Articles/Introduction to the Traditions of Ngok and Tsen

Introduction to the Traditions of Ngok and Tsen

Morten Ostensen

Original content written for the Buddha-Nature Project.

Article

Article

The Tibetan traditions generally divide the primary modes of exegesis on the Ratnagotravibhāga into two lines of transmission known as the analytic tradition (thos bsam gyi lugs) and the meditative tradition (sgom lugs). These two traditions originated with the Tibetan disciples of the Kashmiri master Sajjana, namely Ngok Lotsāwa and Tsen Khawoche, respectively. Therefore, these two are also commonly referred to as the Ngok Tradition (rngog lugs), representing the scholarly or analytic approach, and the Tsen Tradition (btsan lugs) representing the more practice oriented meditative approach. Alternatively, Jamgön Kongtrul in his encyclopedic work commonly known as the Treasury of Knowledge refers to Ngok's tradition as "the oral transmission of teaching" (bshad pa'i bka' babs) and Tsen’s tradition as "the oral transmission of practice" (sgrub pa'i bka' babs). Though it is likely the diverging motivations of these two figures in requesting these teachings from their mutual teacher that would set these traditions on their respective trajectories.

Ngok was the nephew of Ngok Lekpai Sherab, the founder of Sangpu Neutok, arguably the most important center for monastic education in Tibet during the 11th to 14th centuries. Originally affiliated with the Kadam school it evolved over the centuries into a Sakya and finally a Geluk institution, though throughout these changes it retained a strong association with rigorous philosophical study and is regarded as one of the major birthplaces of Tibetan scholasticism. Ngok Lotsāwa spent much of his formative years under the tutelage of his uncle who would found Sangpu when Ngok was only fourteen. Though it was after attending the Fire Dragon Religious Conference (me 'brug chos 'khor) that took place three years later in 1076, which coincided with his formal ordination, that he committed himself to traveling to India in order to train in Indic languages in order to become a translator. He then spent seventeen years studying with Indian and Kashmiri scholars before returning to Tibet and embarking upon an illustrious teaching career at Sangpu.

Tsen, on the other hand, who was almost four decades older than Ngok, sought out Sajjana and the teachings on the Ratnagotravibhāga for an entirely different reason. Rather than approaching the work as an object of study, which in Ngok's case would become the basis for a translation of the treatise, Tsen reportedly requested these teachings from Sajjana in order to make these instructions his primary practice in preparation for his own death ('chi chos). Unlike Ngok, he needed a translator to communicate with Sajjana, and though according to some accounts he had reportedly travelled to Kashmir with Ngok, a young man at the time, Tsen fortuitously enlisted the help of Zu Gawai Dorje to act as his interpreter. Together, the two of them received teachings on the entirety of the five Maitreya treatises from Sajjana, though it seems that the most thorough explanations were given on the Ratnagotravibhāga. Zu would later compose a commentary on the treatise based on Sajjana's instructions, as well as prepare a translation of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga and associated works, though in the recensions available in the Tibetan Kangyur he and his teacher Parahitabhadra are recorded as revisers of an earlier translation of the root text. Otherwise, Tsen appears to have been the first of Sajjana's Tibetan students to return home and begin teaching, especially the Ratnagotravibhāga, to the community of Buddhists in the central Tibetan areas of U and Tsang. Though considering that the famed Bengali master Atiśa had been in Tibet since 1042 and was the first to translate the treatise along with his student Naktso Lotsāwa Tsultrim Gyalwa, it is likely that Atiśa would have been the first to teach the Ratnagotravibhāga on Tibetan soil.

In terms of their respective approaches to the work and the divergence of the exegetical traditions they spawned, Tsen seems to have most closely transmitted the teachings of Sajjana. Though both Tsen and Ngok considered the work to be an expression of the definitive meaning of the Buddhist teachings associated with the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, they differed considerably on what buddha-nature actually is and whether or not it is possessed by all sentient beings and buddhas equally. For Ngok, buddha-nature was nothing but another way of talking about emptiness, and in this sense he framed buddha-nature theory within the philosophy of the Madhayamaka school which takes as the ultimate truth the lack of substantial existent entities. Based on the crucial verse I.28 in the Ratnagotravibhāga he delineates buddha-nature in terms of its three aspects: resultant, inherent, and causal. The resultant was unique to the buddhas, while it is the causal aspect that is possessed by saṃsāric beings. All sentient beings have buddha-nature in the sense that we have the potential to become perfect in terms of a disposition (gotra), not in the sense that we contain within us an already-existent perfection. It is only in terms of the second reason, which asserts the indivisibility of suchness (tathatā), that both buddhas and sentient beings have buddha-nature in common. Tsen, on the other hand, following the teachings of Sajjana, advocated the position that buddha-nature is already perfectly present in sentient beings as it is in buddhas, and equated it with the natural luminosity of mind. As such buddha-nature already possesses buddha-qualities, which are to be revealed rather than produced. And while some later Tibetan traditions that counted Tsen among their lineage forefathers would consider him a Mādhyamika, likely in an attempt to distance themselves from association with the denigrated view of Mind-Only, the only surviving work attributed to him is a brief teaching on the three natures (trisvabhāva) of the Yogācāra school. Hence, some Tibetan authors, notably Kongtrul in his Treasury of Knowledge, were inclined to associate Ngok's stance with the Madhayamaka and Tsen's with Yogācāra, specifically Mind-Only.

As for the descendants of these two figures and the influence of their traditions on the development of uniquely Tibetan positions on buddha-nature, the differences in their approaches to this topic, whether these are termed analytic or meditative, study or practice, are perhaps their most enduring legacy. In regards to the Ngok Tradition, this style of exegesis took root at Sangpu Neutok which continued to rise in stature over the course of several centuries and maintained an intellectual tradition based on study and debate of Mahāyāna philosophies that was unrivaled in its heyday. It was also a remarkably fluid institution in terms of its affiliation and its history is in many ways emblematic of the progression of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism. Originally founded as Kadam institution by Ngok Lekpai Sherab it was a monument to the tradition founded by Atiśa. Though the ascendance of his nephew, Ngok, who returned from his seventeen year sojourn in India as an accomplished scholar and prolific translator certainly added to its prestige, its prominence as the Tibetan scholastic institution seems to have been fully established under the leadership of the eclectic Chapa Chökyi Senge. An accomplished and often controversial scholar, Chapa counted among his student the First Karmapa Dusum Khyenpa and the Sakya forefather Sönam Tsemo, who was the uncle of Sakya Paṇḍita. However, as time passed Sangpu was enveloped by the rise of the Sakya school and later the Geluk, though for a period the two schools seem to have coexisted, albeit within a series of separate colleges, within its expansive compound. Suffice to say, many important Tibetan scholars studied or taught at Sangpu, including the Sakya scholar Rongtön Sheja Kunrik, the founder of the Geluk Tsongkhapa, and even the great Nyingma scholar Longchenpa. All of whom, when studying the Maitreya works within its confines, would have done so through the lens of the Ngok Tradition.

In regards to the Tsen Tradition, it took a decidedly different tract and became a crucial tributary that flowed into the development of schools that established themselves outside of the mainstream of central Tibetan scholastic institutions, namely the Kagyu, Jonang, and the Nyingma. In particular, it was the so-called other-emptiness, or zhentong, position, also referred to as Great Madhyamaka, that developed in both of these schools that trace their lineage through the Tsen Tradition. The sole extant work that is attributed to Tsen was titled the Instructions on the View of Other-Emptiness (gzhan stong lta khrid) by its 16th century Jonang redactor Kunga Drolchok, who claims the text as proof that other-emptiness existed in India and was thus not invented by Dolpopa, it is unclear whether Tsen would have conceived of himself as a zhentongpa, though he does appear to use the term Great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po). However, what his tradition clearly has in common with those that later espoused this stance, was a positivistic view of the ultimate and a sense that the direct experience of this ultimate would fall within the purview of accomplishment that is the result of practice. Buddha-nature is not merely a sheer emptiness, but the innate luminosity that abides primordially within the minds of all, from sentient being to buddhas. The only difference is the presence or absence of the adventitious stains that obscure this luminous nature. And just as Tsen who sought to implement this understanding in his practice, the followers of the Tsen Tradition have tended to value direct experience over theoretical knowledge.

In summary, the exegetical traditions of Ngok and Tsen are not simply a matter of disagreements about what the Ratnagotravibhāga means, but are rather about how one should engage with the information therein. They are not just the outcome of the repetition of the sayings of the masters who founded them, but the byproduct of people following in their foot steps and interacting with the teachings of the treatise in a similar way. It is not as if everybody counted among the lineage of the Ngok Tradition, simply accepted his views and moved on, but rather that they approached the teachings from the perspective of intellectual inquiry and scholastic rigor. Just as those zhentongpas that included Tsen as an early lineage holder saw in him a compatriot involved in their mutual efforts to experience the truth of buddha-nature for themselves. They are different approaches representative of divergent religious views, which are accompanied by their own specific attitudes, priorities, and the like. Nevertheless, their interest in the Ratnagotravibhāga unites them, even if the expression of that interest leads them down seemingly different paths.