(And Tantric?) Approaches of the Rim Gyis 'Jug
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Sudden and Gradual Sū tric (and Tantric?) Approaches of the RiM GYis ’jUG Pa’i bsGOM DON aND CiG car ’jUG Pa rNaM Par Mi rTOG Pa’i bsGOM DON JOEL GRUbER According to the dates provided by the Great History of the Rdzogs chen snying thig (Rdzogs pa chen po snying thig gyi lo rgyus chen mo; hereafter Great History), the renowned saint named Vimalamitra was born in India around the latter half of the fifth century. We are told that he spent a majority of his early years studying Buddhism with some of the most esteemed Indian scholars of his generation, until his studies were interrupted by a visit from the bodhisattva Vajrasattva, who encour- aged Vimalamitra to cease practicing exoteric teachings in order to pur- sue a tantric education in China. After two decades of training with the elusive Śrī Siṃha in China, Vimalamitra returned to his homeland to meditate in India’s sacred charnel grounds. Over two hundred years later, word of Vimalamitra’s tantric proficiency reached the Tibetan king, Khri Srong lde brtsan (Trisong Detsen), who invited the Indian saint to assist with the dissemination of Buddhism throughout the Land of Snows. Though Vimalamitra was purportedly three hundred years of age when he journeyed across the Himalayas, his yogic powers were far from diminished. Shortly after departing India, rumors spread to the Tibetan court that Vimalamitra was a necromantic sorcerer rather than a Buddhist saint. Upon his arrival, Tibetan ministers questioned Vimalamitra’s saintly credentials, prompting the tantric master to disintegrate Tibet’s prized statue of Vairocana through the power of a single prostration. When Vimalamitra then transformed the pile of ashes that remained into a new statue more exquisite than the original, Khri Srong lde brtsan’s doubts regarding Vimalamitra’s allegiance to Buddhism were dispelled. The king asked Vimalamitra to remain in Tibet to translate, teach, and compose texts on a vast array of Buddhist topics. After more than a decade in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 39 • 2016 • 405–427 • doi: 10.2143/JIABS.39.0.3200532 406 jOEL gRUbER Land of Snows, Vimalamitra decided his work in Tibet was complete, but, before departing, he vowed to return every century (as an emanation) to ensure the continued success of the Rdzogs chen Snying thig tantric lineage he transmitted to his Tibetan students. Not long after, the Indian saint returned to China. For the past fifty years, scholars, skeptics, and non-believers alike have been quick to dismiss the veracity of claims regarding Vimalami- tra’s more miraculous achievements, particularly those related to the tāntrika’s ability to live hundreds of years, turn statues into ash, and transform those ashes into objects of worship more beautiful than the originals. But, to an audience living within a medieval tantric universe governed by a widespread belief in the efficacy of Buddhist tantric magic rather than by post-modern, secular-scientific ideals, tantric saints were expected to live beyond the average lifespan of mere mortals, and they were expected to perform incredible feats otherwise unachievable by the ordinary human. In fact, it was these deeds that differentiated them from the average person. It is impossible to know for certain, but the Tibetan audiences who heard stories of Buddhist saints would likely have found a far more mun- dane act, such as Vimalamitra’s journey to China to study advanced Bud- dhist teachings, more difficult to believe than a narrative detailing his tantric achievements. As far as I am aware, there is no other instance in which an Indian Buddhist departs the birthplace of the Dharma in order to study more efficacious Buddhist meditative techniques inC hina. Quite simply, Indian tāntrikas did not travel to China to study teachings more advanced than those in India. In addition to the surprising claim that Vimalamitra was trained in China, the Indian saint is said to have composed two texts in support of each of the two opposing sides involved in the Sino-Indian Bsam yas debate allegedly hosted and adjudicated by the Tibetan emperor Khri Srong lde brtsan in the eighth century. At first glance, the The Meaning of Non-Conceptual Meditation According to the System of the Sudden Approach (Cig car ’jug pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i bsgom don, hereafter Sudden Approach) appears to outline the efficacy of the Chinese sudden path to liberation, and the The Meaning of the Gradual Approach to Meditation (Rim gyis ’jug pa’i bsgom don, hereafter Gradual Approach) The Sudden and Gradual Sū tric Approaches 407 sets forth an argument for the supremacy of the Indian gradualist approach to Buddhist training. Despite the purported Indian victory over the Chinese at Bsam yas, these texts seemingly present both approaches as being equally valid. A number of scholars have written about Vimalamitra’s association with China and his links to the Sudden Approach.1 Despite the numerous Tibetan spiritual biographies claiming that Vimalamitra was trained in India, never in China, previous studies have neither adequately accounted for these claims nor considered, in-depth, the numerous additional issues of historicity concerning the saint’s most rudimentary biographical details.2 Furthermore, past studies have far too often been limited to a comparison with other sūtric texts, excluding a comparison with the doz- ens of tantric works also ascribed to Vimalamitra. By widening the scope of analysis to account for the contradictory biographical details among Vimalamitra’s early hagiographies, as well as the numerous authorial issues surrounding the dozens of tantric texts attributed to him, this article sifts through a more robust body of evi- dence to re-examine previous conclusions regarding Vimalamitra’s links with China, as well as his role in composing, compiling, or dictating the Sudden Approach. 1 Demiéville 1952: 41-42; Tucci 1958: 45–48; Satoru 1976: 8–10; Gómez 1981; Gómez, 1987: 96–98; Akahane 2004. 2 For example, Nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer’s (1124–1192) Copper Temple (Zangs gling ma) claims that Vimalamitra was trained in India, not China. It also claims Vimalamitra was the grandson of Aśoka and born by virginal conception when a “white man” poured ambrosia over his mother’s head during a dream. These details are repeated in Nyang ral’s Flower Nectar: The Essence of Honey (Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud) and, later, in Klong chen pa’s Ray of Sun Clarifying the Teachings: The History of the Precious Treasures Collection (Chos ’byung rin po che’i gter mdzod bstan pa gsal bar byed pa’i nyi’od). In contrast, the Great History claims that Vimalamitra was trained in China and born to two parents. Some sources claim that Vimalamitra arrived during Khri Srong lde brtsan’s reign, while others claim that he arrived during the reign of Khri Gtsug lde brtsan (ca. 806–838). The confusion surrounding Vimalamitra’s basic biographical details reached its zenith when ’Gos lo tsa ba (1392–1481) claimed there were two different Vimalamitras who travelled to Tibet around the same time. See ’Gos lo tsa ba’s Blue Annals 1976: 106-108, 197, 491, 497, 591–592. 408 jOEL gRUbER 1. The Monk at Bsam yas 1.1. Despite the multiple discrepancies regarding Vimalamitra’s birthplace, early training, and visit to China, Tibetan historians frequently claim the Indian saint arrived in Tibet during the reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan. Because traditional Tibetan histories explain that the Bsam yas debate took place toward the end of Khri Srong lde brtsan’s rule, one would expect a prominent Indian saint such as Vimalamitra to be linked to the famous dispute at Bsam yas monastery. But one might not assume he would be linked to China. According to the Testament of Ba (Dba’ bzhed), an indi- vidual referred to as Gnyags Bi ma la – the Tibetan transliteration of the Sanskrit name “Vimalamitra” – sided with Hashang Mahāyāna at the Bsam yas debate.3 Interestingly, PT 4646, a Chinese manuscript from the Dun- huang caves, seemingly corroborates this claim, noting that a monk named Pimolo (Ch. P’i mo lo) – the Chinese transliteration for Vimalamitra – sided with the Chinese at the Bsam yas debate. But are both of these sources referring to the same Indian tāntrika who, according to the Great History, travelled to China to study with Śrī Siṃha? 1.2. In his seminal study of Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama, Guissepi Tucci argues that the Pimolo referenced in Chinese accounts is the same person as the Bi ma la mentioned in the Testament of Ba.4 The pioneering Tibe- tologist, Paul Demiéville (1952: 41-42) agrees that the Bi ma la of the Testament of Ba and the Pimolo referenced in the Chinese manuscript PT 4646 are likely the same person, but argues that this does not mean this person was the Indian Vimalamitra featured in the Great History. Demiéville believes the Indian scholar who travelled to Tibet at the request of Khri Srong lde brtsan would not have written the Sudden Approach because an Indian scholar would have considered the non-Indic 3 See Wangdu and Diemberger 2000: 76. 4 To read Tucci’s argument within the context of his larger work, see Tucci 1958: 115. The Sudden and Gradual Sū tric Approaches 409 Vajrasamādhisūtra (Rdo rje’i ting nge ’dzin gyi mdo) quoted twice in the Sudden Approach to be an apocryphal work.5 In response, Luis Gómez has accused Demiéville of imposing a twentieth-century scholarly set of criteria for determining which Bud- dhist texts are apocryphal upon an eighth-century Indian scholar, who in all likelihood employed a different set of criteria to make such a judgment.