’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s (1392–1481) Analytical and Direct Approaches to Ultimate Reality1

Klaus-Dieter Mathes

Direct approaches to ultimate reality are treated with suspicion in and have very often been associated with the Chinese Chan views of Hwa shang Mo he yan, who is said to have been defeated in the famous debate at bSam yas between 792 and 794 at the hands of the Indian proponent Kamalaśīla. While Mo he yan emphasized an immediate awakening through direct non-conceptual meditation,­ Kamalaśīla was purportedly able to convince the Tibetan king Khri srong lde btsan (8th century) of the superiority of his gradual path, which emphasizes the importance of conceptual analysis and ethical discipline. 2 Even though the historicity of this story has been questioned, it undoubtedly served to validate new lineages from India as the only authentic source of Buddhist doctrines and practices and confirm the importance of a gradual path.3 Even those in Tibet who were doctrinally closer to the Chinese position of Mo he yan put great effort into legitimizing their tradition by tracing it back to Indian masters and texts. A case in point is the famous bKa’ gdams pa and bKa’ brgyud pa master ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392–1481) who presents in his commentary on the Ratna­­gotravi­bhāgavyākhyā a mahāmudrā interpretation of the works that is strikingly similar to what we find in Dunhuang texts of Tibetan (as Van Schaik called them in his recent publication),4 but

1 improvements to my English by Philip Pierce (Kathmandu) and David Higgins (University of Vienna) are gratefully acknowledged. 2 For a good summary of the debate, see Cabezón & Dargyay 2006: 19–21; Karmay 2007: 87–89. 3 Van Schaik 2015: 15. 4 see Van Schaik’s (2015: 31–41) translation of A Text on the Single Method of Non­ apprehension from Pelliot Tibétain 116.

Journal of the International Association of Volume 39 • 2016 • 487–518 • doi: 10.2143/JIABS.39.0.3200534 488 klaus-dieter mathes which he justifies on the basis of Indian masters such as Jñānakīrti and Maitrīpa.5 For gZhon nu dpal ultimate reality must be either determined through logical investigation which culminates in “freedom from mental fabrica- tions” (niṣprapañca) or experienced directly on a mahāmudrā path, which mainly relies on non-conceptual types of insight. This latter approach allows not only a negative characterization of reality such as niṣprapañca or the emptiness of non-affirming negation, but also positive descriptions, such as those found in scriptures of the “third dharmacakra”

5 this strategy is also clearly stated in gZhon nu dpal’s Blue Annals (Deb ther sngon po, 6326–6334): “Moreover, Dwags po Rin po che said to Phag mo gru pa: ‘The basic text of this mahāmudrā of ours is the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (Ratna­gotra­vibhāga) by the Venerable Maitreya.’ Phag mo gru pa in turn said the same thing to rJe ’Bri gung pa, and for this reason many explanations of the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra are found in the works of rJe ’Bri gung pa and his disciples. In this connection, the master Sa skya pa (i.e., Sa skya Paṇḍita) maintains that there is no conventional expression for mahāmudrā in Pāramitānaya, and that the wisdom­ of mahāmudrā is only the wisdom arisen from initiation. But in the Tattvāva­tāra composed by the Master Jñānakīrti it is said: ‘As for someone with sharp faculties who practices the pāramitās diligently, by performing the meditations of calm abiding and deep insight, he [becomes] truly endowed with the mahāmudrā [already] in the state of an ordinary being; [and this] is the sign of the irre- versible [state attained] through correct realization.’ And the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā composed by *Sahajavajra­ clearly explains a wisdom that realizes suchness as possessing the follow- ing three particular [features]: in essence it is Pāramitā[naya], it accords with [naya] and its name is ‘mahāmudrā.’ Therefore rGod tshang pa, too, explains that rJe sGam po pa’s Pāramitā[naya]-mahāmudrā is [in line with] the assertions of the master Maitrīpa.” (de yang dwags po rin po ches dpal phag mo gru pa la / ’o skol gyi phyag rgya chen po ’di’i gzhung ni bcom ldan ’das byams pas mdzad pa’i theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos ’di yin zhes gsungs shing / dpal phag mo gru pas kyang rje ’bri gung (em., text: khung) pa la de skad du gsungs pas / rje ’bri gung (em., text: khung) pa dpon slob kyi gsung rab rnams su theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bshad pa mang du ’byung ba de yin no / ’di la chos rje sa skya pas pha rol tu phyin pa’i lugs la phyag rgya chen po’i tha snyad med cing / phyag rgya chen po’i ye shes gang yin pa de ni dbang las skyes pa’i ye shes kho na yin no zhes bzhed mod kyi / slob dpon ye shes grags pas mdzad pa’i de kho na nyid la ’jug par / pha rol tu phyin pa la mngon par brtson pa’i dbang po rab ni / zhi gnas dang lhag mthong bsgoms pas so so’i skye bo’i gnas skabs nyid na phyag rgya chen po dang nges par ldan pa yang dag par rtogs pas phyir mi ldog pa’i rtags nyid dang / zhes gsungs la / de kho na nyid bcu pa’i ’grel pa (em., text: ’brel ba) lhan cig skyes pa’i rdo rjes mdzad par yang / ngo bo pha rol tu phyin pa / sngags dang rjes su mthun pa / ming phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba’i khyad par gsum dang ldan pa’i de bzhin nyid rtogs pa’i ye shes gsal bar bshad do / de bas na rje sgam po pa’i pha rol tu (em., text: du) phyin pa’i phyag rgya chen po ni mnga’ bdag mai trī (em., text: tri) pa’i bzhed pa yin par rje rgod tshang pas kyang bshad do /). First translated by Roerich 1949–53: 724–25. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 489

(i.e., Yogācāra texts, the Ratna­gotra­vibhāga and so forth). Such a distinc- tion between an analytic and non-conceptual path can be already found in the works of sGam po pa (1079–1153), who introduces, for example, in his Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs a path of direct perceptions, which is well set apart from a Pāramitānaya path of inferences and a Mantranaya path of blessing: As to taking inference as [one’s] path: having examined all phenomena by arguments, [such as] being beyond one and many,6 one says that there is no other [ontological] possibility and posits that everything is empty. [This is the path of] inference. [The practice of] inner channels, energies and drops, the recitation of ­, and so forth, based on the stage consisting of the generation of the deity’s body, is the path of blessing. As to taking direct perception for [one’s] path, the genuine guru teaches that one’s co-emergent mind-essence is the dharmakāya in terms of its lumi- nosity. Having thus been given an accurate pith instruction of definitive meaning, one takes, with regard to this co-emergent mind, which has been ascertained in oneself, the natural mind as the path, without being separated from any of the three [aspects of teaching]: view, conduct and meditation.7 sGam po pa’s path of direct perception has definitive meaning and out- shines not only the path of inferences, but even ordinary Mantranaya, which he criticizes for remaining dependent upon conceptuali­ zation.­ 8 This differs from Maitrīpa’s disciple *Sahajavajra, for whom tantric mahāmudrā, which is based on formal creation and completion stage practice, still outshines the mahāmudrā of Pāramitānaya-based pith

6 this means that phenomena cannot be ascertained to be either single individuals (wholes) or plural composites­ (parts). 7 sGam po pa, Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, 5564–5573: de la rjes dpag lam du byed pa ni / chos thams cad gcig dang du bral gyi gtan tshigs kyis gzhig (em., text: gzhigs) nas / ’gro sa ’di las med zer nas thams cad stong par byas nas ’jog pa ni rjes dpag go / lha’i sku bskyed pa’i rim pa la brten nas rtsa rlung dang thig le dang / sngags kyi bzlas brjod la sogs pa byin rlabs kyi lam mo // mngon sum lam du byed pa ni bla ma dam pa cig gis sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku ’od gsal bya ba yin gsung ba de lta bu nges pa’i don gyi gdams ngag phyin ci ma log bstan pas / rang la nges pa’i shes pa lhan cig skyes pa de la lta spyod sgom gsum ya ma bral bar gnyug ma’i shes pa lam du khyer ba … First translated in Mathes 2008: 40–41. 8 Jackson 1994: 34. 490 klaus-dieter mathes instructions, because the former is embedded in a sequence of four seals and benefits from the emergence of vajra pride.9 Also in comparison to later bKa’ brgyud pas, sGam po pa’s classification reveals its uncompro- mising character: we may compare it with that of the great exegete Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal (1511–1587), who also presents a path of direct perception within another threefold division of the path, but assigns all three of them to .10 This more cautious approach must be of course seen against the background of the ongoing attempts of classical and post-classical bKa’ brgyud pa masters to respond to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s (1182–1251) broad-based critique of their mahā­mudrā tradition.11

’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal on the Second and Third Dharmacakras

Even though the “second and third dharma­cakras” are respectively taken to represent analytic and non-conceptual approaches, and even though they do not contradict each other, the third dharmacakra out- shines the second one in the eyes of gZhon nu dpal. All the path of analysis can do is to remove reification and thereby establish that all phenomena are free from mental fabrication. For gZhon nu dpal this amounts to the attainment of the seventh level. In order to proceed further to the three pure levels and enter the experiential sphere of a Buddha, one has to rely on teachings of the third dharmacakra which is superior. This is because it enables direct perceptions of the

9 mathes 2006: 220–22. 10 dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal: “This very tradition in the cycle of dohās and cycles of mahāmudrā in symbolic transmission belongs, in terms of the sūtra/mantra divide, to the secret Mantrayāna. From among the latter’s threefold [sub]division into the path of blessing, the path of reassurance and the path of direct [cognition], it is explained as the last of [these three]. It has been [further] explained that a ripening empowerment is needed, an extensive or abbreviated one, whatever is appropriate.” (Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer 15615–19: do ha’i skor dang / phyag chen brda brgyud kyi skor ’ga’ zhig tu / lam srol ’di nyid mdo sngags gnyis kyi nang nas gsang sngags kyi theg pa dang / de la byin rlabs kyi lam dang / dbugs dbyung gi lam / mngon sum gyi lam gsum du phye ba’i phyi ma yin par ’chad la / smin byed du dbang rgyas bsdus gang yang rung ba zhig dgos par bshad pa dang …) First translated by Lhalungpa (2006: 109). 11 sa skya Paṇḍita pronounced a critique of certain aspects of “present-day” mahāmudrā in his sDom gsum rab dbye (see Rhoton 2002: 303–304). ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 491 luminous nature of true reality.12 The conceptual and direct approaches to ultimate reality also reflect the different “means of valid cognition” in the second and third dharmacakras. This is most clear from the pres- entation of emptiness in gZhon nu dpal’s commentary on Ratnagotravi­ bhāga, verse I.12 (which elaborates on the three reasons why the truth of cessation is inconceivable): Therefore, when one teaches emptiness, [the canonical formu­la is]: “One truly sees that something is empty of that which does not exist in it, and that that which remains in place exists.”13 The defining characteristics of emp- tiness as taught in this [passage] inhere in both [types of] emptiness. By searching with inferential reasoning, one will not see any kind of own-na- ture in entities. What remains is the lack of an own-nature; it abides as the object of [inferential reasoning]. When searching on the basis of direct, correct [cognition], one does not see any adventitious phenomena. Thus [the fundamental nature] is said to be empty of these phenomena. What remains abides as mere aware­ness without [any] characteristic signs. Since both [types of] emptiness are thus grounded in the two types of valid cognition, they are never deceptive and therefore “true.”14

The way the “remainder,” or rather the result, of inferential reasoning is presented closely resembles rGyal tshab rje’s (1364–1432) interpretation of the Cūasuññayatasutta in his Ratna­gotra­vibhāga commentary.15 It goes without saying that for rGyal tshab rje and his teacher rJe Tsong kha pa (1357–1419) this approach of the second dharmacakra has definitive

12 mathes 2008: 43–44. 13 this formula of emptiness is already found in the Cūasuññayatasutta. See Seyfort Ruegg 1969: 319–20. 14 drsm 10119–24: des na stong pa nyid ston pa na / gang zhig gang gis stong pa de ni des stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong la / de la lhag mar ’gyur pa gang yin pa de ni yod do // zhes gsungs pa’i stong pa nyid kyi mtshan nyid kyang stong pa nyid gnyi ga la gnas pa yin te / rjes su dpag pa’i rigs pas btsal bas dngos po’i ngo bo nyid ci yang ma mthong zhing / lhag ma ngo bo nyid med pa de ni de’i yul gnas du gnas so // mngon sum yang dag pas btsal ba na glo bur ba’i chos ci yang ma mthong bas chos de dag gis stong zhes bya la / lhag ma mtshan ma med pa’i rig tsam ni gnas pa yin no // de ltar stong pa nyid gnyis po de nyid tshad ma gnyis kyi ngor gnas pas des nam yang bslu bar mi ’gyur ba’i phyir bden pa zhes bya’o / First translated in Mathes 2008: 355. It should be noted that gZhon nu dpal tries to harmonize here the dGe lugs and bKa’ brgyud accounts of emptiness and views of the remainder. 15 See Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i ṭīka, 3245–3256 (quoted from Higgins and Draszczyk 2016: 306-307). 492 klaus-dieter mathes meaning and outshines the third dharmacakra.16 But according to Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes (1453–1524), gZhon nu dpal followed rJe Tsong kha pa inasmuch as the latter also distinguished provisional and definitive meaning according to the Ratna­gotra­vibhāga.17 Intriguing as this state- ment is, to claim the superiority of the third dharmacakra for its positive descriptions of a direct approach to true reality in fact goes a step further away from mainstream Tibetan , and reflects the proximity of gZhon nu dpal’s mahāmudrā tradition to the position ascribed to the Chinese side of the bSam yas debate. This latter tradition of direct mahāmudrā realization is now further elaborated in detail. A little further down in his commentary on Ratnagotravibhāga, verse 12, gZhon nu dpal explains that the emptiness of non-affirming negation taught in the second dharma­cakra and the awareness without any char- acteristic signs (i.e., buddha nature in the following quotation) in the third dharmacakra are not different, when there is direct realization: Even though there is a difference with regard to the referents of these words (i.e., “non-affirming negation” and “[buddha] nature”), there is no difference when the joy of direct [perception] is realized. This follows from a number of pith instructions, and [in these] I put faith.18

This raises the question whether the authors of the analytical Madhyam- aka texts have had the same reality in mind as the commentators of the third dharmacakra (i.e., the Yogācāras and followers of the tathāgata­ garbha-doctrine), but preferred not to speak of it positively while propa- gating an inferential path? That such an assumption is not entirely out of question is suggested in the colophon of Bhavya II’s (490–570) Prajñā­ pradīpa, which states that people who are used to imagining truly existent things apprehend reality mainly by inferential cognitions, but this is not the way the Buddha apprehends reality:

16 it should be noted, however, that the sūtra teachings on buddha nature are nītārtha for Tsong kha pa and his school (Seyfort Ruegg 1969: 59–50). 17 Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes: gZhon nu dpal gyi rnam thar, 10b1–2. First quoted in Mathes 2008: 6. 18 drsm 11015–17: ’di dag tshig gi yul la khyad par yod kyang mngon sum pa’i bde ba rtogs pa’i tshe khyad par yod pa ma yin no zhes man ngag mchog ’ga’ zhig las ’byung ba la yid ches par byas pa yin no / First translated in Mathes 2008: 356. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 493

Since it is [mainly] dependent arising qualified as non-arising and so forth which has been taught [by the Illustrious One], the subject-matter of [this] treatise [follows along the same lines]. Non-conceptual wisdom, [namely,] the ultimate [state] of not conceptualizing this nectar[-like] reality [of dependent arising], apprehends an object, which is like the stainless autumn sky. [This,] the complete pacification of all mental fab- rications, the freedom from difference and identity, and the quiescence, which must be realized through self-awareness by oneself, have been pointed out [in this treatise]. Although this very reality is the way of the Illustrious One, because people having base thoughts do not develop faith [in it], inference is very important. Therefore, these [points] are widely attested.19

While this confirms gZhon nu dpal’s view that the final intention of the is compatible with the direct approach of the third dharmacakra, it raises the question of whether non-conceptual direct approaches are possible at all below the path of seeing, and if so, from which level onwards. gZhon nu dpal claims that this is possible, but discerns different types of non-conceptuality.O f particular interest is the distinction between the path of seeing and the state of engagement based on conviction (adhimukti­caryā), which is considered to be equivalent to the path of preparation:20 There are two different types of non-conceptuality: the paths of seeing and meditation. The path of seeing is well-known under that name, given that one directly sees the true nature that was not seen before, but nevertheless, according to the Vairocanābhi­sambo­dhitantra, there is [already] a direct seeing of the true nature when on the level [called] engagement based on

19 As quoted by gZhon nu dpal in DRSM 1513–18 (see also Peking Tanjur, dbu ma, vol. tsha, 325a7–b2): rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba skye ba med pa la sogs pa’i khyad par dang ldan pa bstan pas bstan bcos kyi don rnam par mi rtog pa’i ye shes ’dud rtsi’i de kho na rnam par mi rtog pa’i don dam pa ston ka’i nam mkha’ dri ma med pa lta bu’i yul can / spros pa ma lus pa legs par nye bar zhi ba tha dad pa nyid dang gcig pa nyid dang bral ba // zhi ba so so rang rig par bya ba bstan pa grub pa yin no / bcom ldan ’das kyi tshul ni de kho na nyid yin yang ngan rtog rnams dad par mi byed pa’i phyir rjes su dpag pa gtso che bas de’i phyir de yongs su byung ngo / First translated in Mathes 2008: 185. 20 See MVY 896–901. The adhimukticaryābhūmi is the second of seven bhūmis in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Dayal 1932: 278). According to DhDhVV 621–623 and 280–281, this refers to the level of precise penetration (nirvedha) and the path of preparation (prayogamārga). 494 klaus-dieter mathes

conviction. Therefore, the consciousness (shes pa) that sees the true nature on the [actual] first level refers to what has arisen as the direct [cognition] of self-awareness.21

In other words, the true nature of phenomena is already directly seen below the path of seeing, but not the way it is realized in self-awareness. That such a direct realization refers to self-awareness beyond duality,22 becomes clear in gZhon nu dpal’s demonstration that the view of the third dharmacakra is superior, where he quotes the works of numerous mahāmudrā masters, such as Zhang Tshal pa brTson ’grus (1123–1193): The state of non-duality arising from within [one’s mind depends] only [on] the blessing of [one’s] . The wisdom of realization arises among those of faith who have respect for the lama. Those expert in investigation and examination, [however,] “grope in the dark.”23

Non-conceptual Wisdom in the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga

Another important source for the non-conceptual realization of the true nature of phenomena is the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, a Yogācāra work which describes dualistic states of saṃsāric­ mind, and its fundamental transformation into the true nature of phenomena beyond duality and expression on the basis of non-conceptual wisdom. gZhon nu dpal refers quite often to this Maitreya work, and in the introduction to his commentary on the second chapter of the Ratnagotra­vibhāga, he explains at length the last two thirds of the Dharmadharmatā­vibhāga, which are

21 drsm 11412–15: mi rtog pa de’i dbye ba mthong ba dang sgom pa’i lam gnyis te / mthong ba’i lam ni sngon ma mthong ba’i chos nyid mngon sum du mthong ba’i phyir de skad du brjod par grags pa na yang rnam pa snang mdzad mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud la brten nas mos pas spyod pa’i gnas skabs na chos nyid mngon sum du mthong ba yod pas sa dang por chos nyid mthong ba’i shes pa rang rig mngon sum du skyes pa nyid la bya’o / First translated in Mathes 2008: 391. 22 such a self-awareness beyond the duality of a perceived and perceived is also main- tained by Ratnākaraśānti. See Luo, forthcoming: Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, 4.6.4.2.6.1.2: “This verse (LAS X.568) negates the relation of a perceived and perceiver in the self-awareness of mind” (anayā gāthayā ceta­saḥ svasaṃvittau grāhyagrāhaka­ bhāvaḥ pratiṣidhyate). 23 drsm 5225–531: / nang nas shar ba’i gnyis med de // bla ma’i byin rlabs ’ba’ zhig yin // dad ldan bla ma la gus de’i // nang nas rtogs pa’i ye shes skye // brtag dpyad mkhan la ci cha yod / First translated in Mathes 2008: 261–62. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 495 on fundamental transformation­ (āśraya­parivṛtti).24 In his commentary on RGV I.12, he quotes ’s entire explanation of the Dharma­ dharmatāvibhāga’s negative defining characteristics of non-conceptual wisdom.25 Non-conceptual wisdom, we are warned, should not be con- founded with the following five conditions or states of mind: 1. the absence of mental engagement (amanasikāra), i.e., mental states common to small children and fools. 2. t ranscending concepts, something already achieved on the second level of meditative concentration and above. 3. the stilling of conceptualization, as found in the state of being drunk or asleep. 4. t he actual nature of the non-conceptual (material objects would ­possess wisdom). 5. to cling to an idea or image of the non-conceptual.26 Based on that gZhon nu dpal argues that the negation implied by the term “non-conceptual” applies to non-conceptual wisdom insofar as it is a remedy (gnyen po) for overcoming concepts. According to Vasubandhu’s Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā and Guṇamati’s sub-commentary on it, gnyen po must be taken in the sense of “contrarity” or “opposition” (Tib. mi mthun pa’i phyogs, Skt. vipakṣa),27 which implies that non-conceptual

24 see Mathes 2005. 25 drsm 1136–20. 26 the root text (DhDhV 119–121) is as follows: “As for the complete knowledge [of non-conceptual wisdom], its defining characteristics [are best understood through] the exclusion of five points: (1) the absence of mental engagement, (2) having gone beyond [concepts], (3) pacification [of concepts], (4) the actual nature [of the nonconceptual], and (5) to have an image [of the non-conceptual].” (mtshan nyid yongs su shes pa ni / yid la mi byed pa med pa dang / yang dag par ’das pa dang / nye bar zhi ba dang / ngo bo’i don dang / bkra ba ’dzin pa lnga spangs pa ni rang gi mtshan nyid do /). For a German translation of Vasubandhu’s commentary, see Mathes 1996: 143; for a German translation of Mi pham’s commentary Mathes 1996: 223–25. 27 In his Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā, Vasubandhu explains a-vidyā in terms of a sev- enfold classification­ of the negative particle. The first one is the negation of existence (sat-pratiṣedha), the second one is taken in the sense of difference (anyatva), and the seventh is “remedy” gnyen po (see Peking bsTan ’gyur, mdo tshogs, vol. chi, 7b5–8a1). Mejor (2002: 93) has vipakṣa for gnyen po, which is according to Negi (1993–2005: s.v.) a possible equivalent of gnyen po. In the Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā we find: “… contrarity, opposition (vipakṣe), as in such words as e.g. non-meritorious (a-puṇya), 496 klaus-dieter mathes wisdom is an agent actively opposed to concepts. To be sure, it entails neither a whole-sale negation of consciousness (shes pa) nor the exclu- sion of concepts as if it were just something else (gzhan): If one takes the negation in the term “non-conceptual” to refer to the non-existence [of concepts] from among the three [possible meanings] “non-existence [of],” “something else [than],” and “remedy [against ­concepts],” it does not work, for not being a consciousness (shes pa), it would not be possible to realize suchness. In the case that [non-concep- tual] refers to something else [than concepts] – if it was the result, i.e., the non-arising of conceptual consciousness from the five [negative defin- ing characteristics of non-conceptual wisdom], then it would absurdly follow that it was the [preconceptual] consciousness of the five sense faculties of an infant.28 … With regard to the meaning [of these five negative defining characteristics] here, they have been determined as [being] concepts that possess words and meanings, for non-conceptual wisdom must refer to a direct [cogni- tion] free from such concepts. Its negative [component], “non-conceptual,” is a remedy, the remedy for the four types of clinging to characteristic signs. These are the four characteristic signs of [what is] opposite [to lib- eration (for example, attachment)]; of the remedy; of suchness; and [of] the property of realization. The underlying thrust [of this teaching] is that the obstinate clinging to these four characteristic signs [yields] “concepts;” and being a remedy for this, [wisdom] is “non-conceptual.” As to what has been taught in the Dharmadharma­tā­vibhāga along these lines, the meaning of entering the non-conceptual is established. [However,] there are obvi- ously two traditions of fathoming the meaning of this sūtra:29 Kamalaśīla maintains that the [interpretative] imaginations that must be given up can only be given up on the strength of the insight of thorough investigation. [On the other hand,] it is maintained in the commentary on Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka that they are relinquished not by conceptual discrimination,

inglorious (a-prasiddha).” gNyen po must be thus taken in the sense of mi mthun pa’i phyogs, which is also found in Guṇamati’s commentary (Mejor 2002: 93 & 99). 28 drsm 11320–23: rnam par mi rtog pa zhes bya ba’i dgag tshig ’di med pa dang gzhan dang gnyen po gsum las med pa la bya na med pa ni shes pa ma yin pas de bzhin nyid la ’jug pa mi rung ba’i phyir mi ’thad la / gzhan pa la yang rnam pa lnga las ’bras bu rnam par rtog pa’i shes pa mi bskyed pa la bya na bu chung gi sgo lnga’i shes pa yang der thal bar ’gyur la / … 29 in the colophon of the prose version, the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga is called a sūtra (see Mathes 1996: 67). ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 497

but rather by a contemplation of reality just as it is30 which recognizes the very essence of those things to be relinquished as being luminous [by nature].31

Kamalaśīla’s Analytical Approach

For Kamalaśīla, the soteriologically relevant abandonment of the above-mentioned four sets of characteristic signs, i.e., wrong reifications that distort true reality, is only made possible through investigation, as becomes clear in his commentary on the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī. While the dhāraṇī simply says that all characteristic signs are abandoned through mental non-engagement (amanasi­kāra), Kamalaśīla insists that the literal meaning of amanasikāra must be restricted to the result of deep insight (vipaśyanā) practice. In other words, non-conceptual states of meditative stabilization that focus on suchness must be preceded by the logical inferences of the Pramāṇa tradition. Such an analytical med- itation turns into amanasikāra in the same way as a fire kindled from rubbing pieces of wood burns the pieces of wood themselves: It is the defining characteristic of discernment of reality bhūtapratyavekṣā( )32 which has been thought of when [using the expression]: “not to become

30 i.e., the samādhi through which all phenomena are realized as being luminous (as explained in Tattvadaśaka, verse 5 (TD 48622–23): evam ekarasā dharmā nirāsaṅgā nirāspadāḥ / pra­bhā­svarā hy amī sarve yathā­bhūtasamādhinā //). 31 drsm 1144–12: don ni ’dir rnam par mi rtog pa’i ye shes ni sgra don can gyi rtog pa dang bral ba’i mngon sum zhig la bya dgos pas sgra don can gyi rtog pa la dpyad pa byas pa yin la / de’i mi rtog pa zhes bya ba’i dgag pa ni gnyen po ste / mtshan mar ’dzin pa rnam pa bzhi’i gnyen po’o / mtshan mar ’dzin pa rnam pa bzhi ni mi mthun pa’i phy­ ogs dang / gnyen po dang / de bzhin nyid dang / rtogs pa’i chos kyi mtshan ma ste / mtshan ma bzhi po de la mngon par zhen pa la ni rnam par rtog pa zhes bya la / de’i gnyen po yin pas rnam par mi rtog pa’o zhes bya bar dgongs pa yin no // de ltar chos dang chos nyid rnam par ’byed pa las gsungs pa ni rnam par mi rtog pa la ’jug pa’i don bkod pa yin la / mdo de’i don la ’jug pa na lugs gnyis snang ste / slob dpon ka ma la shī las ni spang par bya ba’i rnam par rtog pa de rnams so sor rtog pa’i shes rab kho nas spong bar bzhed do / mai trī pa’i de kho na nyid bcu pa’i ’grel par ni so sor rtog pas spong ba ma yin gyi / spang bya de dag gi ngo bo nyid ’od gsal du shes pa yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin gyi ting nge ’dzin gyis spong bar bzhed do / First translated in Mathes 2008: 391. 32 see Martin Adam’s article in this collection where he translates and analyzes a similar passage from Bhāvanākrama III. It clarifies that discernment of reality bhūtapratyavekṣā( ) is conceptual by nature but because it also has the nature of yoniśo manasikāra (attending the source which is anutpāda, emptiness), it is the source of nonconceptual wisdom. 498 klaus-dieter mathes

mentally engaged.” Its nature is conceptual, but it is burnt away by the wisdom-fire arising from itself, in the same way as a fire kindled by rubbing two pieces of wood burns these very pieces.33

In support of this interpretation it should be mentioned here that the Avikalpa­pra­veśadhāraṇī has itself a passage that stresses the necessity of proper mental engagement in order to enter the non-conceptual sphere: In this way, a Bodhisattva, a great being, abandons the characteristic signs of all kinds [produced by] thoughts by becoming mentally disengaged, and is thus well connected with the non-conceptual. But first he does not touch the non-conceptual sphere… As a result of proper mental engagement, he touches the non-conceptual sphere “without the wish to acquire it” (ana­ bhisaṃskārāt) or [without any other] effort (anābhogataḥ), and purifies [it] gradually.34

In other words, even the locus classicus of amanasikāra practice pre- scribes the initial mental engagement of discernment, and thus does not lend support to the quietist interpretation of amanasikāra as allegedly maintained by the Chinese monk Hwa shang Mo he yan in the bSam yas debate. gZhon nu dpal’s Non-conceptual Approach

That gZhon nu dpal’s preferred method of abandoning characteristic signs by becoming acquainted with their luminous nature does not necessarily depend on thorough investigation would seem to align it with the position of Kamalaśīla’s opponent in the debate, i.e., Mo he yan, something gZhon nu dpal himself would have never admitted, of course. His reluctance to claim any allegiance to Mo he yan’s doctrine is clear in

33 apdhṬ (D 132a2–3; P 157b5–6): yang dag par so sor rtog pa’i mtshan nyid ni ’dir yid la mi byed par dgongs so // de ni rnam par rtog pa’i ngo bo nyid yin mod kyi / ’on kyang de nyid las byung ba yang dag pa’i ye shes kyi mes de bsregs par ’gyur te / shing gnyis drud las byung ba’i mes shing de gnyis sreg par byed pa bzhin no / First translated in Mathes 2005: 32. 34 apdh 9518–23: evaṃ sa bodhisattvo mahāsattva etāni sarvākāravikalpanimittāny amanasi­kā­ra­­taḥ pari­varjayan suprayukto bhavaty avikalpena / na ca tāvad avikalpaṃ dhātuṃ spṛśati / … sa … sam­yaṅ­ma­na­si­kārānvayād anabhisaṃskārād anābhogato vāvi­ kalpaṃ dhātuṃ spṛśati / krameṇa ca pariśo­dha­yati / First translated in Mathes 2009 (2010): 9. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 499 his commentary on RGV I.15, which elaborates on the “qualitative aspect” (yathāvad­bhāvikatā) of wisdom. There gZhon nu dpal addresses the criticism that his mahāmudrā interpretation is Chinese Buddhism35 insofar as it neglects the pāramitās of generosity and so forth. He points out that Śāntideva, too, prescribes in his Bodhicaryāvatāra (verse IX.55) meditation on emptiness as a remedy against the darkness of the hin- drances,36 and this obviously does not question the necessity of the first pāramitās either. Moreover, with reference to the tantric Nāgārjuna’s ­vivaraṇa (verse 73), gZhon nu dpal claims that meditation on emptiness gives rise to compassion, and through it one becomes engaged in applying skilful means.37 To what extent this lends support to a non-conceptual realization of an emptiness that is luminous in nature, is another question. In this matter, gZhon nu dpal finds support in S* ahajavajra’s commen- tary on the Tattva­daśaka, where Maitrīpa’s “luminous phenomena” in TD 5 are said to refer to self-awareness­ that manifests on account of the yogin having abandoned all stains.38 This raises the question whether this only refers to gZhon nu dpal’s “direct [cognition] of self-awareness,” i.e., the consciousness (shes pa) of seeing phenomena in terms of their true nature (dharmatā) on the actual first bodhi­sattva level, or whether this also includes the preliminary levels of directly seeing dharmatā on the path of preparation (see above). In order to answer this question we need to have a closer look at gZhon nu dpal’s distinction between a gradualist and simultaneist path. Based on a Laṅkāva­tāra­sūtra passage on the gradual and instantaneous purifi- cation of the mind-stream, he explains in his commentary on the third dharmacakra as expounded in the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra (in Ratna­ gotravibhāga­vyākhyā on verse I.2) that on the pure bodhisattva levels

35 mathes 2008: 401–403. 36 bca 1999–10: “The remedy for the darkness of the hindrances of defilements and the knowable is emptiness. Why does not [the yogin] who wishes [to obtain] omniscience quickly meditate on it?” (kleśa­jñeyāvṛtitamaḥpratipakṣo hi śūnyatā / śīghraṃ sarva­jña­tā­ kāmo na bhāvayati tāṃ katham //). 37 BV 2067–8: “When yogins have thus meditated on emptiness, [their] mind will, beyond all doubt, rejoice in benefiting others.” (/ de ltar stong pa nyid ’di ni // rnal ’byor pa yis bsgom byas na // gzhan gyi don la chags pa’i blo // ’byung bar ’gyur ba the tshom med /). 38 mathes 2006: 215. 500 klaus-dieter mathes

(i.e., the eighth, ninth, and tenth) all objects of knowledge­ appear instan- taneously, while the gradual purification of stains through the three dharmacakras goes up only to the seventh level.39 It should be noted that gZhon nu dpal faithfully reports the context of the Laṅkāvatāra passage on instantaneous purification as being preceded by an explanation of gradual purification. Contrary to that, the ‘Tibetan Zen text’ A Text on the Single Method of Nonapprehension40 only quotes the part on instantane- ous purification and claims that “it is proper to cultivate non-conceptua­ lization from the beginning.”41 However, with reference to the Vairo­ canābhi­sam­bodhi­tantra gZhon nu dpal argues, that the seventh level (from which onwards purification is instantaneous) may also be a provi- sional one already found on the path of accu­mu­lation, so that sudden realization is brought within the reach of more ordinary practitioners. As a further support for such an interpretation gZhon nu dpal refers to a statement in the biography of ’Jig rten gsum mgon’s disciple gNyos rgyal ba Lha nang pa written by a certain Ye shes rdo rje.42 But even more important for gZhon nu dpal’s simultaneist approach is his repeated endorsement of Zhang Tshal pa brTson ’grus who claims, for example, in his Phyag rgya chen po lam zab mthar thug:43 Mahāmudrā is attained in one go. The confused err when they reckon it in terms of levels and paths. Still, in order to please the confused, The levels and paths of the vehicle of defining characteristics Must be reckoned as a substitute even here.44

In support of this stance gZhon nu dpal refers to Haribhadra, who says that nothing new is actualized on the path of meditation that has not already been seen on the path of seeing. As a further support, gZhon nu dpal quotes Candrakīrti’s Madhyama­kāvatāra­bhāṣya in which Candrakīrti

39 mathes 2008: 237–39. 40 From the text collection Pelliot Tibétain 116. 41 Van Schaik 2015: 35–36. 42 mathes 2008: 303. 43 my translation of this quote follows Martin (1992: 287); see also Jackson 1990: 52–3. 44 drsm 733–5: / phyag rgya chen po chig chod la // rmongs pa sa lam rtsi ba ’khrul // ’on kyang rmongs pa dga’ bya’i phyir // mtshan nyid theg pa’i sa lam rnams // ’dir yang dod po brtsi bar bya / First translated in Mathes 2008: 300. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 501 compares one’s advancement on the bodhisattva levels with the trail of a bird in the sky, which cannot be expressed or seen by the wise. The true nature of phenomena (dharmatā) which is directly realized on the path of seeing and the following bodhisattva levels cannot be distinguished as if corresponding to various parts of dharmatā, for the latter is indivisible.45 Or, as Zhang Tshal pa brTson ’grus says a little further down in the Phyag rgya chen po lam zab mthar thug:46 Although the ice cannot be melted And the ground and stones do not turn warm Immediately after the sun has risen at dawn, No one would object and say that this is not the sun.47

Once the sun has risen, nobody will stand up and say it is not the sun because it cannot melt ice immediately – an example meant to suggest that the attainment of complete may not be instantaneous either. Just as it takes time for the sun’s warmth to melt ice, it takes some time for buddha nature and its qualities to make their presence felt and dissolve what hinders them. And indeed, throughout his commentary, gZhon nu dpal explains that the buddha nature in all sentient being is only endowed with subtle buddha qualities which must mature naturally on the path.48 In other words, the difference between the direct vision of the true nature of phenomena on the provisional bodhisattva levels and the direct

45 mathes 2008: 301. 46 my translation of this quote follows again Martin (1992: 287); see also Jackson 1990: 52–3. 47 drsm 737–8: / chab rom zhu bar ma nus zhing // sa rdo dros par ma gyur kyang // nyi ma min zhes su zhig smod / First translated in Mathes 2008: 300. 48 this becomes particularly clear in gZhon nu dpal’s consistency in interpreting the Ratnagotra­vibhāga as implying that there is a difference between the three aspects of the buddha element, namely the dharmakāya, suchness, and the buddha potential, and that accordingly, buddha qualities exist in ordinary beings only in a subtle form and must naturally mature. During meditation practice, however, these three aspects should be taken to be identical, according to gZhon nu dpal. In other words, with regard to gazing at one’s true nature of mind in meditation, there is no difference on the various bodhisattva levels; still, the buddha qualities mature gradually on these levels, in the same way as Zhang’s sun gradually gains strength. For gZhon nu dpal, such a view is in perfect harmony with scholars such as Haribhadra or Candrakīrti, and thus with mainstream Indian Mahāyāna. See Mathes 2008: 317–50. 502 klaus-dieter mathes cognition of self-awareness from the actual first bodhisattva level onwards can only be explained in terms of different stages of naturally blossoming buddha qualities. The vision itself does not change throughout the differ- ent levels of the path for gZhon nu dpal. In a discussion of a supposed tension between Haribhadra’s statement that the entire dharmadhātu is seen on the first bodhisattva level, and the Dharma­dhātu­stotra statement that only a tiny part of the dharmakāya is seen even on the tenth level, gZhon nu dpal says that Haribhadra explains the dharmadhātu as the selflessness of phenomena, as something which has the defining charac- teristics of a negation. Therefore, it makes sense to say that it is seen completely on the first level. But attaining the dharmakāya of a buddha is different, because for gZhon nu dpal dharmadhātu is not just a differ- ent name for dharmakāya. The difference is that on the first level one sees only one’s own buddha nature directly, but not that of others. Attain- ing mahāmudrā thus means for gZhon nu dpal that the direct vision of emptiness on the first level is not different from seeing it on the tenth level. But the scope of the perceived reality or buddha nature must increase, so that the buddha nature of other beings is seen as well.49 This reminds one of the Chinese Chan master Zongmi (780–841) who claimed that a single method (i.e., gazing at one’s mind) does not contradict a gradual awakening.50 The underlying philosophy in gZhon nu dpal’s system is that ultimate reality is not only a blank emptiness, but also consists of a subtle primor- dial awareness that is disclosed as hindering stains are gradually removed on the path. Emptiness in supreme Madhyamaka thus includes an element of awareness for gZhon nu dpal, a position that he attributes to Maitrīpa: The lord of this doctrine (i.e., the Ratnagotravibhāga) – the father, the ven- erable Mai­trīpa – and his son (i.e., *Sahajavajra) assert that the emptiness taught in the Madhyama­kāvatāra is middling Madhyamaka, and “aware- ness-emptiness” (rig stong) is the tradition of supreme Madhya­maka.51

49 see Mathes 2008: 332. 50 it should be added that he also maintained that a multitude of methods can lead to an instantaneous awakening (Van Schaik 2015: 57). 51 drsm 1616–17: chos ’di’i bdag po rje btsun mai trī pa yab sras kyis ni dbu ma la ’jug ma las gsungs pa’i stong pa nyid ni dbu ma ’bring po dang / rig pa’i stong pa nyid ni dbu ma mchog gi lugs yin no / First translated in Mathes 2008: 187. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 503

“Awareness-emptiness” does not figure in the Tattvadaśaka, but the statement in it that phenomena are experienced in the yathābhūtasamādhi as being lumi­nous lends support to its latent presence – especially against the background that the luminous phenomena are taken to refer to self-awareness in *Sahajavajra’s commentary. As we have seen above, direct valid cognitions reveal the non-existence of phenomena, which are only adventitious. The yogin is thus left in a state of simple awareness that lacks any characteristic sign or point of reference – gZhon nu dpal’s awareness-emptiness. This raises the question whether a yogin who works with direct valid cognition needs the inferential analysis of the second dharmacakra as a basis, as claimed, for example in Kamalaśīla’s commentary on the Heart Sūtra,52 or whether one can start with direct cognitions right from the beginning. In his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, *Sahajavajra explains engaged bodhi­ citta, on the basis of which the yathābhūtasamādhi for the realization of the luminous nature of phenomena is cultivated – first in line with Kama­ laśīla’s Bhāvanākrama, but then pointing out an important difference in the Tattvadaśaka: Here, in this regard, the distinctions made with respect to engaged [bodhi] citta within the tradition of Pāramitā[naya] are presented both concisely and at length in the Bhāvanā­krama and other works of Kamalaśīla. One should look them up there; they are not written here for reasons of space. No such engaged [bodhi]citta is intended here [in the Tattva­daśaka, however,] since whereas in the [Bhāvanā­krama] it is [only] pure in virtue of having been produced on the basis of ana­ly­sis, here [in the Tattva­daśaka] meditation is [performed] with non-analy­ ­ti­cal [bodhi]citta right from the beginning.53

52 phnṬ (P 332a8–b1; missing in D): “Yogins [see emptiness with] direct perception because they have already trained in [inferential understanding] and because they have no need to train in it [further]. One should train in the ultimate with inferential knowledge. Here, it is inferential knowledge that will ascertain the perfection of insight, which is the illusion-like emptiness.” (rnal ’byor gyi mngon sum ni bslabs zin pa’i phyir dang / bslabs pa la dgos pa med pa’i phyir / don dam pa la rjes su dpag pa’i shes pas bslabs par bya’o / ’dir ni rjes su dpag pa’i shes pas sgyu ma lta bu’i stong pa nyid kyi shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa nges par bya’o /). First translated by Lopez (1996: 108), whom I mainly follow. 53 tdṬ (B 19b5–20a1, D 172b2–4, P 189a1–2): de ltar de nyid ’jug pa’i sems pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul gyia rab tu dbye ba rnamsb ka ma la shī (cla’i sgom pa’i rim pac) la sogs (dpas bsdus pa dang rgyas pa la sogsd) pa’i sgo nas bstan te / de nyid lase rtogs par bya’o / 504 klaus-dieter mathes

The corresponding passage in the Derge and Peking bsTan ’gyur requires emending sems kyi to sems kyis,54 otherwise we would have to translate: “Here one must meditate before non-analytical [bodhi]citta,” in which case the preceding meditation is either analytical, with any difference to Kamalaśīla ceasing, or non-analytical, which is meaningless.­ I thus sug- gest rejecting the reading kyi sngon du as a lectio facilior. dPal spungs (B) has the instrumental after sems, but reads mngon du instead of sngon du: “Here, too, one needs to meditate directly, without an analytical mind.” sNgon du is supported by gZhon nu dpal’s dang po nas (instead of sngon du). That non-analytical bodhicitta is not the result of Kamalaśī- la’s conceptually produced bodhicitta here, is also clear from Ti pi ’Bum la ’bar’s55 sub-commentary on this passage of the *Tattva­daśa­ka­ṭīkā: As to the non-analytical [bodhi]citta here, in the secret Mantrayāna, a non-analytical realization manifests during the fourth empowerment.56

This points to the privileged direct access to luminosity (one’s self-aware- ness) which non-analytical bodhicitta provides. As I have shown previ- ously,57 this is also considered possible for *Sahajavajra and (according to gZhon nu dpal) also Maitrīpa through Pāramitānaya pith instructions that accord with Mantranaya. To sum up gZhon nu dpal’s comparative interpretation of non-conceptual wisdom, as a remedy for clinging to characteristic signs, one either fol- lows Kamalaśīla and deconstructs any reification in a process that is based on initial inferential Madhyamaka analysis, or one observes with the help

’dirf rgyas pasg ’jigs pas ma bris so // (h’di lta bur gyur pa’ih) ’jug pa’i sems ni ’dir dgongsi pa ma yin no /’dir de dpyad (jpa las byas pasj) yongs su dag pa’i phyir ro / ’dir (kyang dpyad par med pa’i sems kyis sngonk) du bsgom par bya ba nyid do // a B gyis b P rnams ni c BDP la d P om. e BP du f B ’dir ni g P pa’i h B de lta bur i B dgos j B par bya ba k B yang dpyad par med pa’i sems kyis mngon DP dpyad pa med pa’i sems kyi sngon. First translated in Mathes 2005: 23. For a translation of the entire *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā see Brunnhölzl 2007: 141–90. 54 this reading is supported by the dPal spungs edition (B 20a1) and gZhon nu dpal (DRSM 559). 55 probably one of the seven men from dBus, who received teachings from Maitrīpa’s disciple Vajrapāṇi (see Mathes 2014: 367). 56 ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod, vol. kha, 184a3: ’di la dpyad pa med pa’i sems ni gsang sngags kyi theg pa ’di la dbang bzhi pa’i dus su ma dpyad rtogs pa ’char bas so / 57 see Mathes 2006: 202 and 209–16. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 505 of direct valid cognitions the luminous nature of everything, which means realizing one’s buddha nature or awareness element (rig pa’i khams) which is empty of reified characteristic signs. This awareness-emptiness is the supreme Madhyamaka of Maitrīpa for gZhon nu dpal. The non-­ conceptual approach is thus not only mental non-engagement, but also a non-conceptual luminous awareness. It should be noted that this is ­similar to Maitrīpa’s final analysis of amanasikāra as luminous self-­ empowerment in the Amanasikārādhāra.58 gZhon nu dpal’s Direct Mahāmudrā Approach

For gZhon nu dpal buddha nature’s emptiness of adventitious stains or “awareness-emptiness” is the supreme Madhyamaka of the third dhar­ macakra. This awareness cannot be grasped by relying on the inferential valid cognitions of Madhyamaka reasoning in the second dharmacakra but must be realized directly.59 A logical analysis of buddha nature serves to free it from mental fabrications and characteristic signs. How it relates to uncontrived awareness must be experienced in a direct cognition.60 As we have seen this finds doctrinal support in Maitrīpa’s experience of luminous phenomena through the yathābhūtasamādhi and *Sahajava- jra’s commentary on it. In the latter, the abandonment of characteristic signs through realizing their luminous nature is also referred to as mahāmudrā – with reference to Maitrīpa’s Sekanirdeśa and Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra. As a justification gZhon nu dpal repeatedly quotes so-called followers of pith instructions, but also Dam pa Sangs rgyas (d. 1105), a disciple of Maitrīpa61 and founder of the sDug bsngal zhi byed tradi- tion.62 There are various references to Jñānakīrti and Maitrīpa in gZhon nu dpal’s Ratnagotra­vibhāgavyākhyā (RGVV) commentary, but most note­ worthy is the one at the end of his explanation of RGVV on verse 12, which concerns the truths of cessation and the path. It draws our attention to

58 see Mathes 2015: 247. 59 see DRSM 158–12 (for an English translation see Mathes 2008: 184–85). 60 see DRSM 10114–24 (for an English translation see Mathes 2008: 355). 61 roerich 1949–53: 976–77. 62 seyfort Ruegg 1988: 13. 506 klaus-dieter mathes

Jñānakīrti’s equation of prajñāpāramitā and mahāmudrā in the context of laying out the general foundation of meditation. Asaṅga63 explains in RGVV on verse 12 that the remedy of realizing the sameness of all phenomena is indeed the cause of attaining the dharmakāya, the path of seeing and med- itation through non-conceptual wisdom. It should be known in detail in accordance with the sūtras, following the lead of the Prajñāpāramitā[sūtras].64 gZhon nu dpal explains this last part from RGVV on verse 12 on the basis of his tradition of mahāmudrā pith instructions: The followers of pith instructions mainly meditate in open air.65 As for the name of the pith instructions, the masters Jñānakīrti and Maitrīpa maintain that the yoga in terms of prajñā­pāramitā is a meditation called mahāmudrā. In Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra it has been said:66 Now meditation will be taught. It is as follows: One meditates on what is explained by a guru, Who does not turn against his own words, Does not contradict valid cognition or scripture, And who is engaged in the meditation on the meaning of this. “Meditation” refers here to the practice of the topics taught by gurus, who do not turn against their own words, who do not contradict valid cognition or scripture, and are well connected with the Buddha’s teach- ing. There are common and uncommon [forms of meditation]. Here, the meditation of mahāmudrā union is common to all yogins, because everything perfect arises from it.67

63 i am following here the Tibetan tradition in ascribing the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (RGVV) to Asaṅga. 64 rGVV 1319–20: sa khalv eṣa dharmakāyaprāptihetur avikalpajñānadarśana­bhā­va­ nā­mārgo vistareṇa yathā­sūtraṃ prajñāpāramitānusāreṇānugantavyaḥ / 65 drsm 13624–26: “There are two ways of cultivating insight: the meditation that all phenomena, which are the objects, lack an own-being is the yoga of the sky; and the meditation that the subject lacks an own being is the yoga in open air (abhyavakāśa).” (shes rab sgom pa nyid la yang yul gyi chos thams cad rang bzhin med par sgom pa nam mkha’i rnal ’byor dang / yul can rang bzhin med par sgom pa bla gab med pa’i rnal ’byor rnam pa gnyis yod de /) 66 drsm 1374–7: de la man ngag pa dag gis ni bla gab med pa gtso bor sgom pa la / man ngag gi ming yang slob dpon ye shes grags pa dang mai trī zhabs kyis shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i rnal ’byor phyag rgya chen po’i ming can sgom par bzhed pa yin te / ye shes grags pa’i de kho nan yid la ’jugs pa’i ’grel par … 67 drsm 1377–11: da ni sgom pa bstan par bya ste // de yang / rang gi tshig dang tshad ma dang / lung dang gang zhig mi ’gal ba // de’i don sgom pa la spyod pa’i // bla mas ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 507

[Further down in the same chapter of the Tattvāvatāra] it has been said: These fruits are therefore entirely perfected through the cultivation of the non-dual yoga [characterized by] mahāmudrā. In the Āryapra­ jñāpāramitā[sūtra] it has been said: Even those who wish to learn on the śrāvaka levels must study pra­ jñāpāramitā … [and] must attain the yoga in terms of prajñā­pāra­mitā. The same has been said in detail regarding the pratyekabuddha levels and the bodhisattva68 levels. Another name for the Noble [Mother] Prajñāpāramitā is mahāmudrā, because she has non-dual wisdom as her nature.69 [gZhon nu dpal continues:] Following the author of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and what is mainly expressed in pith instructions, it is maintained that the noble master [Maitrīpa] summarized Pāramitā­[naya] pith instructions which accord with Mantra[naya]. They mainly conform with the stages of under- standing the meaning of non-abiding (Tib. rab tu mi gnas pa, Skt. aprati­ ṣṭhāna), [a doctrine] well known in Pramāṇa, Madhyamaka and authorita- tive scriptures (āgama).70 For this reason “attainment” is the subject matter bshad pa sgom pa yin // sgom pa zhes bya ba ni rang gi tshig dang tshad ma dang mi ’gal ba // gsung rab dang rab tu ’brel ba // bla ma rnams kyis rab tu bstan pa’i dngos po nyams su blang ba yin no // de yang thun mong dang de las cig shos so // de la phyag rgya chen po mnyam par sbyor ba sgom pa ni / rnal ’byor pa thams cad kyi thun mong ste / gang gi phyir de las phun tshogs pa thams cad ’byung ba yin no // zhes dang / This corresponds to TA (B 7325–7331). The quotation is from the beginning of the third chapter, called “Thun mong bstan pa” (TA (B 7325–7381)). 68 drsm and TA: “Buddha level.” The translation follows the SBhS (which also accords with the Aṣṭasahā­srikā­ Prajñāpāramitāsūtra) 69 drsm 13711–16: de lta bas na ’bras bu ’di dag thams cad kyang phyag rgya chen po gnyis su med pa’i sbyor ba bsgoms pa de nyid kyis rdzogs par ’gyur te / ji skad du / ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa las / nyon thos kyi sa la slob par ’dod pas kyang shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’di nyid la mnyan par bya zhes bya ba nas / shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’di nyid la rnal ’byor du bya’o zhes bya ba dang / de bzhin du rang sangs rgyas kyi sa la yang zhes bya ba nas / sangs rgyas kyi sa la yang zhes bya ba la sogs pa’i bar du rgya cher gsungs pa yin la / yum shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’di nyid kyi mtshan gzhan ni phyag rgya chen po ste / de ni gnyis su med pa’i ye shes kyi ngo bo nyid yin pa’i phyir ro // zhes gsungs la / This corresponds to TA 7341–4 and SBhS 3887–15: tac caitat sakalam api phalaṃ mahāmudrādvayayoga­bhāvanaiva paraṃ sampadyate / yathoktam ārya-Prajñā­pāramitāyāṃ (sic) / śrāvakabhūmāv api śikṣitukāmeneyam eva prajñāpāramitā śrotavyā … yāvad … ihaiva pra­jñā­pā­ramitāyāṃ yogam āptavavyaṃ / tathā pratyeka­ buddha­bhūmāv api … yāvad … bodhisattva­bhūmāv apītyādi vistaraḥ / prajñāpāramitaiva bhagavatī mahāmudrā ’paranāmnī tasyā advaya­jñāna­svabhāvatvād … 70 see TDṬ (B 1b4–2a2, D 161a2, P 176a4–5): … tshad ma dang / dbu ma dang / lung (arnams gis ’dir rab tu mi gnas pa’ia) don la ’jug pa’i rim pa rgyas par (bbstan nasb) (cgsang 508 klaus-dieter mathes

of the treatise. Another name for that which must be attained by them, i.e., that which has true reality as its nature, is prajñā­pā­ramitā. This is because [Maitrīpa] said [in his Sekanirdeśa, verse 36]:

He who does not abide in the domain of the remedy Is not attached to true reality, And who does not even desire the fruit Knows71 mahāmudrā. (SN 36) [Sahajavajra] said [immediately after this quotation]:

Mahāmudrā refers here to mahāmudrā pith instructions. Thus the term mahāmudrā was used for pith instructions.72

To go by the introductory remark of this quotation, the followers of mahāmudrā pith instructions concentrate on the emptiness of the mind (lit. “the subject”), a task easier to master on the initial levels of the path.73 Jñānakīrti’s “yoga in terms of prajñāpāramitā” is gZhon nu dpal’s realization of awareness-emptiness (i.e., buddha nature) through direct valid cognition. gZhon nu dpal calls it mahāmudrā meditation, and indeed Jñānakīrti explains in his Tattvāvatāra at the beginning of the third chapter, which is called “Common Teaching” (thun mongs bstan pa), ngags kyi tshul dangc) rjes su mthund pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’ie man ngag mdor bsdus (fpa byed par ’dod pasf) / … a DP gi grub pa’i b P nye bar rtogs pas c DP sngags kyi d P ’thun e B pa dag gi f D par mdzad par bzhed nas 71 the Sanskrit has “finds” SN( 38810). 72 drsm 13716–23: de kho na nyid bcu pa’i ’grel par mdzad pa po dang gdams ngag gi che ba brjod pa’i dbang du mdzad nas / de la ’dir bcom ldan ’das slob dpon ’di ni tshad ma dang dbu ma dang lung las grags pa’i rab tu mi gnas pa’i don la ’jug pa’i rim pas ’thad pa rgya chen pos sngags dang rjes su mthun pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag mdor bsdus pa mdzad par bzhed pas sgrub par byed pa rab tu byed pa’i brjod par bya ba yin pa nyid kyis bgrub par bya ba de kho na nyid kyi bdag nyid can ming gzhan shes rab kyi phal rol tu phyin pa ste // zhes dang / gnyen po’i phyogs la mi gnas shing // de nyid la yang chags min gang // gang gis ’bras bu mi ’dod pa // de yis phyag rgya chen po shes / zhes gsungs pa’i phyir ro // ’dir yang phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba ni phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag ste // zhes man ngag la yang phyag rgya chen po’i ming du mdzad do / 73 this is at least what gZhon nu dpal claims in his Ratnagotravibhāga commentary (see above). Thrangu , too, explained that direct visions of the nature of mind, and thus emptiness, are possible to experience well below the path of seeing or the first bodhisattva level. The scope of this direct vision is restricted to the emptiness of one’s own mind. Personal communication (August 2003), as already reported in Mathes 2006: 203. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 509 that the meditation of mahāmudrā union74 is common to all yogins. This must be seen in the context that the Tattvāva­tāra is structured around the distinction between three approaches to reality, namely those of the Man- tranaya, Pāramitānaya, and “the path of freeing oneself from attachment” (i.e., Śrāvakayāna). Each of these three has again three distinct forms, for adepts with sharp, average, and inferior capacities. As also stated in the Blue Annals, in a response to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s critique of non-tantric mahāmudrā Jñānakīrti indeed maintains that advanced Pāramitānaya practitioners of śamatha and vipaśyanā are already in possession of mahāmudrā even at an initial stage.75 On top of that Jñānakīrti quotes the Pra­jñā­pā­ramitā statement that even śrāvakas must train in the “yoga in terms of prajñāpāramitā.” Given that Jñānakīrti stresses in this context that mahāmudrā is another name for the Mother Prajñāpāramitā, gZhon nu dpal’s equation of “yoga in terms of prajñāpāramitā” with mahā­ mudrā meditation is not at all farfetched. The Tattvāvatāra must have been known to *Sahajavajra, inasmuch as he quotes in his *Tattvadaśa­ ka­ṭīkā the famous verse on mahāmudrā union cited in footnote 74. In short, gZhon nu dpal derives from *Sahajavajra’s remark after Seka­ nirdeśa, verse 36 (“mahāmudrā refers to mahāmudrā pith instructions”), that Pāramitānaya pith instructions that accord with Mantranaya (i.e., Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka) are mahāmudrā pith instructions. It should be noted, however, that the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā in the bsTan ’gyur reads “pith instructions on the reality of mahāmudrā.”76 Immediately after the quotes

74 at the beginning of the fourth chapter, which is on Mantranaya for those of superior faculties, Jñānakīrti quotes from the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (SBhS), which nicely explains the term mahāmudrā union: “For the outstanding yogins the union of insight and means is simply meditation. Mahā­mudrā union is what the victorious ones call meditation.” (TA (B 327b2–3): thabs dang shes rab mnyam sbyor ba’i // bsgom pa nyid rnal ’byor mchog gi (em., B gis) ni // phyag rgya chen po’i (em., B por) mnyam sbyor ba // sgom par rgyal ba rnams kyis gsungs /. This verse is also contained in the SBhS, part 1, 3978–9: prajñopāya­ samāyoga­bhāvanaivā­grayogināṃ / mahā­mudrā­samāyogo* bhāvanā bhaṇyate jinaiḥ //). * Bendall reads -yoga-. In both sources (the Tattvāva­tāra describes prajñā in this verse on the basis of the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha) prajñā is described as being free from any mental fabrication. Jñānakīrti, however, does not have the clearly tantric description of upāya in the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha, diverging from it in favour of the more general Mahāyāna sense of the threefold compassion. 75 see footnote 5, above. 76 mathes 2008: 434–35. 510 klaus-dieter mathes from the Tattvāva­tāra and the *Tattva­daśakaṭīkā, gZhon nu dpal gives a sample of these pith instructions: The practitioners of the mahāmudrā pith instructions deriving from Maitrīpa say that when one abides in that which is not anything, being free from [unnecessary] thinking about the past, present and future, a thought that distracts one from this may arise. In this case, one gazes at it without getting agitated about what exactly has arisen. This very gazing is a thorough searching of how [the mind operates] with regard to that thought. Thus it is said. Even though all other thoughts become completely pacified in this way, one must [continue to] meditate. The mind meditates and a subtle thought of abiding arises. When one gazes [with] naked [awareness] also at this, this subtle thought too ceases and a mind arises that is like space in being free from middle and extremes. And this is called the [mahā­mudrā] yoga of one-pointedness. Nāgārjuna has said [in his Bodhicittavivaraṇa, verse 51]:

The defining characteristics of abiding in [a state of] mind Without apprehension are those of space. I assert that whoever meditates on space Meditates on emptiness. Having realized that the forms of the objects of all thoughts wandering about as the objects of the external [world] are false, the subject melts into the sphere of this very same mind, which is like space. When one sees this, [neither] the [false] imagining, which is the cause of the defilements, [nor] the focus of this [false] imagining is seen as something at all permanent, joyful or the like. Such a yoga must be practiced, once it is seen in this way. It is as stated in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra [lines X.256ab]:

Once one relies on the [notion of] mind only, external objects are not imagined.77

77 drsm 13723–1387: / de ltar rje btsun mai trī pa las byung ba’i phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag rjes su spyod pa rnams kyis dus gsum gyi yid la byed pa dang bral ba’i ci yang ma yin pa nyid la gnas pa na de las g.yengs pa’i rnam par rtog pa byung ba na gang dang gang byung ba de nyid la g.yo med du lta bar byed de / de ltar lta ba de nyid ni rtog pa de la ji ltar yongs su btsal ba zhes bya’o // de lta bus rnam par rtog pa gzhan thams cad nye bar zhi yang bsgom par bya zhig sems kyis sgom zhing gnas so snyam pa’i rnam par rtog pa phra mo ’byung ba de la yang gcer re bltas pa na rtog pa phra mo de yang ’gags te nam mkha’ mtha’ dbus dang bral ba ji ’dra ba’i sems skye bar ’gyur ba de la rtse gcig gi rnal ’byor zhes brjod la / slob dpon klu sgrub kyis kyang / dmigs pa med pa’i sems su ni // gnas pa nam mkha’i mtshan nyid de // gang zhig nam mkha’ sgom pa ni // stong nyid sgom par bzhed pa yin // zhes gsungs pa yin no // de lta bu’i tshe rnam par rtog pa ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 511

This points to a further aspect of gZhon nu dpal’s mahāmudrā, namely the reading of the four mahāmudrā yogas into the fourfold Mahāyāna meditation (i.e., the four prayogas). In support of gZhon nu dpal it should be noted here that in his description of the Pāramitānaya, Jñānakīrti links the traditional fourfold Mahāyāna meditation with mahāmudrā by equat- ing the goal “Mahāyāna” in Laṅkāvatā­ra­sūtra X.257d with mahā­mudrā.78

Conclusion

As already elaborated in my habilitation thesis (Mathes 2008), gZhon nu dpal uses his commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga to show that this and other Maitreya works, such as the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga, provide a solid doctrinal basis for mahāmudrā. In doing so he stresses the gradual aspect of the four mahāmudrā yogas, which he reads – in accordance with Dam pa Sangs rgyas, rGod tshang pa (1189–1258), or simply “fol- lowers of pith instructions” – into various parts of the Ratnagotravi­ bhāga, and also into the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. He emphasizes more the direct, non-conceptual approach than, for example, Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal, who stresses in his Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer the importance of initial conceptual investigation in line with Kamalaśīla.79 By contrast, gZhon nu dpal differentiates Kamalaśīla’s approach which takes “concep- tual insight” (so sor rtog pa’i shes rab) as a prerequisite from that of

phyi rol gyi yul la rgyug pa thams cad gyi yul gyi rnam pa de brdzun par rtogs shing // yul can nam mkha’ dang ’dra ba’i sems de nyid kyi rang du thim zhing ’gro ba mthong ba na nyon mongs de dag gi rgyu mtshan du gyur pa’i kun tu rtog pa dang / kun rtog de’i dmigs pa rtag pa dang bde ba sogs ’ga’ yang mi mthong bar de ltar blta ba yin pas de lta bu’i rnal ’byor nyams su blang bar bya’o / de la ni lang kar gshegs pa las / sems tsam la ni brten nas su // phyi rol don du mi brtag go / zhes gsungs pa de yin no / First translated in Mathes 2008: 393–94. 78 see Mathes 2005: 16–19. 79 interestingly, this is point is made most clearly when bKra shis rnam rgyal (Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer, 15310–12) works out differences between his understanding of mahāmudrā and the Chan position of Hwa shang Mo he yan: “[My mahāmudrā differs from Hwa shang] for the following reason: In meditation he does not employ any concep- tual analysis, but here for purposes of meditation one needs conceptual analysis based on the insight provided by suitable thorough investigation.” (hwa shang ni sgom la rtog dpyod ci yang mi byed la / ’dir ni ci rigs par so sor rtog pa’i shes rab kyis sgom don la rtog cing dpyod dgos pa’i phyir /). First translated by Lhalungpa 2006: 107. 512 klaus-dieter mathes

Maitrīpa and *Sahajavajra which does not.80 gZhon nu dpal also endorses Zhang Tshal pa brTson ’grus’s subitist approach (“mahāmudrā is attained in one go”), with the restriction, however, that as one traverses the path with the same vision of directly seeing the luminous nature of mind, one’s buddha qualities still have to grow. As a consequence of Sa skya Paṇḍita’s critique, gZhon nu dpal is much more careful when quoting and interpreting Indian canonical sources than was sGam po pa.81 As we have seen above, the non-conceptual approach of the followers of pith instructions, which starts by investi- gating one’s mind with the help of direct valid cognitions, can indeed be found in the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, where the yathābhūtasamādhi is said to be attained through non-analytical bodhicitta. Still, in his commentary on Tattvadaśaka, verse 7, *Sahajavajra adds the clarification that mental non-engagement “refers to the very non-observation of a nature of enti- ties, be it through analysis or the guru’s pith instructions.”82 This, one could argue, acknowledges the analytical approach as a viable alternative to the guru’s direct introduction. According to the contemporary Karma Bka’ brgyud master Thrangu Rinpoche, however, it is possible during vipaśyanā to ascertain phenomena (such as mental events) as being nei- ther one nor many by investigating their colour, shape etc. with the help of direct cognitions of one’s introverted mental consciousness.83 gZhon nu dpal’s interpretation of positive descriptions of the ultimate as expe- riential characterizations of a realization based on such direct cognitions finds support in the Maitrīpa works. In the Pañcatathāgata­mudrā­ vivaraṇa, for example, we are informed that a Madhya­maka tenet becomes supreme when based on self-awareness. It should be noted that Maitrīpa’s allegiance to apratiṣṭhāna ensures that this self-awareness is

80 see DRSM 1144–12 above. 81 see Kapstein (2000: 77) who argues in line with Jackson “that it is unlikely that sGam po pa and his cohorts were deriving such quotations (i.e., from the Vajrasamā­ dhisūtra, etc.) from the cited, rather they were culling them from pre-existing meditation manuals, texts like PT (Pelliot Tibétain) 116…” Kapstein further observes (2000: 75), that Chan teachings kept flourishing inE astern Tibet after the bSam yas debate in a less radical form. 82 brunnhölzl 2007: 177–78. 83 thrangu Rinpoche, personal communication (August 2003). First reported in Mathes 2006: 218. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 513 not regarded by Maitrīpa as a real entity. Awareness does not share any privileged status for him. It is, like anything else, dependent arising.84 While the more analytical teachings of the second dharmacakra remain supreme in defining Maitrīpa’s philosophical view, gZhon nu dpal’s her- meneutics denies them such a status, and he insists that the final three bodhisattva levels can be only reached after embracing the third dharmacakra. To conclude, gZhon nu dpal’s distinction between analytical and non- con­ceptual approaches offers a compelling justification of a mahāmu­drā tradition that has Indian antecedents, both doctrinally and also in terms of transmission. Still, gZhon nu dpal’s mahāmudrā bears an unmistakable affinity with the simultaneist Chinese position of the bSam yas debate. His writing thus undermines the widespread attempt to use this formative debate in Tibet85 to discredit Chinese Chan and Tibetan Zen Buddhism as traditions lacking authentic Indian sources.

Bibliography Primary Sources (Indian)

APDh Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī. Ed. by Kazunobu Matsuda. See Matsuda 1996: 93–99. APDhṬ Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇīṭīkā (Tibetan translation). ––– d: Derge bsTan ’gyur, Tōhoku catalogue no. 4000, mdo ’grel, vol. ji, fols. 123a3–145b5. ––– p: Peking bsTan ’gyur, Suzuki catalogue no. 3099, rgyud ’grel, vol. mi, fols. 176a2–195a3. TA Tattvāvatāra (Tibetan translation). ––– b: dPal spungs block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung, vol. hūṃ, 320b5–377a3. ––– d: Derge bsTan ’gyur, Tōhoku catalogue no. 3709, rgyud, vol. tsu, 39a2–76a4. ––– p: Peking bsTan ’gyur, Suzuki catalogue no. 4532, rgyud ’grel, vol. nu, 42b1–84b2. TD Tattvadaśaka. See Mathes 2015: 485–88. TDṬ *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā (Tibetan translation).

84 mathes 2015: 99–100. 85 Van Schaik 2015: 15. 514 klaus-dieter mathes

––– b: dPal spungs block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung, vol. ā, 1a1–27a6. ––– d: Derge bsTan ’gyur, Tōhoku catalogue no. 2254, rgyud, vol. wi, 160b7–177a7. ––– p: Peking bsTan ’gyur, Suzuki catalogue no. 3099, rgyud ’grel, vol. mi, 176a2–195a3. DhDhV Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (Tibetan translation). Ed. by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. See Mathes 1996: 61–68. DhDhVV Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti (Tibetan translation). Ed. by Klaus-­ Dieter Mathes. See Mathes 1996: 69–98. PHNṬ Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayanāmaṭīkā (by Kamalaśīla). ––– d: Derge bsTan ’gyur, missing ––– p: Peking bsTan ’gyur, Suzuki catalogue no. 5221, mdo ’grel, vol. ma, 330b6–333a6 BCA Bodhicaryāvatāra. Ed. by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Bibliotheca Indica, 280. Kalkota: Asiatic Society Calcutta, 1960. BV Bodhicittavivaraṇa (Tibetan translation). See Lindtner [1982] 1987: 184–216. MVY Mahāvyutpatti. ––– Honyaku Myōgi Taishū. 1.2. Kyoto: Kyōto Teikoku Daigaku Bubka Daigaku Soshō. ––– See Nishio 1936. RGV Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. Ed. by Edward H. Johnston. Patna: The Bihar Research Society, 1950. (Includes the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā). RGVV Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā. See RGV. LAS Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio. Bibliotheca Otaniensis, 1. Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1923. SN Sekanirdeśa. See Mathes 2015: 385–88. SBhS Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Parts 1 and 2). Ed. by Cecil Bendall. In Le Muséon 4 (1903), 375–402 (Part 1); Le Muséon 4.4 (1903), 7–46 (Part 2).

Primary Sources (Tibetan)

Kun dga’ rin chen (?), ed. ’Phags yul bka’ brgyud grub chen gong ma’i do ha’i skor bzhugs so (’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod, vol. kha). No place, no date. rGyal tshab rje Darma rin chen. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i ṭīka (sic). In The Collected Works (gsung ’bum) of the Lord Rgyal tshab rje Dar ma rin chen. 8 vols. New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Guru , 1982: vol. 3, 3–4613. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal. Deb ther sngon po. Reproduced by Lokesh Chan- dra. Śata-Piṭaka Series, 212. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1974. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 515

––– Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long. Ed. by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Nepal Research Centre Publications, 24. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003. sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen. Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs. In Khams gsum chos kyi rgyal po dpal mnyam med sgam po pa ’gro mgon bsod nams rin chen mchog gi gsung ’bum yid bzhin nor bu. Vol. ka, 505–75. Published by Ven. Khenpo Shedrup Tenzin & Lama Thinley Namgyal. Delhi: Sherab Gyaltsen, 2000. Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal. Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer. : Vajra Vidya Institute Library, 2005. DRSM. See ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long. ’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod. See Kun dga’ rin chen. Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes (the Fourth ). gZhon nu dpal gyi rnam thar: dPal ldan bla ma dam pa mkhan chen thams cad mkhyen pa don gyi slad du mtshan nas smos te gzhon nu dpal gyi rnam par thar pa / yon tan rin po che mchog tu rgyas pa’i ljon pa. 74 fols., dbu can, unpublished.

References Brunnhölzl, Karl. 2007. Straight from the Heart: Buddhist Pith Instructions­ . ­Ithaca/New York/Boulder, Colorado: Snow Lion Publications. Cabezón, José Ignacio and Lobsang Dargyay. 2006. Freedom from Extremes: ’s “Distinguishing the Views” and the Polemics of Emptiness. ­Boston: Wisdom Publications. Dayal, Har. 1932. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. London: Kegan Paul/Trench/Trübner & Co. Higgins, David and Martina Draszczyk. 2016. “Mahāmudrā and the .” Post-Classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha­ - nature. WSTB, 90. Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Hong, Luo. Forthcoming. Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa. Jackson, David. 1990.“Sa skya Paṇḍita the ‘Polemicist:’ Ancient Debates and Modern Interpretations.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 13(2): 17–116. –––. 1994. Enlightenment by a Single Means. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kapstein, T. Matthew. 2000. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. 2007. The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philo­ sophical and Meditative Teaching of . Leiden/Boston: Brill. 516 klaus-dieter mathes

Lhalungpa, Lobsang P. [1986] 2006. Mahāmudrā – The Moonlight – : Quintes­ sence of Mind and Meditation. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Lindtner, Christian. [1982] 1987. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and ­Philosophy of Nāgārjuna. Buddhist Tradition Series, 2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lopez, Donald S., Jr. 1996. Elaborations on Emptiness. Uses of the Heart Sūtra. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Martin, Dan. 1992. “A Twelfth-century Tibetan Classic of Mahāmudrā, The Path of Ultimate Profundity: The Great Seal Instructions of Zhang.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15(2): 243–319. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 1996. Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen (Dharmadharmatā­vibhāga). Indica et Tibetica, 26. Swisttal- Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag. –––. 2005. “’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Commentary on the Dharmatā Chapter of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakārikās.” Studies in Indian Philos­ ophy and Buddhism, University of Tokyo 12: 3–39. –––. 2006. “Blending the Sūtras with the : The Influence of Maitrīpa and his Circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Schools.” In Ronald M. Davidson and Christian K. Wedemeyer, eds., Tibetan Bud­ dhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period 900–1400. Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, Oxford 2003, vol. 10/4. Leiden: Brill: 201–227. –––. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa’s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Bud- dhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications. –––. 2009 (2010). “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (‘A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged’).” Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 13: 5–32. –––. 2014. “A Summary and Topical Outline of the Sekanirdeśapañjikā by ’Bum la ’bar.” In Harunaga Issacson and Francesco Sferra, eds., The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproductions of the MSS. Manuscripta Buddhica, 2. Naples: Univer- sità degli Studi Napoli “L’Orientale.” 367–84. –––. 2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Öster­ reichische Akademie der Wissen­schaften. Matsuda, Kazunobu. 1996. “Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation.” Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyo University 3(March): 89–113. Mejor, Marek. 2002. “On the sevenfold classification of the negative particle (nañ).” Early Buddhism and Thought. In Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten: 87–100. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Approaches 517

Negi, J.S. 1993–2005. Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. Sarnath: Dictionary Unit. Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Nishio, Kyōo. 1936. A Tibetan Index to the Mahāvyutpatti. Kyoto: Butten Kenkyū. Rhoton, Jared D. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems. SUNY series in Buddhist Studies. Albany, New York: SUNY. Roerich, George N. 1949–53. The Blue Annals. 2 vols. Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Mono­graph Series, 7. Kalkota: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1969. La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra: Études sur la Sotériologie et la Gnoséo­logie du Bouddhisme. Publi­cations de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 70. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient. –––. 1988. “A Kar ma bKa’ brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditions of the Indo-Tibetan dBu ma (Madhyamaka).” In G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti, eds, Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Dedicata. Rome Oriental Series, 56,3. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente: 1249–80 (= [1–32]). Van Schaik, Sam. 2015. Tibetan Zen: Discovering a Lost Tradition. Boston: Snow Lion.

Abstract

For ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, analytical and direct approaches to ultimate reality are taught in the second and third turnings of the “wheel of dharma” (dharmacakras) respectively. Ultimate reality is thus either determined through logical investigation which culminates in “freedom from mental fabrications” (niṣprapañca) or experienced directly through non-conceptual types of insight. The latter practice plays a crucial role in the cultivation of non-conceptual wisdom, which is taken as the cause of fundamental transformation (āśrayaparivṛtti) according to the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti. Based on Sahajavajra’s (11th century) *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, gZhon nu dpal explains that all characteristic signs (nimittas), i.e., reifications that distort true reality are aban- doned through it by directly realizing their natural luminosity which amounts to a direct or non-conceptual experience of their true nature. To be sure, while the usual Mahāyāna approach involves an initial analysis of the nimittas, namely, an analytic meditation which eventually turns into non-conceptual abiding in the same way as a fire kindled from rubbing pieces of wood burns the pieces of wood themselves (gZhon nu dpal explains this on the basis of Kamalaśīla’s commentary on the Avikalpapraveśa­dhāraṇī), mahāmudrā pith-instructions emphasize a meditation of direct perceptions right from the beginning. In view of the fact that such direct perceptions of true reality usually start from the first bodhisattva-level onwards, gZhon nu dpal points out that 518 klaus-dieter mathes this is already possible on the preliminary bodhisattva-levels of the “path of preparation”. Although his direct approach is close to the Chinese position as presented in accounts of the bSam yas debate, it is legitimized on the basis of Indian masters such as Jñānakīrti and Maitrīpa (986–1063).