No More Learning

391-406. For an English translation of Zhlwa O's letter and the identifica- tion of some of these objected tantras, see Karmay (1980).
5. Williams (1989; Spring), p. 2.
6. The dates of all Tibetan thinkers are based on Tseten Zhabdrung (1982).
7. On the complex history of the various editions of Kangyur and Tangyur, see
Harrison (1992), introduction. See also Dungkar Lobsang Thrinley's comments
in Deb ther dmar po, n. 489.
8. This debate has been an object of considerable interest in modern Tibetan
? ? 4 Taktshang Lotsawa (b. 1405) makes this observation in his Grub mtha' kun shes, p. 210. Ct. Williams (1989; Spring), p. 2.
Buddhist scholarship. . See Tucci (1958), Demieville (1967), Stein (1987), Houston (1980). Y. lmaeda (1975) Uournal asiatique, 1975, p . 140) has raised doubts about the factuality of the debate. However, I think that the weight of the historical evidence is too great to deny that this event took place. Earliest Tibetan sources which deal extensively with the debate are: sBa bzhed, and its revised version Zhabs btags 1M, Ne'u PaD<;lita's Chos 'byung, Sakya PaQ. <;lita's sDom gsum rab dbye, and ButOn Rinchen Drup's Chos 'byung, and Pawo Tsuglak Trengwa's (1504-1566) Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' stan. For a contemporary discussion of the wider philosophical and religious implications of the debate, see Ruegg (1989), especially parts II, III, and IV.
9. Tibetan sources characterise the dispute as centred on the question of whether or not "enlightenment" is attained through a gradual and prolonged process of reflection and praxis or in the form of an instantaneous experience. A central point at issue here is the role of discursive analysis in one's path to enlightenment. "Simultaneists" reject this, while the "gradualists" insist on its indispensability. Hence, my choice of the terms here.
10. Ruegg (1989), p. 56.
11. bod mams da sian chad Ita ba Niigiirjuna 'i lugs zungsl spyod pa pha rol tu phyin pa
drug la gyis la chos spyod mam pa bcu nyams su longsl sgom pa shes rab rnam gsum la blo siJyongs la thabs dang shes rab zung du chud ring 'brei ba zhi gnas dang Ihag mthong la sgoms shigl. . . The text translated cited here is from mKhas pa'i
dga
sian, pp 3':JO-391. Cf. Ruegg (1989), p. 62. All translations of Tibetan texts are mine unless otherwise stated.
'
? 12. LTC, p. 250: 'di Ia dgongs nas lam stan pa'i bla ma'i mtshan nyid yongs su rdzogs pa la theg pa thams cad la mkhas pa mang du gsungs soil
20 THE TIBET JOURNAL
13. dGe s/lyor f:yi gnad la dri ba snyan bskul ba Ihag bsam rab dlear, TKSB, Val. ka. Interestingly, many of the expressions and arguments found in this letter have close resemblance to several critical sections of Khedrup-Je's ITa khrid
14. ]5.
16. 17.
18.
19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
Lhag bsam rab dkar gyi dris Ian dngos grub phreng ba and Lhag bsam rab dkar gyi Ita sgorn dris laY! in Collected Works, Vol. 2.
Dris Ian blo bzang bzhad pa'i sgra dbyangs Collected Works, Vol. nga.
Thi. i. ken, op. cit. , p. 159.
24. 25.
26.
27. 28.
to Tsongkhapa's rTen 'brcl bstod pa legs bshad snying po, a short ode on depend
mUll sel sgron me, Collected Works, VoLta
byi dol', Collected Works, VoLta. It seems as if Khedrup-Je is repeating many of Tsongkhapa's expressions. Note the pobmical nature of the title of Khedrup_ Je's work.
Byang chub lam rim chen mo. TKSB, Vol. pha.
ThLiken, Grub mtha' shel gyi me Iong, p. 158. Unfortunately, I have failed to locate Jhampa Lingpa's text.
Dri ba ihag /:Jsam rab dkal' gyi d? is Ian man ngag gi dg(mgs rgyan in The Complete Works of Gsa mdog Pat! chen Stikya mdLOg ldan, Val. 23, pp. 297-358. Phyag Perna Karpo'? short response can be found in the last chapter of his
l'gya chC1l po'i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba'i gan mdzod, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 349-370.
'jam dbyangs bla mas rjes bzung zhes bgyi bas, Queries, p. 41.
Thi. i. ken, pp. 158-9.
Sangye Gyatsho reads the letter as a critique of what he calls the so-called Maham udra that goes by the name of "new Drukpa [Kagyu)" ( 'brug gsar du grags pa'i phyag chen). dGa' ldan Chas 'byung, p. 69. Pawo Tsuglak Threngwa makes the interesting observation that Tsongkhapa wrote this letter as a result of deep disappointment he felt at the level of ignorance among the
meditators at a Kagyu retreat. He writes: "Phyis ri khrod shin tu dben pa
ba lhag bsam rab dkar Ia sogs pa mdzad/. " mKhas pa'i dga ' ston, p . 1 155. Druk Galwang Chaje, in his biography of Tsongkhapa (pp. 489-90), makes a point similar to m[(j1as pa'i dga' ston.
rJe red mda ' ba'i gsung Ian. TKSB, Vol. ka.
rjc l5un jam dpal dbyangs kyi lam gyi gnad riC red mda' ba la shog dril du phil/ ba. TKSB, Vol. pha.
I hope to undertake, as part of a futme project, a critical study of this letter together with some of the main responses from subsequent Tibetan thinkers. As yet, my own translation of the letter remains unpublished.
The traditional Geluk scholarship seems to accord this historically critical role
-
,
and also the last section of Thub bstan
? ? . .
. dri
? ent origination. Thurman (1984, p. 85) asserts that the text was written in 1398. His claim is probably based on Khedrup-Je's rNam thaI' dad pa'i jug ngogs although Thurman does not say so. It is difiicult to discern whether this date is accurate. Even if we were to accept this, it is far from clear whether Tsongkhapa really meant this ode to signal his departure from the main- stream of Tibetan Madhyamaka thought. On the surface, the text appears to be nothing more than a passionate expressIon of admiration of the Buddha for having taught the prinCIples of dependent originatlon
? ? 29. IS, ppA11-15
30. Ratnakara. . ,anti's Prajilaparamitopadesa, P5459 and two Brhattrkil, P5205 and
P5206, which Tsongkhapa attributes to a certain Danstasena, a student 01 Vasubandhu. On the use of the last two texts by Jonangpas and Tsongkha- pa'? crilical com ments, see Ruegg (1969), pp. 325-27. Sakya ChogJen takes issue with Tsongkhapa on the authorship of these two texts and defends the earlier Tibetan ascription of them to Vasubandhu. See Shing rta'i sral 'byed,
nature of phenomena, see Jinpa (1997), chapter 5.
33. Cabezon (1992), p. 7
34. On this so-called "no-thesis" interpretation of Madhyamaka, see later.
35. Sec LTC, pp. 121-145, and LN, pp. 171-73. Robert Thurman, in his fn , bases his
TSONGKHAPA'S QUALMS 21
? ? 31. mchil ma'i thai ba bzhin du dar bar rigs 50// LS, pA15.
32. For a detailed examination of Tsongkhapa's u nderstanding of the illusion-like
? ? idcnlitication of these opponents on Bhaso Chokyi Gyaltsen (1402? 1473) and Lobsang Phuntsok. However, Thurman misreads LN's reference to the LTC (pp. l21-45) where Tsongkhapa states that he had alrEi. ldy dealt L'xlensively with the rdulaliOl,s of the four positions. Thurman takes this to be referring to Tsongkh"pa's rebuttal of four types of objections against the Madhyamaka philosophy of emptiness (LTC, pp. 50-89). Sec Thurman (1984), pp. 326-28, footnotes 1 12, 113 & 1 14. Although related, these are two quill. ' distinct issues. One relates specifically with the refutation of w hat Tsongkhapa sees as four main r;lisreadings of Prasangika-Madhyamaka's ontological nominalism. In contrast, the rebuttal of the four objections in LTC is part of Tsongkhapa's overall argument against those who, when identifying the objection of negation, go beyond the scope of reason's capacity to negate (dgag bya ngos 'dzin khyab che bal. This is dearly an error which must be corrected in future reprints of Thurman's book.
? 36. LC, folio 47.
37. LC does not give any identification of the proponent of this third position.
38. On the problem of identification of these third objects of Tsongkhapa's
critique, see Williams (1985).
39. Naga? una:
If I had posited some theses,
then I would be open to objections. As I do not have any thesis,
I am free of all faults. (VV, 29. )
Aryadeva:
He who does not have a standpoint,
of "is", flis not", I'both" nor "neither",
he cannot be criticised
of any t1aws for a long while. (CS, 16:25. )
Candraklrt i :
He who is a Madhyamlka cannot derive inferences from autonomous reason? ing, for he does not accept the other's thesis. (PSP, p. 11. )
p. 484.
22 THE TIBET JOURNAL
Tsongkhapa's reading of these passages can be found in LTC, pp. 136-144. 40. In LTC, Tsongkhapa identifies four main premises of the "no-thesis" view. that (i) critical reasoning that enquires into the question of whether or no? things exist in terms of their intrinsic being, negates all phenomena; (ii) phenomena such as production, cessation, etc. cannot be objects of valid cognitions for it has been stated in the Madhyamaka scriptures that percept_ ions like visual, auditory, olfactory and so on cannot be accepted as valid; (iii) phenomena such as production, cessation, etc.
cannot be accepted as existent even on the conventional level for the reason that negates production on the ultimate level also negates it on the conventional level as well; and (iv) there is nothing that does not fall into the categories of existence, nonexistence, both, and neither, and all these four possibilities have been revealed to be untenable. Tsongkhapa subjects these four premises to detailed criticism in LTC, pp. 23-89. For Khedrup-Je's critique of the "no-thesis" view, see Cabez6n
(1992), pp. 102-112.
41. Interestingly, a number of writers on Madhyamaka in modern scholarship
appear to share the view that the Madhyamika literally has no views of his own. For example, B. K. Matilal characterises the Prasangika-Madhyamaka's standpoint as "non-committal. " See Matilal (1971), p. 164.
42. Ruegg (1983), Thurman (1984), Napper (1989), Williams (1985), and Cabez6n (1994).
43. dBu ma pa'i khyad chos gcig po de khyed kyis bkag pa yin noll LTC, p. 36. Tsongkhapa wrote in eloquent praise of the Buddha in verse called rTen 'breI bstod pa ("In praise of dependent origination"), TKSB, Vol. kha. This piece is a celebration of Tsongkhapa's realisation of the profound convergence between emptiness and dependent origination.
44. Rang gi ngo bos med na med par 'dod par gsal te . . . LTC, p. 38.
45. IHa bdud tu babs pa. LTC, p. 33.
46. LTC, p. 38: de Itar ji srid du myu gu la sogs pa mams yod par 'dod pa de sris du
ranggingobosgrubpa'i yodparsmralaranggingosbosgrubpagtanmedna gtan med du smra na ni mtha: gnyis su ! tung bar gdon mi za bas dngos por smra ba'i go lugs dang khyad med pa yin tel
47. dBu ma pa la med pa pa'am chad Ita ba zhes zer roll LTC, p. 40.
48. LTC, p. 88: des na rgud pa thams cad kyi rtsa ba ni rang bzhin sgro 'dogs pa'j rna rig pa yin lal de dang 'dzin stangs dngos su 'gal ba'j sgo nas de druns 'byin pa ni rang bzhin med pa'am bdag med pa rtogs pa'i shes rab nyag gcig yin . . . Tsongkhapa cites
seen as so antithetical to Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka. He suggests an interest- ing reading of the view whereby a distinction is drawn between an assertion made for the sake of others (gzhan ngo la bltos pa'i khas len) and an assertion from one's own perspective (rang ngo'i khas len). See dBu ma klu sgrub dgongs rgyan, pp. 323-355. Although dBu ma klu sgrub dgongs rgyan does not mention
from CS to make this point. 49. LTC, p. 48.
50. Nai(lSviibhtivyanirvrttau sviibhiivyal]'! hi prasiddha1! 1 syiitll VV, 26b. Rang bzhin med pa nyid log nail rang /Jzhin nyid du rab grub 'gyurll Quoted in LTC, p. 43.
51. Gendun Chophel (1903-1951) argues that the "no-thesis" view need notbe
52. 53.
54.
TSONGKHAPA'S QUALMS 23
its source, this distinction of two types of assertion seems to be based on Rongton Sheja Kunrig. See, for example, his dBu ma la 'jug pa'i mam bshad nges don mam nges, p. 72. RongtOn identifies three types of thesis: 1) thesis that is accepted for the sake of others under special circumstances, 2) thesis accepted both by oneself and others, and 3) thesis accepted only by oneself. I have explored this "negative" approach in detail elsewhere, i. e. Jinpa (1998). For a detailed study of this "constructive" approach, see Jinpa (1997), chapter 5.
GR, p. 226: 'phags pa'i gzhung 'grel tshul la rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub pa rdul Isam med kyang/ bya byed 'thams cad bzhag pas chog pa'i 'grel tshul gyi lugs thun mong ma yin pa 'di la brtm nasi rnam par dag pa'i grub mtha' 'grel byed gzhan dang thun mong ma yin pa mang du yod tel de gang zhe na re zhig gtso lio mams brjod na/ Ishags drug las ngo bo lha dad pa'i kun gzhi mam shes dang/ rang rig 'gog lugs thun mong rna yin pa dang/ rang rgyud kyi sbyor bas phyir rgol gyi rgyud la de kho 111l nyid kyi Ita ba skyed pa khas mi len pa gsum dang/ shes pa khas len pa bzhin du. phyi rol gyi don yang khas blang dgos pa dang/ nyan rang la dngos po rang l! zhin med par rtogs pa yud pa dang/ chos kyi bdag 'dzin nljon mongs su 'jog
pa dang/ zhig pa dngos pu yin pa dang/ de'i rgyu mtshan gyis dus gsum 'jog tshul thung mong rna yin pa sags yin no//
TKSB, Vol. tsha.
BTP, p. 154.
iTa ba'i shab 'bycd, folio 1%: zhig pa dngos po pa ni chos 'di pa las phyi rol du gyur pa mu stegs bye brag pa'i grub mtha' yin gyi/ nang pa'i grub mtha' la med pas shin III mi 'thad pa'i gyms so// Taktshang Lotsawa too rejects Tsongkhapa's claim that the cL'Ssation of empirical things is a conditioned phenomenon. He arsrues that this as"ertion conctradicts Tsongkhapa's own Madhyamaka analysis whereby things, such as a pot, are shown to be untenable when subjected to critical analysis. See Taktshang, op. cit. p. 235.
Kun gzhi dang/ rang rig mi 'dod cing/ phyi don khas len pa'i t3hul yang dpyad par bya slc/. . . ITa ba'i shan 'byed, p. 28a.
Sher 'grel ke ta ka, p. 31: bde sogs rang gis nyams su myong ba yang tha snyad du ji Itar 'gog stc mi 'gog go/I des na SClns bdm grub lu 'dod pa la rang rig pa mi 'Ihad kyang bden med du 'dod pa la rang rig pa'i tha snyad shin tll 'thad par yang shes par bya stc. . . For an in-depth study of Mipham's views on reflexive aware- ness, see Williams (1998).
Taktshang, op. cit. p. 155: gzhan dbang bder! grub dang rang rig nml gyis bkag pa Ita bu'j dgag pa gang du'ang ma mdzad doll
Future studies may reveal the identity of the proponents of these views. But even at this early stage it can be surmised that Tsongkhapa's primary concern in this letter appears to be that there still remains a strong legacy of Hva- shang's views in Tibet. Samten Karmay has shown the influence of the Chinese "simultaneist" doctrine on the development of the Dzogchen thought. See Karmay (1988), chapters 3 & 4.
rNam rtog ma rig chen po ste/ Gomchen Ngawang Drakpa (op cit. folio 26b) identifies this line as a citation from the Hevafratantra.
55. 56. 57.
58.
59.
60. 61.
62.
? ? 24 THE TIBET JOURNAL
63. For a succinct discussion on the dispute between the proponents of "intrinsI'e
emptiness" (rang stong) and "extrinsic emptiness" (gzhan stong), see Willi7
(1989), pp. 96-109. A more extensive discussion on the dispute based
Tho. ken Chokyi Nyima's Grub mtha ' shel gyi me long, could be found in Rue n
(1963). For a contemporary polemical work defending thc "extrinsic emP I-
ness" view, see Hookham (1991).
64. Quaies, pp. 34-35.
65. Ibid. , p. 27: Kfw bas ni de Ita'i sgom de hva shang gi sgmn lugs las khyad par gtan
ma phyed do//.
66. LTC, p. 230.
67. Ibid. , pp. 227-261. . . Ibid. ,
68. DeItamayinnagnyid 'thugpologpadangrgyalbalasagspa'itsheyang .
p. 231.
69. Queries p. 37: Nyams len la rtse gcig tu gzhol 'dod kha Clg ni thos bsam la gegs 51/
'dzin par 'dug/ Yang thos bsam byed 'dod la la yang thog ma nas rang rgyud la sgom don 'tshol ba'i rtsis mi byed par gzhan smra dbab 'dod dang/ rang mkhas 'dod kyi grbags skam sgrub pa'i bsam pas kha phyir Itas su shor nas. . .
References
WORKS OF TSONGKHAPA LOBSANC DRAKPA (1357-1419)
BTP, dBu ma'i Ita khrid phyogs bsdebs (An Anthology of the Guide to the Middle Way
View), reprinted in typeset by Gelukpa Students Union, Sarnath, 1985.
GR, dBu ma Ia Jug pa'i mam bshad dgongs pa mb gsal, ("Elucidation ofthe Thought"being a Commentary of Madhyamakiivattira), TKSB, Vol. ma, reprinted in typeset, Sarnath:
Gelukpa Students Union, 1973.
Queries, dGe sbyor gyi gnad la dri ba snyan bskuI ba lhag bsam rab dkar, ("Queries fram a Pure Heart calling Attention to Critical Religious Issues") in gSung thor bu, TKSB, Vol. kha, reprinted in typeset in BTP, pp. 12-41.
LC, Byang chub lam rim chen mo'i dka' ba'i gnad mams mchan bu bzhi'i sgo nas legs par bshad pa theg chen lam gyi gsal sgron ("Great Exposition of the Stages Ofthe Path to Enlightemnent" with four interwoven annotations), reprintcd in New Delhi, Ch6phel Lekden, 1972.
LN, Drang ba dang nges pa 'i don mam par 'byed pa'i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po, (Essence of True Eloquence distinguishing between the Provisional and the Definitive
Reprinted in typeset, Mundgod: Dre- pung Loseling Library, 1991. English translation in Thurman (1984).
Meaning of the Scriptures), TKSB, Vol. pha
.
LRC, Byang chub lam rim chen mo (Great Exposition ofthe Path to Enlightenment), TKSB, VoLpa. Reprinted in typeset, Xining: Qinghai Minorities Press, 1988.
LTC, Lhag mthong chen mo ("Special Insight') in Byang chub lam rim chen mo, (Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment), TKSB VoLpa. Reprinted in typeset in rJe'i gsung Ita ba'i skor, Dharamsala: Office of HH the Dalai Lama, 1975, VoL I, pp. 7-261. For a complete English translation, see Wayman (1978). A partial translation exists in Napper (1989).
TKSB, The Collected Works of Tsongkhapa, Reproduced from the Tashi Lhunpo edition and reprinted in New Delhi by Ngawang Gclek Demo, 1980.
ggt'
? TSONGKHAPA'S QUALMS 25
TKSB; IJe red mda' ba'i gsung Ian (A Reply to Je Rendaz,ua) in gSung thor bu, TKSB, VoJ. kha, reprinted in typeset in BTP, pp. 41-56.
, rIe btsun jam pa'i dbyangs kyi lam gyi gnad red mda' bar shog dril du phul ba. TJZSB, Vol. pha, reprinted in typeset in BTP, pp. 41-56.
, rTsa ba shes rab kyi dka' gnas chen po brgyad kyi brjed byang, TKSB, Vol. ba, --;printed in typeset in BTP, pp. 154-187.
, rten 'brei bstod pa legs bshad snying po (An Eloquent Speech: III Praise ofDependent &igination) in gSung thor bu, TKSB, Vol. kha, reprinted in typeset in BTP, pp. 1-7.
O1ItERS
Aryadeva, Yogtictiracatuhsataka, (CS) rNa! 'byor spyod pa bzhi brgya pa, P 5246, Vo! . 95. Reprinted in typeset in rTsa ba shes rab/ bzhi brya pal sum eu pal lIyi shu pa bzhugs
Cabez6n, Jos6, Buddhism and Language: A Study ofIndo-Tibetan Scholasticism, Albany:
? ; Trans. , A Dose of Emptiness: Annotated Translation of the Stong thun chen mo of lIIKh? grub dGe legs dPal bzang, Albany: S tate University of New York, 1992.
? Candraklrti, J'v! illamadhyamak? vrttiprasannapadti, (PSP) dBu ma rtsa ba'i 'grel pa tshig gsal, P 5260, Vol. 98 Reprinted in typeset, Dharamsala: Council of Religious & Cultural Affairs of H. H. the Dalai Lama, 1968. Sanskrit edition in La Valee roussin, L. (ed. ), Mulamadhyamakaktiriktis de Ntigtirjuna avec Ie Prasannapadti commentaire de Candrakfrti, St. Petersburg: Academie Imperiale des Sciences.
Oemieville, Paul, Le councile de Lhasa, Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Media ed Estremo Oriente, 1966, Serie Orientale Roma, XXXIV; Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1967.
Oruk Gdiwang Chcije (Completed in 1845 ), rJe'i mam thar chen mo. Reprinted in typeset, Xining: Qinghai Minorities Press, 1981.
Oungk<'lr Lobsang Thrinley (d. 1997), edited with annotations, Deb ther dmar Fa of Tsalpa Kunga D01ie (1309-1364), Beijing: Minorities Press, 1981.
Gendun Chiiphel (1903-1951), dBu rna kiu sgrub dgongs rgyan in dGe 'dun chos 'phel gyi gsung rlsom (The Works of Gendun Chliphel), Tibet: Xinhua Press, 1990, Vol. 2, pp.