Mathes, K.

A critical edition of Gö Lotsāwa Zhönu Pal's Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long.

In this paper I present some preliminary observations on 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal's (1392-1481) commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, which I am editing and evaluating as a part of my habilitation project. Three years ago I gained access to a photocopy of a 698-folio-long handwritten dbu med version of this text.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001091-QINU`"' Like the Indian vyākhyā, the commentary is divided into five chapters. Their headings are listed together with the folio numbers on a cover page, which bears the seal of the Zhva dmar pa and assigns the letter ha to the volume containing Gzhon nu dpal's commentary. It is thus reasonable to assume that the original was kept in the library of the Shamarpas in Yangpacan, probably already from the time of the famous Fourth Shamarpa Chos kyi grags pa (1453-1524), who was a disciple of Gzhon nu dpal. After the war with Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1792, Yangpacan was seized by the Gelug government and the text found its way to Drepung, where many other Kagyu texts were kept. Recently I received a photocopy of a Yangpacan block-print from Tibet with the same text on 463 folios. This could be the text described by A khu ching Shes rab rgya mtsho as having 461 folios.'"`UNIQ--ref-00001092-QINU`"' The numbering starts anew with each chapter; thus a small calculation mistake could explain the difference of two folios. (Mathes, introductory remarks, 79)

A translation and study of an important Kagyu commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga.

The collection of twenty-six texts on non-conceptual realization is the result of blending the essence and tantric mahamudra teachings of Saraha, Nagarjuna and Savaripa with a particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called 'non-abiding' (apratisthana), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. This goal is achieved by "withdrawing one's attention" (amanasikara) from anything that involves the duality of a perceived and perceiver. The result is a "luminous self-empowerment," Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikara. The collection of texts on non-conceptual realization plays a crucial role, as it constitutes, together with Naropa's teachings, the main source of bKa' brgyud lineages. The edition and translation of this collection is followed by another text attributed to Maitripa, the *Mahamudrakanakamala, which was translated by Mar pa Lo tsa ba Chos kyi blo gros (11th century) into Tibetan. The *Mahamudrakanakamala picks up on the themes of the collection and shows that all aspects of Maitripa's mahamudra were indeed passed on to early bKa' brgyud masters. Besides an English translation and analysis, the present publication contains a new edition of the available Sanskrit on the basis of the editio princeps by Haraprasad Shastri, the edition of the Studying Group of Sacred Tantric Texts at Taisho University, the Nepalese manuscript NGMPP B 22/24, and the manuscript no. 151 from the Todai University Library. The Tibetan edition of all texts is based on the Derge and Peking bsTan 'gyur and the dPal spungs edition of Karmapa VII Chos grags rgya mtsho's (1454-1506) Collection of Indian Mahamudra Works (Phyag rgya chen po'i rgya gzhung). (Source Accessed Feb 11, 2020)

By the time Tibetans inherited Indian Buddhism, it had already witnessed two major doctrinal developments, namely, the notion elucidated in the "Discourses on the Perfection of Insight" (Prajñāpāramitāsūtras) that all factors of existence (dharmas) lack an own-being (emptiness), and the Yogācāra interpretation of this emptiness based on the imagined (parikalpita-), dependent (paratantra-) and perfect natures (pariniṣpannasvabhāva). Closely related to this threefold distinction was the Tathāgatagarbha restriction of emptiness to adventitious stains that cover an ultimate nature, that of buddha-qualities. Throughout Tibetan intellectual history it has been a controversial issue whether these teachings require a distinction between two modes of emptiness: being "empty of an own-being" (rang stong), and "empty of other" (gzhan stong). While a follower of the rang-stong view insists that everything (and that includes the Buddha and his qualities) shares the same mode of emptiness (i.e., the absence of an independent existence), some followers of gzhan stong claim that the ultimate nature of mind and its inherent buddha qualities do have an independent existence, since they are only empty of everything else ("the other") that does not belong to them. This must be distinguished from a more moderate form of gzhan stong, which admits the rang stong mode of emptiness for both the adventitious stains of relative truth as well as the ultimate nature of mind, but insists that for a practitioner with an immediate experience of the ultimate nature, it is essential to distinguish the latter from the adventitious states of mind that do not reflect how the nature of mind truly is. While forerunners of rang stong/gzhan stong distinctions can be already identified in a variety of Indian texts and early bKa'-gdams-pa manuscripts,'"`UNIQ--ref-000010A3-QINU`"' their most influential proponents doubtlessly were Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan (1292–1361) and Gser-mdog paṇ-chen Shākya mchog-ldan (1427–1507). At the other end of our time frame, new insights into the development of gzhan stong at the very end of the ris-med movement can now be gained from the collected works of Zhe-chen Mkhan-chen Gang-shar dbang-po (1925–1958/59?).
      The contributions to this volume were presented at the gzhan stong panel organized by Klaus-Dieter Mathes (University of Vienna) at the Twelfth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Vancouver, Canada, in August 2010. Its full name was "The History of the Rang stong/Gzhan stong Distinction from its Beginning through the Ris-med Movement." The contributors were, besides the organizer, Karl Brunnhölzl (Tsadra Foundation), Anne Burchardi (The University of Copenhagen and The Royal Library of Denmark), Douglas Duckworth (Temple University), David Higgins (University of Vienna), Yaroslav Komarovski (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), and Tsering Wangchuk (University of San Francisco). It is regretted that Karl Brunnhölzl and Douglas Duckworth were unable to include their work in the present publication. (Mathes, introduction, 4–5)

Klaus-Dieter Mathes welcomes the attendees of the Tathāgatagarbha Symposium to the University of Vienna, offers brief remarks on his own interest in the topic, and acknowledges those who assisted in creating the conference.

Klaus-Dieter Mathes discusses Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen’s position on Buddha-nature. He describes how his student Zhangtön Sönam Drakpa defends his teacher's position by arguing that one faces eight undesired consequences if one does not strictly differentiate buddha-nature from the ground consciousness.

Biography of Maitripa, India's great yogi of nondual bliss.

In . . . "Presenting a Controversial Doctrine in a Conciliatory Way: Mkhan-chen Gang-shar dbang-po’s (1925-1958/59?) Inclusion of Gzhan-stong ('Emptiness of Other') within Prāsaṅgika," I investigate the gzhan stong position of an influential rNying-ma-pa thinker, a learned master from Zhe-chen Monastery, who was among other things, a highly esteemed teacher of Thrangu Rinpoche, and thus influential in the latter's own understanding of gzhan stong. Unlike Dol-po-pa or Shākya-mchog-ldan, mKhan-po Gang-shar does not present his gzhan stong against the backdrop of the three natures theory, but rather elucidates the distinction he makes between rang stong and gzhan stong within a Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka framework. In a way similar to Klong-chen-pa, Gang-shar insists that everything from material form up to omniscience is rang stong only. This is when the two truths are presented as appearance and emptiness in terms of valid cognition that analyzes for the ultimate abiding nature. In the context of a conventional valid cognition, however, which analyzes for the mode of appearances (i.e., perception), the two truths are defined in terms of the way things appear versus the way they truly are. When the abiding nature is perceived as it truly is, there is still awareness, albeit in a form beyond the duality of ordinary perception. For Gang shar it is only in this phenomenological sense that the rang stong of samsara and gzhan stong of nirvāṇa need to be distinguished. (Mathes, "Introduction: The History of the Rang stong/Gzhan stong Distinction," 7)

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Tathāgatagarbha Influences in the Three Nature (Trisvabhāva) Theory of the Maitreya Works." Journal of Tibetology 20 (2019): 222–44.

In the thirteenth century certain aspects of the Bka’ brgyud teachings on mahāmudrā became highly controversial, such as the assertion of the possibility of a sudden liberating realisation or of a beginner’s attaining mahāmudrā even without tantric empowerment. Such teachings were propagated by Sgam po pa (1079–1153), but criticised by Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251), who maintained that there is no conventional expression for mahāmudrā in the pāramitā tradition and that the wisdom of mahāmudrā can only be a wisdom that has arisen from empowerment. ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481) defended Sgam po pa’s notion of mahāmudrā, however, by pointing out its Indian origins in the persons of Jñānakīrti (tenth/eleventh century)'"`UNIQ--ref-000028DF-QINU`"' and Maitrīpa (ca. 1007–ca. 1085), together with the latter’s disciple Sahajavajra (eleventh century).'"`UNIQ--ref-000028E0-QINU`"' The works of these masters belong to a genre of literature that was eventually called "Indian mahāmudrā works" (phyag chen rgya gzhung). (Mathes, introduction, 89–90)

Read more here . . .

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, "The Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507–1554) on the Relation between Buddha Nature and Its Adventitious Stains." Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 22 (2017): 63–104.

By the time Tibetans inherited Indian Buddhism, it had already witnessed two major doctrinal developments, namely the notion of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras that all factors of existence (dharmas) lack an own-being (emptiness), and the Yogācāra interpretation of this emptiness based on the imagined (parikalpita-), dependent (paratantra-) and perfect natures (pariniṣpanna svabhāva).'"`UNIQ--ref-00002F5C-QINU`"' Closely related to this threefold distinction was the Tathāgatagarbha restriction of emptiness to adventitious stains which cover over an ultimate nature of buddha-qualities. There can be, of course, only one true reality towards which the Buddha awakened, so that exegetes were eventually forced to explain the canonical sources (i.e., Mahāyāna Sūtras) which contain mutually competing models of reality. This set the stage for the well-known hermeneutic strategies of the Tibetan schools. The main issue at stake was whether or not one needs to distinguish two modes of emptiness: being "empty of an own-being" (Tib. rang stong), and being "empty of other" (Tib. gzhan stong). (Mathes, introductory remarks, 187)

Read more here . . .

In his pioneering study of the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV) TAKASAKI Jikido showed that the standard Indian treatise on tathāgatagarbha consists of different layers and reduced it to what he considered to be the original Ratnagotravibhāga by excluding later strands of the text.'"`UNIQ--ref-000010F6-QINU`"' Schmithausen continued this "textual archaeology," which left us with an original text of fifteen verses only.'"`UNIQ--ref-000010F7-QINU`"' While these Ratnagotravibhāga verses (which in the following I shall refer to as "the original" version) support the idea of an already fully developed "buddha-element" (buddhadhātu}'"`UNIQ--ref-000010F8-QINU`"' in sentient beings, the final (standard) version of the Ratnagotravibhāga and its vyākhyā exhibit a systematic Yogāçāra interpretation of the original tathāgatagarbha theory. The original and final Ratnagotravibhāga represent the prototypes of at least two different gzhan stong interpretations, which mainly differ in whether they restrict or not the basis of emptiness to an unchanging perfect nature. (Mathes, "The Original Ratnagotravibhāga," 119)

This book brings together perspectives of leading international Tibetan studies scholars on the subject of zhentong or “other-emptiness.” Defined as the emptiness of everything other than the continuous luminous awareness that is one’s own enlightened nature, this distinctive philosophical and contemplative presentation of emptiness is quite different from rangtong—emptiness that lacks independent existence, which has had a strong influence on the dissemination of Buddhist philosophy in the West. Important topics are addressed, including the history, literature, and philosophy of emptiness that have contributed to zhentong thinking in Tibet from the thirteenth century until today. The contributors examine a wide range of views on zhentong from each of the major orders of Tibetan Buddhism, highlighting the key Tibetan thinkers in the zhentong philosophical tradition. Also discussed are the early formulations of buddhanature, interpretations of cosmic time, polemical debates about emptiness in Tibet, the zhentong view of contemplation, and creative innovations of thought in Tibetan Buddhism. Highly accessible and informative, this book can be used as a scholarly resource as well as a textbook for teaching graduate and undergraduate courses on Buddhist philosophy. (Source: SUNY Press)

For a short but brilliant analysis of the positions of Dol po pa and Śākya mchog Idan we are very much indebted to the Jonang master Tāranātha, who is considered to be a follower and proponent of Dol po pa's doctrine. In each of the Twenty-one Differences with regard to the Profound Meaning a fictive initial statement of Śākya mchog Idan is followed by a similarly fictive reply of Dol po pa, Tāranātha being, of course, well aware of the fact that this is all ahistorical.'"`UNIQ--ref-00002902-QINU`"' To be sure, it is not possible to establish Śākya mchog ldan's or Dol po pa's views on the basis of this short text alone, but it does sharpen our awareness of the subtle aspects of gźan stoṅ when studying the bulky and often not very systematic works of these masters. Furthermore, critically evaluating these doctrinal differences against the background of pertinent Indian texts in such traditions as the Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha promises to be a second interesting task. Both are, however, beyond the scope of this paper. Such an evaluation will, however, be undertaken with regard to the different presentations of trisvabhāva as an example of how one might proceed.
      Tāranātha begins his somewhat delicate task of comparing the two masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan in a conciliating manner, by explaining that both supposedly see what is profound reality and hence should not have different thoughts about it. It is only in order to accommodate the different needs of their disciples that they enunciate variant views. Even though the essential gźan stoṅ view and meditation practices of both masters are the same, there are a lot of minor differences regarding tenets (grub mtha') that arise when formulating the view on the level of apparent truth.'"`UNIQ--ref-00002903-QINU`"'
      The first four of the twenty-one points address differences in the exegesis of the Madhyamaka and Maitreya texts which are considered to be commentaries on the Buddha's intention underlying the second and third turnings of the "Wheel of the Dharma" (dharmacakra).'"`UNIQ--ref-00002904-QINU`"' Points 5-8 embody Śākya mchog ldan's and Dol po pa's different understanding of non-dual wisdom. In points 9-16, their views on the trisvabhāva theory are distinguished. In a related topic, Tāranātha also elaborates the different understandings of self-awareness (point 11), entities and non-entities, and conditioned and unconditioned phenonema (all in point 13). Next, our attention is drawn to different ways of relating the four noble truths with the apparent and ultimate (point 17). The last four points deal with the two masters' views on the Buddha-nature. (Mathes, "Tāranātha's 'Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning'," 294–95)

Read more here . . .