be naturally endowed with [[[Buddha]]-]qualities as an inseparable entity is [in reference] only to the state of the fruit [of Buddhahood]. On the occasion of the cause [that is, the basal state], there are mere seeds that are capacities suitable for the arising of qualities.
Döl-œo-œa: Qualities that are an inseparable entity and naturally endowed exist also in the basal matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss because the newly arisen could not be among the naturally endowed and because the three—basis, path, and fruit [matrixes-of-OneGone-to-Bliss]—except for being differentiated by way of conventional substrata are only the sole natural matrix-of-One-Gone-toBliss. Once it is a matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss, it must be adorned with all ultimate qualities.
20. Shåkya Chok-den: Marks, beauties, and so forth are not asserted with respect to the qualities of the body of attributes. Döl-œo-œa: With respect to all types of Buddha-qualities there are ultimate qualities of the body of attributes that are appearances to Buddhas themselvesa and conventional qualities of form bodies that are
appearances to others, trainees.b The SÒtra Requested by the Precious Girl c and the explicit teaching of Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle give mere exemplifications [of certain qualities as factors of the body of attributes and some qualities as factors of form bodies]d in accordance with general renown in terms of predominance, this being within [the context that] in general the qualities of both bodies must be complete. In accordance with other sátras, the tantra sets, and so forth both [the body of attributes and the form bodies] have factors of all [qualities].
21. Now on the occasion of Mantra the difference with respect to other-emptiness is as follows. Shåkya Chok-den: Mere seeds of the fruit exist integrally in the
a sangs rgyas rang snang. b gdul bya gzhan snang. c bu mo rin chen gyis zhus pa’i mdo, ratnadårikåsÒtra.
d As, for instance, when Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle (III.3) says: The first, the body [of attributes], is [indivisibly] endowed with The separative qualities [—discerned by merely separating from obstructions through accumulating the collections of pristine wisdom—the ten] powers, [[[four fearlessnesses]],] and so forth.
The second, [[[form bodies]],] possess the qualities
Of the [thirty-two] marks [and so forth] of a great being that are [[[gradual]]] maturations [from having accumulated collections of merit]. This is cited in Döl-œo-œa’s Mountain Doctrine, 426; brackets are from Döl-œo-œa’s Rays of the Sun, 151.6. clear light nature of the mind. Through meditative cultivation of the path, enhancement is attained. Finally the fruit arises in manifestation. Döl-œo-œa: Pristine wisdom that is spontaneously primordially complete in the ultimate maòçala is manifested upon removing defilements through meditatively cultivating the path.
In laying out those different assertions in that way, [I] have used “the former” with the sense of starting the discussion and “latter” with the sense of supporting the tradition.b Since that was the intention, these should also be associated with the remaining assertions in accordance with how they were stated on the occasion of the first assertion [when the protagonists were identified as “One Having the Name Shåkya” and “The Omniscient Great Jo-nangœa”. The terms “former” and “latter”] do not indicate the order of the historical appearance of the composers of those tenet systems. Concerning those, the reasons for the
arising of that many different incidentalc assertions mostly stem from a single root. What is that single root? The great paòçita named Shåkya asserts that nondual pristine wisdom has a nature not of being oned but of being manifold,e and is impermanent, not abiding for an instant. The omniscient Jo-nang-œa [Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen] asserts that although in actual fact non-dual pristine wisdom is indeed definite as not one or manifold, provisionally a presentation of it as one is correct, and it is permanent due to asserting it as being partless, allpervasive, devoid of
proliferation, and devoid of predication. In brief, they differ in asserting it to be impermanent and permanent. Since [Shåkya Chok-den and Döl-œo-œa] are similar in asserting that the basic elementa is beyond terms and conceptions and in asserting that it is the object of non-conceptual unmistaken pristine wisdom, they do not differ with respect to the final essential. Therefore, the glorious great Jo-nang-œa, knowing such, understood through rational analysis that:
• Because of being partless and because of being all-pervasive the noumenon is only one in the individual environments and beings therein, in the threefold basis, path, and fruit, and in all Buddhas and sentient beings.
• And for that reason the matrix-of-One-Gone-to-Bliss is endowed with all [[[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] Buddha-]qualities.
• And for that reason [the noumenon] is not damaged by the reasoning of dependent-arising, the lack of being one or many, and so forth, and hence withstands analysis.
• And since that is the case, the uncommon tenets of the Autonomists and Consequentialists, who assert that [the noumenon] falls apart under analysis, are in error, and hence the views of the Autonomy School and the Consequence School are incorrectb and therefore do not accord with the thought of the middle wheel of doctrine.
• and so forth.
With respect to the teaching in Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle Sátras that there is one [final] vehicle and the assertion that an utter severance of [[[spiritual]]] lineage is to be refuted, the sole
tinction between occasions of conclusive setting in profound meditative equipoise free from all proliferations and occasions of making distinctions, whereas Tåranåtha calls the former “in actual fact” and the latter “provisionally” or “for the time being” (gnas skabs su). a dbyings, dhåtu. b ma dag pa.
feature described above does not stem from them; rather, the others are by way of the former essential.
Through taking hold of such definitive final tenets, one takes hold of the treasury of the secret mind of all Buddhas. When this ultimate lion’s roar was proclaimed by the Great Omniscient Jonang-œa, all contemporaneous bearers of the discipline of the fortunate lion gained enthusiasm, but later all the foxes of low lot were frightened as in the statement:
Why is the profound not an object of logic?
Why are those knowing the profound meaning liberated?
Later, from hearing these tenets, the hearts of the three—ða-»yaœas, Ge-luk-œas, and Àa-gyu-œas—as well as some Óying-ma-œas split open, and their brains were confounded, due to which, crazed by wrong conceptions, they were beclouded. Thereby reduced to babbling, they spewed forth awful explanations comprising deprecations and quasi-reasoning. Nevertheless, it appears that even at this end of an era some having good fortune regarding the profound meaning have attained triply aspected belief in the style of “If scholars analyze it properly, they will not be frightened by this doctrine.”
Furthermore, real permanenced is not a permanent non-thing, which is the mere opposite of impermanence. It is also not the compounded permanence that is a permanence of continuum. It is also not a permanent effective thing, asserted by [[[non-Buddhist]]] Forders, that does not occur among objects of knowledge. It is also not a negative permanence that is a mere meaning-generality.h It is also not asserted as the
likes of a positive self-powered permanence. [Rather] it is devoid of proliferations, the immutable basic element released from the proliferations of impermanent positive effective thingsb and negative permanent non-things.c Though it is released from the signs of permanence and released from the proliferations of permanence, it is immutable,d and hence is solely-permanent.e Question: Well then, why does [[[non-dual]] pristine wisdom] also not become an impermanence that is released from the signs and proliferations of impermanence?f
Answer: That would be true if that nature had a factor of steady mutability, but since such does not exist, a presentation positing it as impermanent is not made. Hence, being devoid of the proliferations of permanence and impermanence, it is indeed not a proliferative permanenceh and is also not a proliferative impermanence; however, since an impermanence devoid of proliferations does not occur, it is not such, but is a permanence devoid of proliferations. That statement is the meaning of the thought of the profound matrix sátras, the most secret from among the thoughts of all Conquerors.
If good intelligence, merit, and
Supremely powerful blessings come together,
Belief will be attained in this,
But not through merely claiming to be wise.
This called Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning has been uttered by Tåranåtha for the sake of those of low intelligence.
Corrected once. Maºgalaô
List of Abbreviations
“Dharma” refers to the sde dge edition of the Tibetan canon published by Dharma Press: the Nying-ma Edition of the sDe-dge bKa’-’gyur and bsTan-’gyur (Oakland, Calif.: Dharma Press, 1980).
“Golden Reprint” refers to the gser bris bstan ’gyur (Sichuan, China:
krung go’i mtho rim nang bstan slob gling gi bod brgyud nang bstan zhib ’jug khang, 1989).
“Karmapa sde dge” refers to the sde dge mtshal par bka’ ’gyur: A Facsimile Edition of the 18th Century Redaction of Si tu chos kyi ’byung gnas Prepared under the Direction of H.H. the 16th rgyal dbang karma pa (Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun Khang, 1977).
“P,” standing for “Peking edition,” refers to the Tibetan Tripitaka (Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Foundation, 19551962). “stog Palace” refers to the Tog Palace Manuscript of the Tibetan Kanjur (Leh, Ladakh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemdzod, 1979). “Toh.” refers to A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, edited by Hakuju Ui et al. (Sendai, Japan: Tohoku University, 1934), and A Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism, edited by Yensho Kanakura et al. (Sendai, Japan: Tohoku University, 1953).
“Tokyo sde dge” refers to the sDe dge Tibetan Tripiîaka—bsTan łgyur preserved at the Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo, edited by Z. Yamaguchi et al. (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1977-1984).
SÒtras and tantras are listed alphabetically by English title in the first section of the Bibliography. Indian and Tibetan treatises are listed alphabetically by author in the second section, together with their translations. 1. SÒtras and Tantras Aºgulimåla SÒtra aºgulimålÐyasÒtra sor mo’i phreng ba la phan pa’i mdo P879, vol. 34
English translation of chap. 1: Nathan S. Cutler. “The Sutra of Sor-mo’i Phreng-ba (from the Lhasa, Peking, and Derge editions of the bKa’-’gyur).” Master’s thesis, Indiana University, 1981. Buddhåvataôsaka SÒtra buddhåvataôsakanåma-mahåvaipulyasÒtra sangs rgyas phal po che zhes bya ba shin tu rgyas pa chen po’i mdo P761, vols. 25-26 Cloud of Jewels SÒtra ratnameghasÒtra dkon mchog spring gyi mdo P879, vol. 35; Toh. 231, vol. wa Descent into Laºkå SÒtra laºkåvatårasÒtra lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo P775, vol. 29
Sanskrit: Bunyiu Nanjio. Bibl. Otaniensis, vol. 1. Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1923. Also: P. L. Vaidya. SaddharmalaºkåvatårasÒtram. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 3. Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute, 1963. English translation: D. T. Suzuki. The Lankavatara Sutra. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1932. Eight Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra aøþasåhasrikåprajñåpåramitå shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa P734, vol. 21
Sanskrit: P. L. Vaidya. Aøþasåhasrika Prajñåpåramitå, with Haribhadra’s Commentary called Þlokå. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 4. Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute, 1960. English translation: Edward Conze. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, Calif.: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973. Excellent Golden Light SÒtra suvaròaprabhåsottamasátrendraråja gser ’od dam pa mdo sde’i dbang po’i rgyal po P174, 175, and 176, vols. 6-7
Tibetan and Chinese texts: Johannes Nobel. SuvaròaprabhåsottamasÒtra. Das GoldglanzSÒtra; ein Sanskrittext des Mahåyåna-Buddhismus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958. 139 Sanskrit: Johannes Nobel, ed. SuvarnaprabhåsottamasÒtra: Das Goldglanz-SÒtra; ein Sanskrittext des Mahåyåna-Buddhismus. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1937. Expression of Mañjushr¦’s Ultimate Names Tantra mañjuŸrÐjñånasattvasyaparamårthanåmasaôgÐti ’jam dpal ye shes sems dpa’i don dam pa’i mtshan yang dar par brjod pa P2, vol. 1 English translation and Sanskrit edition: Ronald M. Davidson. “The Litany of Names of MañjuŸrÐ.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein, edited by Michel Strickmann, vol. 1, 1-69. Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol. 20. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1981. Translation reprinted, with minor changes, in: Ronald M. Davidson. “The Litany of Names of MañjuŸrÐ.” In Religions of India in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 104-125. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Five Hundred Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra åryapañcaŸatikåprajñåpåramitå ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa lnga brgya pa P0738, vol. 21. English translation: Edward Conze. The Short Prajñåpåramitå Texts. London: Luzac, 1973. Great Drum SÒtra mahåbher¦hårakaparivartasÒtra rnga bo che chen po'i le'u'i mdo P888, vol. 35 Magical Meditative Stabilization Ascertaining Peace SÒtra praŸåntaviniŸcayapråtihåryanåmasamådhisÒtra rab tu zhi ba rnam par nges pa’i cho ’phrul gyi ting nge ’dzin gyi mdo P797, vol. 32 Mahåparinirvåòa SÒtra åryamahåparinirvåòanåmamahåyånasÒtra ’phags pa yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa chen po’i mdo P787, vols. 30-31; translated by Wang phab shun, dGe ba’i blo gros, and rGya mtsho’i sde in fourteen chapters P788, vol. 31; translated by Jinamitra, Jñånagarbha, and Lha’i zla ba in four chapters English translation from the Chinese: Kosho Yamamoto. The Mahåyåna Mahåparinirvåòa-sutra. Ube, Japan: Karinbunko, 1973. Matrix-of-One-Gone-Thus SÒtra åryatathågatagarbhanåmamahåyanasÒtra ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo P924, vol. 36 English translation: William H. Grosnick. “The Tathågatagarbha SÒtra.” In Buddhism in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 92-106. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Also: Shu-hui J. Chen. “Affirmation in Negation: A Study of the Tathågatagarbha Theory in the Light of the Bodhisattva Practices,” 457-503. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1998. Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra in One Hundred Thousand Stanzas Ÿatasåhasrikåprajñåpåramitå shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa P730, vols.12-18; Toh. 8, vols. ka-a (‘bum) Condensed English translation: Edward Conze. The Large SÒtra on Perfect Wisdom. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Pile of Jewels SÒtra ratnakÒþa / mah›ratnakÒþadharmapary›yaŸatas›hasrikagrantha dkon brtsegs / dkon mchog brtsegs pa chen po’i chos kyi rnam grangs le’u stong phrag brgya pa P760, vols. 22-24 Questions of King Dhåraò¦øhvara SÒtra / SÒtra Teaching the Great Compassion of a One Gone Thus åryatathågatamahåkaruòånirdeŸasÒtra de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying rje chen po bstan pa’i mdo / ’phags pa gzungs kyi dbang phyug rgyal pos zhus pa’i mdo P814, vol. 32 Shr¦målådev¦ SÒtra åryaŸr¦målådev¦siôhanådanåmamahåyanasÒtra phags pa lha mo dpal phreng gi seng ge’i sgra zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo P760.48, vol. 24 English translation: Alex Wayman and Hideko Wayman. The Lion’s Roar of Queen õrÐmålå: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathågatagarbha Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. SÒtra on the Heavily Adorned Array ghanavyÒhasÒtra rgyan stug po bkod pa’i mdo P778, vol. 29 SÒtra Requested by the Precious Girl ratnadårikåsÒtra bu mo rin chen gyis zhus pa’i mdo P (?) SÒtra Unraveling the Thought saôdhinirmocanasÒtra dgongs pa nges par ’grel pa’i mdo P774, vol. 29; Toh 106; Dharma, vol. 18; stog Palace, vol. 63, 1-160 (Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod, 1975-1978) Tibetan text and French translation: Étienne Lamotte. SaôdhinirmocanasÒtra: L’explication des mystères. Louvain: Université de Louvain, 1935. English translation: C. John Powers. Wisdom of Buddha: Saªdhinirmocana SÒtra. Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 1995. Also: Thomas Cleary. Buddhist Yoga: A Comprehensive Course. Boston: Shambhala, 1995. 2. Other Sanskrit and Tibetan Works AnubhÒtisvarÒpåcårya Sårasvat¦’s Grammar SÒtra sårasvatavyåkaraòa / sårasvat¦prakriyå brda sprod dbyangs can/ dbyangs can sgra mdo/ dbyangs can ma P5886, vol. 148; P5911, vol. 149; P5912, vol. 149 Asaºga (thogs med, fourth century) Explanation of (Maitreya’s) “Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle” mahåynottaratantraŸåstravyåkhya theg pa chen po’i rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa P5526, vol. 108 Sanskrit: E. H. Johnston (and T. Chowdhury). The Ratnagotravibhåga MahåyånottaratantraŸåstra. Patna, India: Bihar Research Society, 1950. English translation: E. Obermiller. “Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation.” Acta Orientalia 9 (1931): 81-306. Also: J. Takasaki. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhåga. Serie Orientale Roma 33. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. Five Treatises on the Grounds
1. Grounds of Yogic Practice yogåcårabhÒmi rnal ’byor spyod pa’i sa P5536-5538, vols. 109-110 Grounds of Bodhisattvas BodhisattvabhÒmi byang chub sems pa’i sa P5538, vol. 110 Sanskrit: Unrai Wogihara. BodhisattvabhÒmi: A Statement of the Whole Course of the Bodhisattva (Being the Fifteenth Section of YogåcårabhÒmi). Leipzig: 1908; Tokyo: Seigo KenyÒkai, 1930-1936. Also: Nalinaksha Dutt. Bodhisattvabhumi (Being the XVth Section of Asangapada’s Yogacarabhumi). Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 7. Patna, India: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1966. English translation of the Chapter on Suchness, the fourth chapter of Part I which is the fifteenth volume of the Grounds of Yogic Practice: Janice D. Willis. On Knowing Reality. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.
2. Compendium of Ascertainments niròayasaôgraha / viniŸcayasaôgrahaò¦ rnam par gtan la dbab pa bsdu ba P5539, vols. 110-111 3. Compendium of Bases vastusaôgraha gzhi bsdu ba P5540, vol. 111 4. Compendium of Enumerations paryåyasaôgraha rnam grang bsdu ba P5543, vol. 111 5. Compendium of Explanations vivaraòasaôgraha rnam par bshad pa bsdu ba P5543, vol. 111 Grounds of Hearers nyan sa ŸråvakabhÒmi P5537, vol. 110 Sanskrit: Karunesha Shukla. õråvakabhÒmi. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 14. Patna, India: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973.
Two Summaries
1. Summary of Manifest Knowledge abhidharmasamuccaya chos mngon pa kun btus P5550, vol. 112 Sanskrit: Pralhad Pradhan. Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asaºga. Visva-Bharati Series 12. Santiniketan, India: Visva-Bharati (Santiniketan Press), 1950.
French translation: Walpola Rahula. La compendium de la super-doctrine (philosophie) (Abhidharmasamuccaya) d’Asaºga. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1971. English translation from the French: Walpola Rahula. Abhidharmasamuccaya: The Compendium of the Higher Teaching (Philosophy) by Asaºga. Trans. Sara Boin-Webb. Fremont, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press, 2001. 2. Summary of the Great Vehicle mahåyånasaôgraha theg pa chen po bsdus pa P5549, vol. 112
French translation and Chinese and Tibetan texts: Étienne Lamotte. La somme du grand véhicule d’Asaºga. 2 vols. Publications de l’Institute Orientaliste de Louvain 8. Louvain: Université de Louvain, 1938; reprint, 1973. English translation: John P. Keenan. The Summary of the Great Vehicle by Bodhisattva Asaºga: Translated from the Chinese of Paramårtha. Berkeley, Calif.: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1992. Bhåvaviveka (legs ldan ’byed, c. 500-570?) Blaze of Reasoning / Commentary on the “Heart of the Middle”: Blaze of Reasoning madhyamakah¸dayav¸ttitarkajvålå dbu ma’i snying po’i ’grel pa rtog ge ’bar ba P5256, vol. 96
Partial English translation (chap. 3, 1-136): Shßtarß Iida. Reason and Emptiness. Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1980. Chandrak¦rti (candrak¦rti, zla ba grags pa, seventh century) [Auto]commentary on the “Supplement to (Någårjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle’” madhaymakåvatårabhåøya dbu ma la ’jug pa’i bshad pa / dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rang ’grel P5263, vol. 98. Also: Dharamsala, India: Council of Religious and Cultural Affairs, 1968. Tibetan: Louis de La Vallée Poussin. Madhyamakåvatåra par Candrak¦rti. Bibliotheca Buddhica 9. Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970.
English translation: C. W. Huntington, Jr. The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Mådhyamika, 147-195. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989. French translation (up to chap. 6, stanza 165): Louis de La Vallée Poussin. Muséon 8 (1907): 249-317; Muséon 11 (1910): 271-358; Muséon 12 (1911): 235-328.
German translation (chap. 6, stanzas 166-226): Helmut Tauscher. Candrak¦rtiMadhyamakåvatåra¯ und Madhyamakåvatårabhåøyam. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1981. Clear Words, Commentary on (Någårjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle” mÒlamadhyamakav¸ttiprasannapadå dbu ma rtsa ba’i ’grel pa tshig gsal ba P5260, vol. 98. Also: Dharamsala, India: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 1968. Sanskrit: Louis de La Vallée Poussin. MÒlamadhyamakakårikås de Någårjuna avec la Prasannapadå commentaire de Candrak¦rti. Bibliotheca Buddhica 4. Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970.
English translation (chap. 1, 25): T. Stcherbatsky. Conception of Buddhist Nirvåòa, 77222. Leningrad: Office of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1927; rev. reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978. English translation (chap. 2): Jeffrey Hopkins. “Analysis of Coming and Going.” Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1974. Partial English translation: Mervyn Sprung. Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way: The Essential Chapters from the Prasannapadå of Candrak¦rti translated from the Sanskrit. London: Routledge, 1979; Boulder, Colo.: Prajñå Press, 1979. French translation (chapters 2-4, 6-9, 11, 23, 24, 26, 28): Jacques May. Prasannapadå Madhyamaka-v¸tti, douze chapitres traduits du sanscrit et du tibétain. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1959.
French translation (chapters 18-22): J. W. de Jong. Cinq chapitres de la Prasannapadå. Paris: Geuthner, 1949. German translation (chap. 5, 12-26): Stanislaw Schayer. Ausgewählte Kapitel aus der Prasannapadå. Krakow: Naktadem Polskiej Akademji Umiejetnosci, 1931. German translation (chap. 10): Stanislaw Schayer. “Feuer und Brennstoff.” Rocznik Orjentalistyczny 7 (1931):26-52. ‚ak-tsang ðhay-rap-rin-chen (stag tshang lo tså ba shes rab rin chen, b. 1405) Explanation of “Freedom from Extremes through Understanding All Tenets”: Ocean of Eloquence grub mtha’ kun shes nas mtha’ bral grub pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa legs bshad kyi rgya mtsho Thimphu, Bhutan: Kun-bzang-stobs rgyal, 1976. Döl-œo-œa ðhay-rap-gyel-tsen (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292-1361) Great Calculation of the Doctrine, Which Has the Significance of a Fourth Council bka’ bsdu bzhi pa’i don bstan rtsis chen po Matthew Kapstein. The ’Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kun-mkhyen Dolpo-pa Shes-rab-rgyal-mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue, vol. 5, 207-252. Delhi: Shedrup Books, 1992.
English translation: Cyrus R. Stearns. The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, 127-173. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1999. Mountain Doctrine, Ocean of Definitive Meaning: Final Unique Quintessential Instructions ri chos nges don rgya mtsho zhes bya ba mthar thug thun mong ma yin pa’i man ngag Gangtok, India: Dodrup Sangyey Lama, 1976. Also: ’dzam thang bsam ’grub nor bu’i gling, n.d. Also: Matthew Kapstein. The ’Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kunmkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab-rgyal-mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue, vol. 2, 25-707. Delhi: Shedrup Books, 1992.
Also: Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998. English translation: Jeffrey Hopkins. Mountain Doctrine: Tibet’s Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2006. Eloquent Elucidation of (Maitreya’s) “Treatise on the Sublime Continuum”: Rays of the Sun theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos legs bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer Thimphu, Bhutan: Kunsang Topgay, 1976. [Interlinear Commentary on Någårjuna’s] “Praise of the Element of Attributes” ’phags pa klu sgrub kyis mdzad pa’i chos dbyings bstod pa Collected Works, vol. e, 141-161. N.p., n.d. ‚zong-ka-œa Ío-sang-drak-œa (tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1357-1419) Extensive Explanation of (Chandrak¦rti’s) “Supplement to (Någårjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle’”: Illumination of the Thought dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rgya cher bshad pa dgongs pa rab gsal P6143, vol. 154. Also: Sarnath, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1973. Also: Delhi: Ngawang Gelek, 1975. Also: Delhi: Guru Deva, 1979.
English translation (chapters 1-5): Jeffrey Hopkins. Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, 93-230. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1980. English translation (chap. 6, stanzas 1-7): Jeffrey Hopkins and Anne C. Klein. Path to the Middle: Madhyamaka Philosophy in Tibet: The Oral Scholarship of Kensur Yeshay Tupden, by Anne C. Klein, 147-183, 252-271. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1994. Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path / Stages of the Path to Enlightenment Thoroughly Teaching All the Stages of Practice of the Three Types of Beings lam rim chen mo / skyes bu gsum gyi nyams su blang ba’i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa’i byang chub lam gyi rim pa P6001, vol. 152. Also: Dharamsala, India: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 1964. Also: Delhi: Ngawang Gelek, 1975. Also: Delhi: Guru Deva, 1979.
English translation: Tsong-kha-pa. The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. 3 vols. Trans. and ed. Joshua W. C. Cutler and Guy Newland. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2000-2003. English translation of the part on the excessively broad object of negation: Elizabeth Napper. Dependent-Arising and Emptiness, 153-215. London: Wisdom Publications, 1989.
English translation of the parts on calm abiding and special insight: Alex Wayman. Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real, 81-431. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978; reprint, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979. Treatise Differentiating the Interpretable and the Definitive: The Essence of Eloquence drang ba dang nges pa’i don rnam par phye ba’i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po Editions: see the preface to my critical edition, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, 355. Also: Ye shes thabs mkhas. shar tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pas mdzad pa’i drang ba dang nges pa’i don rnam par phye ba’i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po. Tå la’i bla ma’i ’phags bod, vol. 22. Varanasi, India: våòa dbus bod kyi ches mtho’i gtsug lag slob gnyer khang, 1997. English translation: Prologue and Mind-Only section, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, Dynamic Responses to Dzong-ka-ba’s The Essence of Eloquence, volume 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2000. Also: Robert A. F. Thurman. Tsong Khapa’s Speech of Gold in the Essence of True Eloquence, 185-385. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984. Chinese translation: Venerable Fa Zun. “Bian Liao Yi Bu Liao Yi Shuo Cang Lun.” In Xi Zang Fo Jiao Jiao Yi Lun Ji, 2, 159-276. Taipei: Da Sheng Wen Hua Chu Ban She, 1979.
Ge-dün-gya-tso, Second Dalai Lama (dge ’dun rgya mtsho, 1476-1542) Ship for Entering the Ocean of Tenets grub mtha’ rgya mtshor ’jug pa’i gru rdzings Varaòåsi: Ye shes stobs ldan, 1969 ‰ön-chok-jik-may-Ûang-œo (dkon mchog ’jigs med dbang po, 1728-1791) Precious Garland of Tenets / Presentation of Tenets: A Precious Garland grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bzhag pa rin po che’i phreng ba Tibetan: K. Mimaki. “Le Grub mtha’ rnam bzhag rin chen phreº ba de dkon mchog ’jigs med dbaê po (1728-1791),” Zinbun [The Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University], 14 (1977): 55-112. Also, Collected Works of dkon-mchog’jigs-med-dbaº-po, vol. 6, 485-535. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1972. Also: Xylograph in thirty-two folios from the Lessing Collection of the rare book section of the University of Wisconsin Library, which is item 47 in Leonard Zwilling.
Tibetan Blockprints in the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries, 1984. Also: Mundgod, India: blo gsal gling Press, 1980. Also: Dharamsala, India: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 1967. Also: Dharamsala, India: Teaching Training, n.d. Also: A blockprint edition in twenty-eight folios obtained in 1987 from Go-mang College in Hla-Ôa, printed on blocks that predate the Cultural Revolution. English translation: Geshe Lhundup Sopa and Jeffrey Hopkins. Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, 48-145. New York: Grove, 1976; rev. ed., Cutting through Appearances: Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism, 109-322. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1989. Also: H. V. Guenther. Buddhist Philosophy in Theory and Practice. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1972. Also, the chapters on the Autonomy School and the Consequence School: Shßtarß Iida. Reason and Emptiness, 27-51. Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1980. Haribhadra (seng ge bzang po, late eighth century)
Clear Meaning Commentary / Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Ornament for Clear Realization, Treatise of Quintessential Instructions on the Perfection of Wisdom” spuþhårtha / abhisamayålaôkåranåmaprajñåpåramitopadeŸaŸåstrav¸tti ’grel pa don gsal / shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan ces bya ba’i ’grel pa P5191, vol. 90 Sanskrit: Unrai Wogihara. Abhisamayålaôkårålokå Prajñå-påramitå-vyåkhyå, The Work of Haribhadra. 7 vols. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1932-1935; reprint, Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1973. Illumination of the Eight Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtra åryåøîasåhasrikåprajñåpåramitåvyåkhyånåbhisamayålaôkåråloka-nåma ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa’i bshad pa mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi snang ba zhes bya ba P 5189, vol.90
Sanskrit: Unrai Wogihara. Abhisamayålaôkårålokå Prajñå-påramitå-vyåkhyå, The Work of Haribhadra. 7 vols. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1932-1935; reprint, Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1973; and P. L. Vaidya. Aøþasåhasrika Prajñåpåramitå, with Haribhadra’s Commentary called Þlokå. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 4. Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute, 1960. English translation: E. Conze. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, Calif.: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973.
Jam-Âang-shay-œa Nga-Ûang-«zön-drü (’jam dbyangs bzhad pa ngag dbang brtson grus, 16481722) Great Exposition of Tenets / Explanation of “Tenets”: Sun of the Land of Samantabhadra Brilliantly Illuminating All of Our Own and Others’ Tenets and the Meaning of the Profound [[[Emptiness]]], Ocean of Scripture and Reasoning Fulfilling All Hopes of All Beings grub mtha’ chen mo / grub mtha’i rnam bshad rang gzhan grub mtha’ kun dang zab don mchog tu gsal ba kun bzang zhing gi nyi ma lung rigs rgya mtsho skye dgu’i re ba kun skong Edition cited: Musoorie, India: Dalama, 1962. Also: Collected Works of ’Jam-dbyaºsbźad-pa’i-rdo-rje, vol. 14 (entire). New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1973. Also: Mundgod, India: Drepung Gomang Library, 1999.
English translation (entire root text and edited portions of the autocommentary and Nga-Ûang-œel-den’s Annotations): Jeffrey Hopkins. Maps of the Profound: Jam-yangshay-ba’s Great Exposition of Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views on the Nature of Reality. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2003. English translation (beginning of the chapter on the Consequence School): Jeffrey Hopkins. Meditation on Emptiness, 581-697. London: Wisdom, 1983; rev. ed., Boston: Wisdom, 1996.
Ëang-„ya Röl-œay-dor-jay (lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje, 1717-1786) Presentations of Tenets / Clear Exposition of the Presentations of Tenets: Beautiful Ornament for the Meru of the Subduer’s Teaching grub mtha’i rnam bzhag / grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bzhag pa gsal bar bshad pa thub bstan lhun po’i mdzes rgyan Edition cited: Varanasi, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1970. Also: Lokesh Chandra, ed. Buddhist Philosophical Systems of Lcaº-skya Rol-pahi Rdo-rje. õata-piîaka Series (Indo-Asian Literatures), vol. 233. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1977. Also: An edition published by gam car phan bde legs bshad gling grva tshang dang rgyud rnying slar gso tshogs pa, 1982.
English translation of Sautråntika chapter: Anne C. Klein. Knowing, Naming, and Negation, 115-196. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1988. Commentary on this: Anne C. Klein. Knowledge and Liberation: A Buddhist Epistemological Analysis in Support of Transformative Religious Experience. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1986. English translation of Svåtantrika chapter: Donald S. Lopez Jr. A Study of Svåtantrika, 243-386. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1986.
English translation of part of Pråsaºgika chapter: Jeffrey Hopkins. Emptiness Yoga: The Tibetan Middle Way, 355-428. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1983.
Jay-«zün Chö-„yi-gyel-tsen (rje btsun chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1469-1546) Presentation of Tenets grub mtha’i rnam gzhag Buxaduor, India: n.p., 1960. Also: Bylakuppe, India: Se-ra Byes Monastery, 1977. Íong-chen-rap-jam (klong chen rab ’byams / klong chen dri med ’od zer, 1308-1363) Precious Treasury of Tenets: Illuminating the Meaning of All Vehicles theg pa mtha’ dag gi don gsal bar byed pa grub pa’i mtha’ rin po che’i mdzod Gangtok, Sikkim: Dodrup Chen Rinpoche, 1969[?]. Maitreya (byams pa)
1. Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle / Treatise on the Later Scriptures of the Great Vehicle mahåyånottaratantraŸåstra theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos P5525, vol. 108
Sanskrit: E. H. Johnston (and T. Chowdhury). The Ratnagotravibhåga MahåyånottaratantraŸåstra. Patna, India: Bihar Research Society, 1950. English translation: E. Obermiller. “Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation.” Acta Orientalia 9 (1931): 81-306. Also: J. Takasaki. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhåga. Serie Orientale Roma 33. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. 2. Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon dharmadharmatåvibhaºga chos dang chos nyid rnam par ’byed pa P5523, vol. 108
Edited Tibetan: Jßshß Nozawa. “The Dharmadharmatåvibhaºga and the Dharmadharmatå-vibhaºgavætti, Tibetan Texts, Edited and Collated, Based upon the Peking and Derge Editions.” In Studies in Indology and Buddhology: Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Gadjin M. Nagao and Jßshß Nozawa. Kyoto: Hozokan, 1955. English translation: John Younghan Cha. “A Study of the Dharmadharmatåvibhåga: An Analysis of the Religious Philosophy of the Yogåcåra, Together with an Annotated Translation of Vasubandhu’s Commentary.” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1996. English translation: Jim Scott. Maitreya’s Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being with Commentary by Mipham. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2004.
3. Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes madhyåntavibhaºga dbus dang mtha’ rnam par ’byed pa P5522, vol. 108
Sanskrit: Gadjin M. Nagao. Madhyåntavibhåga-bhåøya. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964. Also: Ramchandra Pandeya. Madhyånta-vibhåga-Ÿåstra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
English translation: Stefan Anacker. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Also, of chapter 1: Thomas A. Kochumuttom. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Also, of chapter 1: Th. Stcherbatsky. Madhyåntavibhåga, Discourse on Discrimination between Middle and Extremes Ascribed to Bodhisattva Maitreya and Commented by Vasubandhu and Sthiramati. Bibliotheca Buddhica 30 (1936). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970; reprint, Calcutta: Indian Studies Past and Present, 1971. Also, of chapter 1: David Lasar Friedmann. Sthiramati, Madhyåntavibhågaþ¦kå: Analysis of the Middle Path and the Extremes. Utrecht, Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1937. 4. Ornament for Clear Realization abhisamayålaôkåra mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan P5184, vol. 88
Sanskrit: Th. Stcherbatsky and E. Obermiller, eds. AbhisamayålaôkåraPrajñåpåramitå-UpadeŸa-õåstra. Bibliotheca Buddhica 23. Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970. English translation: Edward Conze. Abhisamayålaôkåra. Serie Orientale Roma 6. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1954. 5. Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras mahåyånasÒtrålaôkåra theg pa chen po’i mdo sde rgyan gyi tshig le’ur byas pa P5521, vol. 108 Sanskrit: Sitansusekhar Bagchi. Mahåyåna-SÒtrålaôkåra¯ of Asaºga [with Vasubandhu’s commentary]. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 13. Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute, 1970.
Sanskrit text and translation into French: Sylvain Lévi. MahåyånasÒtrålaôkåra, exposé de la doctrine du grand véhicule selon le système Yogåcåra. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. 2 vols. Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion, 1907, 1911. Sanskrit text and translation into English: Surekha Vijay Limaye. MahåyånasÒtrålaôkåra by Asaºga. Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 94. Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1992.
English translation: L. Jamspal et al. The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature. Editorin-chief, Robert A.F Thurman. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, Columbia University, 2004. Någårjuna (klu sgrub, first to second century, C.E.) Praise of the Element of Attributes dharmadhåtustotra chos kyi dbyings su bstod pa P2010, vol.46; Toh. 1118, vol. ka Six Collections of Reasonings 1. Precious Garland of Advice for the King råjaparikathåratnåval¦ rgyal po la gtam bya ba rin po che’i phreng ba P5658, vol. 129
Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese: Michael Hahn. Någårjuna’s Ratnåval¦, vol. 1. The Basic Texts (Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese). Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1982.
English translation: Jeffrey Hopkins. Buddhist Advice for Living and Liberation: Någårjuna’s Precious Garland, 94-164. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1998. Supersedes that in: Någårjuna and the Seventh Dalai Lama. The Precious Garland and the Song of the Four Mindfulnesses, translated by Jeffrey Hopkins, 17-93. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975; New York: Harper and Row, 1975; reprint, in H.H. the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. The Buddhism of Tibet. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983; reprint, Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1987. English translation: John Dunne and Sara McClintock. The Precious Garland: An Epistle to a King. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1997. English translation of chap. 1, 1-77: Giuseppe Tucci. “The Ratnåval¦ of Någårjuna.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1934): 307-324; reprint, Giuseppe Tucci. Opera Minora, II. Rome: Giovanni Bardi Editore, 1971, 321-366. Chap. 2, 1-46; chap. 4, 1-100: Giuseppe Tucci. “The Ratnåval¦ of Någårjuna.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1936): 237-252, 423-435. Japanese translation: UryÒzu Ryushin. Butten II, Sekai Koten Bungaku Zenshu, 7 (July, 1965): 349-372. Edited by Nakamura Hajime. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobß. Also: UryÒzu Ryushin. Daijß Butten 14 (1974): 231-316. RyÒju RonshÒ. Edited by Kajiyama Yuichi and UryÒzu Ryushin. Tokyo: ChÒßkßronsha.
Danish translation: Christian Lindtner. Nagarjuna, Juvelkaeden og andre skrifter. Copenhagen, 1980. 2. Refutation of Objections vigrahavyåvartan¦kårikå rtsod pa bzlog pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa
P5228, vol. 95 Edited Tibetan and Sanskrit: Christian Lindtner. Nagarjuniana, 70-86. Indiske Studier 4. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982. Edited Sanskrit and English translation: K. Bhattacharya, E. H. Johnston, and A. Kunst. The Dialectical Method of Någårjuna. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978. English translation from the Chinese: G. Tucci. Pre-Diºnåga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 49. Baroda, India: Oriental Institute, 1929.
French translation: S. Yamaguchi. “Traité de Någårjuna pour écarter les vaines discussion (Vigrahavyåvartan¦) traduit et annoté.” Journal Asiatique 215 (1929): 1-86. 3. Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness ŸÒnyatåsaptatikårikå stong pa nyid bdun cu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa P5227, vol. 95
Edited Tibetan and English translation: Christian Lindtner. Nagarjuniana, 34-69. Indiske Studier 4. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982. English translation: David Ross Komito. Någårjuna’s “Seventy Stanzas”: A Buddhist Psychology of Emptiness. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1987. 4. Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning yuktiøaøîikåkårikå rigs pa drug cu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa P5225, vol. 95
Edited Tibetan with Sanskrit fragments and English translation: Christian Lindtner. Nagarjuniana, 100-119. Indiske Studier 4. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982. 5. Treatise Called the Finely Woven vaidalyasÒtranåma zhib mo rnam par ’thag pa zhes bya ba’i mdo P5226, vol. 95
Tibetan text and English translation: Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti. Någårjuna’s Refutation of Logic (Nyåya) Vaidalyaprakaraòa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995.
6. Treatise on the Middle / Fundamental Treatise on the Middle, Called “Wisdom” madhyamakaŸåstra / prajñånåmamÒlamadhyamakakårikå dbu ma’i bstan bcos / dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba P5224, vol. 95
Edited Sanskrit: J. W. de Jong. Någårjuna, MÒlamadhyamakakårikå¯. Madras, India: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1977; reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House, c. 1977. Also: Christian Lindtner. Någårjuna’s Filosofiske Vaerker, 177-215. Indiske Studier 2. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982. English translation: Frederick Streng. Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1967. Also: Kenneth Inada. Någårjuna: A Translation of His MÒlamadhyamakakårikå. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press, 1970. Also: David J. Kalupahana. Någårjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1986. Also: Jay L. Garfield. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Italian translation: R. Gnoli. Någårjuna: Madhyamaka Kårikå, Le stanze del cammino di mezzo. Enciclopedia di autori classici 61. Turin, Italy: P. Boringhieri, 1961.
Danish translation: Christian Lindtner. Någårjuna’s Filosofiske Vaerker, 67-135. Indiske Studier 2. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982. Nga-Ûang-œel-den (ngag dbang dpal ldan, b. 1797), also known as ‡el-den-chö-jay (dpal ldan chos rje) Annotations for (Jam-Âang-shay-œa’s) “Great Exposition of Tenets”: Freeing the Knots of the Difficult Points, Precious Jewel of Clear Thought grub mtha’ chen mo’i mchan ’grel dka’ gnad mdud grol blo gsal gces nor Sarnath, India: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1964. Also: Collected Works of Chosrje ºag-dbaº Dpal-ldan of Urga, vols. 4 (entire)-5, 1-401. Delhi: Guru Deva, 1983.
Paò-chen ðö-nam-drak-fla (paò chen bsod nams grags pa, 1478-1554) Presentation of Tenets: Sublime Tree Inspiring Those of Clear Mind, Hammer Destroying the Stone Mountains of Opponents grub mtha’i rnam bzhag blo gsal spro ba bskyed pa’i ljon pa phas rgol brag ri ’joms pa’i tho ba Buxa, n.d. Può˜ar¦ka, Kalk¦ (rigs ldan pad ma dkar po) Great Commentary on the “Kålachakra Tantra”: Stainless Light vimålaprabhånåmamÒlatantrånusåriò¦dvådaŸasåhasrikålaghukålacakratantraråjaî¦kå bsdus pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po dus kyi ’khor lo’i ’grel bshad rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi rjes su ’jug pa stong phrag bcu gnyis pa dri ma med pa’i ’od ces bya ba P2064, vol. 46
English translation of the first section: John Newman. “The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayåna Buddhist Cosmology in the Kålachakra Tantra.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1987. Shåntarakøhita (Ÿåntarakøita, zhi ba ’tsho, eighth century) Compendium of Principles tattvasaôgrahakårikå de kho na nyid bsdud pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa P5764, vol. 138
Sanskrit: Dwarikadas Shastri. Tattvasaºgraha of Þcårya Shåntarakøita, with the Commentary “Pañjikå” of Shr¦ Kamalash¦la. Varanasi, India: Bauddha Bharati, 1968.
English translation: G. Jha. The Tattvasaôgraha of õåntarakøita, with the commentary of KamalaŸ¦la. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 80 and 83. Baroda, India: Oriental Institute, 1937, 1939; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidass, 1986. Tåranåtha (1575-1634)
Essence of Ambrosia rgyal ba'i bstan pa la 'jug pa'i rim pa skyes bu gsum gyi man ngag gi khrid yig bdud rtsi'i snying khu Collected Works of Jo-naê rJe-btsun Tåranåtha, vol. 18 (tsha), 241-333. Dzamthang Monastery, Aba Prefecture, Sichuan Province, 1990s. English translation: Willa Baker. Essence of Ambrosia. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2005. The Essence of Other-Emptiness gzhan stong snying po
Collected Works of Jo-naê rJe-btsun Tåranåtha, vol. 4 (nga), 491-514. Leh, Ladakh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod, 1985. Also, vol. 18 (tsha), 171-193. Dzamthang Monastery, Aba Prefecture, Sichuan Province, 1990s. History of Buddhism in India/ Clear Teaching of How the Precious Holy Doctrine Spread in the Land of Superiors [[[India]]], Fulfilling All Needs and Wishes rgya gar chos ’byung/ dam pa’i chos rin po che ’phags pa’i yul du ji ltar dar ba’i tshul gsal bar ston pa dgos ’dod kun ’byung Sarnath: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1972
Russian translation: V.P. Vasil’ev. St. Petersburg: April, 1869. German translation: Anton Schieffer. Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien. St. Petersburg: October, 1869. English translation: E. Obermiller. History of Buddhism (Chos-¯byung) by Bu-ston. Heidelberg: O. Harrassowitz, 1931-1932; reprint, Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, n.d. Also: Lama Chimpa, and Alaka Chattopadhyaya. Tåranåtha’s History of Buddhism in India. Simla, India: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990. Long History of the Yamåntaka-Tantra-Råja Cycle [Called “Causing] Wondrous Belief” rgyud rgyal gshin rje gshed skor gyi chos ’byung rgyas pa yid ches ngo mtshar
Collected Works of Jo-naê rJe-btsun Tåranåtha, vol. 10. Leh, Ladakh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod, 1985. Unpublished English translation by Gareth Sparham. Ornament of the Other-Empty Middle gzhan stong dbu ma’i rgyan Collected Works of Jo-naê rJe-btsun Tåranåtha, vol. 4 (nga), 797-824. Leh, Ladakh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod, 1985
Story of the Lineage Endowed with Seven Transmissions bka’ babs bdun ldan gyi brgyud pa’i rnam thar English translation: David Templeman, Tåranåtha’s Bka’ babs bdun ldan: The Seven Instruction Lineages. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1983.
Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning zab don gnyer gcig pa Collected Works of Jo-naê rJe-btsun Tåranåtha, vol. 4 (nga), 781-794. Leh, Ladakh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemzod, 1985. Also, vol. 18 (tsha), 209-222. Dzamthang Monastery, Aba Prefecture, Sichuan Province, 1990s. English translation: Klaus-Dieter Mathes. “Tåranåtha’s Twenty-one Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 27, no. 2 (2004): 285-328. Vasubandhu (dbyig gnyen, fl. 360)
[Commentary on] the Three Mothers: Conquest over Harm / Extensive Explanation of the Superior One Hundred Thousand Stanza, Twenty-five Thousand Stanza, and Eighteen Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom SÒtras / Commentary on the Extensive and Middling Mothers åryaŸatasåhasrikåpañcaviôsatisåhasrikåøþadaŸasåhasrikåprajñåpåramitåb¸haþþ¦kå yum gsum gnod ’joms / ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’bum pa dang nyi khri lnga stong pa dang khri brgyad stong pa’i rgya cher bshad pa P5206, vol. 93 Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Differentiation of Phenomena and Noumenon” dharmadharmatåvibhågav¸tti chos dang chos nyid rnam par ’byed pa’i ’grel pa P5529, vol. 108
Edited Tibetan: Jßshß Nozawa. “The Dharmadharmatåvibhaºga and the Dharmadharmatå-vibhaºgavætti, Tibetan Texts, Edited and Collated, Based upon the Peking and Derge Editions.” In Studies in Indology and Buddhology: Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Gadjin M. Nagao and Jßshß Nozawa. Kyoto: Hozokan, 1955. English translation: John Younghan Cha. A Study of the Dharmadharmatåvibhåga: An Analysis of the Religious Philosophy of the Yogåcåra, Together with an Annotated Translation of Vasubandhu’s Commentary. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1996.
Eight Prakaraòa Treatises
1. Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes” madhyåntavibhågaþ¦kå dbus dang mtha’ rnam par ’byed pa’i ’grel pa / dbus mtha’i ’grel pa P5528, vol. 108 Sanskrit: Gadjin M. Nagao. Madhyåntavibhåga-bhåøya. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964. Also: Ramchandra Pandeya. Madhyånta-vibhåga-Ÿåstra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
English translation: Stefan Anacker. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Also: Thomas A. Kochumuttom. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Also, of chapter 1: Th. Stcherbatsky. Madhyåntavibhåga: Discourse on Discrimination between Middle and Extremes Ascribed to Bodhisattva Maitreya and Commented by Vasubandhu and Sthiramati. Bibliotheca Buddhica 30 (1936). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1970; reprint, Calcutta: Indian Studies Past and Present, 1971. Also, of chapter 1: David Lasar Friedmann, Sthiramati, Madhyåntavibhågaþ¦kå: Analysis of the Middle Path and the Extremes. Utrecht, Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1937.
2. Explanation of (Maitreya’s) “Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras” sÒtrålaôkåråbhåøya mdo sde’i rgyan gyi bshad pa P5527, vol. 108 Sanskrit: S. Bagchi. Mahåyåna-SÒtrålaôkåra of Asaºga [with Vasubandhu’s commentary]. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 13. Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute, 1970. Sanskrit and translation into French: Sylvain Lévi. MahåyånasÒtrålaôkåra, exposé de la doctrine du grand véhicule selon le système Yogåcåra. 2 vols. Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion, 1907, 1911.
English translation: L. Jamspal et al. The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature. Editorin-chief, Robert A.F Thurman. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, Columbia University, 2004. 3. Principles of Explanation vyåkyhayukti rnam par bshad pa’i rigs pa P5562, vol. 113 4. The Thirty / Treatise on Cognition-Only in Thirty Stanzas triôŸikåkårikå / sarvavijñånamåtradeŸakatriôŸakakårikå sum cu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa / thams cad rnam rig tsam du ston pa sum cu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa P5556, vol. 113
Sanskrit: Sylvain Lévi. Vijñaptimåtratåsiddhi / Deux traités de Vasubandhu: ViôŸatikå (La Vingtaine) et Triôsikå (La Trentaine). Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion, 1925. Also: K. N. Chatterjee. VijñaptiMåtratå-Siddhi (with Sthiramati's Commentary). Varanasi, India: Kishor Vidya Niketan, 1980. English translation: Stefan Anacker. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Also: Thomas A. Kochumuttom. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982.
5. Treasury of Manifest Knowledge abhidharmakoŸakårikå
chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi tshig le’ur byas pa P5590, vol. 115 Sanskrit: Swami Dwarikadas Shastri. AbhidharmakoŸa & Bhåøya of Þcårya Vasubandhu with Sphuþårtha Commentary of Þcårya YaŸomitra. Bauddha Bharati Series 5. Banaras, India: Bauddha Bharati, 1970. Also: P. Pradhan. AbhidharmakoŸabhåøyam of Vasubandhu. Patna, India: Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975. French translation: Louis de La Vallée Poussin. L’AbhidharmakoŸa de Vasubandhu. 6 vols. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1971. English translation of the French: Leo M. Pruden. AbhidharmakoŸabhåøyam. 4 vols. Berkeley, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press, 1988.
6. The Twenty viôŸatikå / viôŸikåkårikå nyi shu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa P5557, vol. 113 Sanskrit: Sylvain Lévi. Vijñaptimåtratåsiddhi / Deux traités de Vasubandhu: ViôŸatikå (La Vingtaine) et Triôsikå (La Trentaine). Bibliotheque de l’École des Hautes Études. Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion, 1925. English translation: Stefan Anacker. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Also: Thomas A. Kochumuttom. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982.
English translation (stanzas 1-10): Gregory A. Hillis. “An Introduction and Translation of Vin¦tadeva’s Explanation of the First Ten Stanzas of [[[Vasubandhu’s]]] Commentary on His ‘Twenty Stanzas,’ with Appended Glossary of Technical Terms.” M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1993. 7. Work on Achieving Actions karmasiddhiprakaraòa las grub pa’i rab tu byed pa P5563, vol. 113
French translation (chap. 17): É. Lamotte. “Le Traité de l’acte de Vasubandhu, Karmasiddhiprakaraòa.” Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 4 (1936): 265-288. 8. Work on the Five Aggregates pañcaskandhaprakaraòa phung po lnga’i rab tu byed pa P5560, vol. 113
Ùel-mang ‰ön-chok-gyel-tsen (dbal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1764-1853) Commentary on (Maitreya’s) “Ornament for the Great Vehicle SÒtras”: Blossoming Flower of the Subduer’s Teaching mdo sde’i rgyan gyi ’grel pa thub bstan rgyas pa’i me tog
Collected Works of Dbal-maê Dkon-mchog-rgyal-mtshan, vol. 8 (nya), 1-375. New Delhi: Gyeltan Gelek Namgyal, 1974.
