286
Kevin Vose
287
va tara is difficult to pinpoint. Akira Saito has analyzed Bu ston's suspicion that the version of the Bodhicaryavatara available to him (which he
included in his bsTan 'gyur collection) contains unwarranted "emendations" made by gTsan nag pa; see Saito, "Bu ston on the sPyod 'jug,"
79-85. In one example, which he takes to be representative, Saito (p. 84)
suggests that "the alteration [of rNog's translation] appears to have been
made with rather careless consultation of the old translation(s)." A thorough evaluation of this textual conundrum will require an examination
of the Bodhicaryavatara stanzas embedded in the various Indian and
Tibetan commentaries, as compared to the stanzas preserved in the bsTan
'gyur editions and in the Dunhuang manuscript (Stein 628) edited in Saito,
A Study of the Dun-huang Recension. My initial investigation shows that
gTsan nag pa's commentary offers readings of the Bodhicaryavatara
stanzas that accord with the stanzas preserved in the bsTan 'gyur but not
with those found in the Dunhuang version (in cases where the bsTan 'gyur
edition and Dunhuang version disagree). If gTsan nag pa was indeed Bu
ston's culprit, he does not seem to have been utilizing a translation of the
Bodhicaryavatara related to the Dunhuang version.
7 For an overview of rNog's compositions, see Kano, rNgog Bloldan-shes-rab's Summary, 125-128 and Kramer, The Great Translator.
Fragments of rNog's commentary are cited in bSod nams rtse mo's commentary (discussed below); the whereabouts of the complete commentary
remain unknown. I thank Kazuo Kano for alerting me to his discovery in
Lhasa of rNog's sPyod 'jug gi bsdus don, a "topical outline" of Santideva's
text, which he is now preparing for publication.
8 The available texts are rGya dmar pa Byan chub grags's Bymi chub
sems dpa'i spyod pa la 'jug pa'i tshig don gsal bar Mad pa; Phya pa's
sPyod 'jug bsdus don, a topical outline (Phya pa's full commentary is not
presently known); and gTsan nag pa brTson 'grus sen ge's sPyod 'jug gi
rnambsad.
288
Kevin Vose
289
stanzas that follow this, which discuss how more advanced yogis'
views "harm," or invalidate, those of less advanced yogis.u This
latter consideration allows commentators to flesh out just who
harms whom, a doxographical project that in some treatments includes higher and lower types of Madhyamikas,12 Unfortunately,
the continued absence of rNog Blo ldan ses rab's Bodhicaryiivatiira
commentary prevents us from exploring his views on these stanzas. However, in his extant works, rNog touches upon Santideva's
proclamation on the ultimate, albeit in a quite different context,
his commentary on the Ratnagotravibhiiga. There, rNog relates
"The ultimate is not a referent of speech and ... is not a referent of
conceptuality, since conceptuality is conventional."13 This clearly
buddher agocaras tattvaf!2 buddhil;. saf!2vrtir ucyate II The Tibetan (vol.
ya, 31al) reads: don dam blo yi spyod yul min I blo ni kun rdzob yin par
brjod II Saito ("Santideva in the History of Madhyamika," 261, n. 3) reports that the Dunhuang version for pada dreads: blo dan sgra ni kun
rdzob yin II = buddhiJ:! sabdas ca saf!2vrtiJ:! ("awareness and speech are
conventional"), which would seem to associate "awareness" and "speech"
in the way rNog (just below) associates "conceptuality" and "speech."
11 Stanza4ab states this concisely (La Vallee Poussin, Prajiiakaramati's
Commentary [1905], 370): biidhyante dhfvise!felJa yogino 'py uttarottaraiJ:! I "Through refinements of yogis' awareness, the progressively higher
harm [the lower]."
12 Stanza 4c, which notes how higher yogis "harm" lower yogis, would
seem to be germane to this discussion of Madhyamaka classification. It
reads (La Vallee Poussin, Prajfiiikaramati's Commentary [1905], 371):
dr!ftiintenobhaye!ftena; "through examples accepted by both [parties]."
This could well be an allusion to Candraklrti's Prasannapadii critique
of Bhaviveka's logical procedures, a discussion that led Tson kha pa to
distinguish between CandrakIrti's "Prasangika" Madhyamaka and Bhaviveka's "Svatantrika" view (on Candraklrti's critique and Tson kha pa's
distinction, see Ruegg, Two Prolegomena to Madhyamaka Philosophy).
However, none of the bKa' gdams pa or Sa skya pa scholars whose commentaries I examine here make this association.
13 Kano's edition of the Tibetan reads (Kano, rNgog Blo-ldan-shesrab's Summary, 286): rdo rje gnas 'di bdun dmigs pa med pa'i ye ses kyis
rtogs par bya ba tsam yin gyi I brjod du med pa yan don dam pa'i ran biin
yin pa'i phyir ro II don dam pa ni nag gi yul ma yin pa'i phyir te I rnam par
290
Kevin Vose
291
292
Kevin Vase
kind of) consciousness but would be beyond the scope of conceptual and non-conceptual awareness. rGya dmar pa, unfortunately,
leaves the discussion unresolved.
For his part, rGya dmar pa introduces a further distinction when
explaining the relationship between the two truths (in technical terminology, the "meaning of the division into two truths" [bden pa
gfiis kyi dbye ba'i don]). He relates, "[The two truths] are inexpressible as the same or other due to not being one and not being
different," a position that he identifies as the view of the "utterly
non-abiding system (rab du mi gnas pa'i lugS)."18 He provides an
alternative view, that of the "illusionists" (sgyu ma lta bu) who hold
that "the two truths are two qualitative divisions in a single entity, just like product and impermanence;" however, he notes that
Santideva's position is the former. 19 This discussion does not answer the previous conundrum of how the ultimate is an object of
knowledge but not a referent of awareness. However, we can detect
some amount of harmony between these two stances and the two
Madhyamaka viewpoints rGya dmar pa here mentions: The "illusionist" position holds that the two truths are "qualitative divisions" (chos kyi dbye' ba) of an entity (dflOS po), with "entity" being
(in some presentations) equated with "object of knowledge." This
suggests a stronger status for ultimate truth, making it a knowable
phenomenon, accessible to analysis. In contrast, the "non-abiding"
position states that the relationship between the two truths is simply ineffable, transcending speech in the same way that Santideva
declared that ultimate truth transcends awareness. 20
18 rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar Mad pa, 126,3-4 (59b3-4): gcig
pa yan ma yin tha dad pa yan ma yin pas de iiid dan gian du brjod du med
pa .. , dbye' ba'i don 'di ni rab du mi gnas pa'i lugs la ltos ste rnam par
biag pa'o /
19 rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar Mad pa, 126,4-5 (59b4-5): sgyu'
ma Ita bu' ni byas pa dan mi rtag pa biin du bden pa gfiis dnos po cig la
chos kyi dbye' ba gfiis su 'dod mod kyi / slob dpon 'di'i lugs ma yin pas Ina
{read: sna} ma ltar yin no /
20 Unless, ala rNgog, we pair "ineffable" with "beyond conceptuality,"
rather than "beyond awareness."
293
Looking beyond rGya dmar pa's work, we see that this division of Madhyamaka is widely referred to - and widely rejected
- in early bKa' gdams pa literature. 21 rNog, his student Gro luIi pa
Blo gros 'byun gnas (c. 1040-1120),22 and Phya pa all refer to this
as a potential bifurcation of Madhyamaka according to positions
on ultimate truth. They all argue against it, but for different reasons. Jose Cabez6n points out that rNog and Gro lun pa see both
of these potential divisions of Madhyamaka as, instead, deviations
from the middle way.23 "Illusionists" assert (in this portrayal) that
the illusory appearance of phenomena is ultimate truth, which in
rNog's and Gro lun pa's estimation amounts to an extreme of realism, as this illusory nature would stand through reasoned analysis.
Additionally, Gro lun pa is keen to point out that the "illusionist"
view is not that of Santarak~ita, although he does not say who held
it. 24 The "non-abiding" position carries several possible valences in
rNog's and Gro lun pa's work: rNog seems to equate the position
both with the meditational practice of "no [thing] abiding" in the
mind (yid la mi gnas pa) and with the ontological claim that no
phenomenon abides (chos kun mi gnas); these would be extremes
of quietism (from a practice standpoint) and nihilism (from an on-
294
Kevin Vase
tological perspective).25 Gro lun pa, instead, states that the "nonabiding" view holds that the non-abiding of phenomena is itself
established by a "reasoning consciousness," which, similar to allowing that an illusory nature withstands reasoning, suggests that
something stands out of emptiness - albeit, in this case, that something would be non-existence. 26 This perspective would then represent an overly reified ultimate. In all interpretations, rNog and Gro
lun pa reject both the "illusionist" and "non-abiding" positions and
so discount their use for dividing Madhyamaka.
In his recently published doxography, Phya pa takes a quite different approach to this division, claiming that since all Madhyamikas
assert both the utter non-abiding and the illusory appearance of all
phenomena (not neither), there can be no division of Madhyamaka
along these lines. The important issue, instead, is just what "withstands analysis" (dpyad bzod pa). If one holds that appearances
withstand analysis - that they are not utterly non-abiding - one
would not claim that they are like illusions; this, then, would make
one a realist. If one does not hold that appearances are "mere affirming negatives" (ma yin dgag pa tsam), one deprecates the conventional and becomes a nihilistY For Phya pa, then, to say that
phenomena are "utterly non-abiding" and to say that they are "like
illusions" come back to the same point: appearances do not withstand analysis and so exist only illusorily.
Further, Phya pa states, ''All Madhyamikas, due to not asserting
that illusory [phenomena] withstand analysis, assert that only utter
non-establishment withstands analysis; there is [thus] no difference
25 rNog's summary criticism reads (sPrin yig bdud rtsi thig Ie, 708):
sgyu ma gfiis med chos kun mi gnas dbu ma yi lugs gfiis rnam 'byed de yan
rmons pa mtshar bskyed yin; "Distinguishing two Madhyamaka systems
[according to those who hold that] illusion is non-duality and [those who
hold that] all phenomena do not abide amazes [only] fools."
26 This position would also make emptiness an "affirming negative"
(ma yin dgag), as the existence of "non-abiding" would be affirmed. This
view is unacceptable to Gro lun pa and to all the bKa' gdams pa authors
treated here.
27 Phya pa, bDe bar gsegs pa, 65,6ff.
295
2B Phya pa, bDe bar gsegs pa, 67,2: dbu ma ba thams cad kyis sgyu ma
lta bu iiid ni spyad par [dpyad bzod par?} mi 'dod pas I cir ymi ma grub
pa kho na dpyad bzod par 'dod pa la tha dad gtan med pa yin no II
29 For a more complete discussion of Phya pa's views on the ultimate,
see Vose, Resurrecting Candrakfrti, 92-99.
30 Phya pa, bDe bar gsegs pa, 65,6-7: don dam pa'i bden pa la yan kha
cig bden pas stan pa'i snan pa sgyu ma lta bur smra ba dan I ma yin dgag
du bden pa gan du yan rab tu mi gnas par smra ba'i lugs giiis yod zer ba.
296
Kevin Vose
297
298
Kevin Vose
299
300
Kevin Vose
42 For the debates between Jayiinanda and Phya pa over the status of the
ultimate, see Vose, Resurrecting Candrakfrti, 88-99.
43 In his contribution to the present volume, Thomas Doctor shows that
rMa bya, likewise, calls Candraklrti's views "Great Madhyamaka."
301
302
Kevin Vose
Tibetan commentators read this objection as embodying a misunderstanding of the difference between "natural nirvaI).a" (or "natural cessation;" prakrtinirvtilJa/prakrtinirvrta) and the attainment of
nirvaI).aY Prajiiakaramati reads the passage in just this way, having
the objector state that "a Buddha, who has cessation due to abandoning all defilements, also would be cycling in saf[lstira."48 The
identity between natural nirvaI).a and saf[lstira that Madhyamikas
accept leads the objector to contend (mistakenly) that the attainment of nirvaI).a would leave one still in saf[lstira. Prajiiakaramati's
reading of the objection makes for an easy Madhyamaka answer:
despite the "natural cessation" of all phenomena, the attainment of nirvaI).a depends on attaining the cessation of ignorance
(avidytinirodha), at the root of the twelve links of dependent arising, as explained in a lengthy quote from the Stilistambasiitra. 49
Upon the cessation of ignorance and the remaining links, "there
would be no cycling in saf[lstira."50
rNog BIo ldan ses rab, bSod nams rtse mo tells us, took a similar approach to explicating Santideva's question and answer. On
rNog's reading, the objector claims that since all things are naturally nirvaI).a, which is in the end no different from saf[lstira, those
47 Williams, "On PrakrtinirviiT}a/Prakrtinirvrta in the Bodhicaryiivatiira," 522ff., especially 525-526 where Williams notes, "The distinction between innate 'enlightenment' and that attained through following
the path means that the prakrtinirviiT}a is almost universally employed
in Tibet to explain the opponent's objection and its solution." As will be
seen, the early bKa' gdams pa materials present an important counter to
this claim.
48 La Vallee Poussin, Prajfiiikaramati's Commentary (1907), 385,1718: buddho 'pi sarviivaraT}aprahiiT}ato nirvrto 'pi sal!lsiiret / The Tibetan
translation here renders nirvrta as mya nan las 'das pa, consistent with
the handling of Santideva's stanza. However, in Prajfiakaramati's introduction to this passage, his usage of prakrtinirvrta (385,7) is rendered
ran biin gyis ldog pa. For the edited Tibetan of the complete passage, see
Oldmeadow, A Study o/the Wisdom Chapter, vol. 2, 34-35.
49 La Vallee Poussin, Prajfiiikaramati's Commentary (1907), 386,12ff.
50 La Vallee Poussin, Prajfiiikaramati's Commentary (1907), 389,12:
sal!lsiiraT}al!l na syiit /
303
who attain nirvax;ta are in actuality still in sa1flSara; so, the objector
wonders, what is the point of the practices of enlightenment? rNog
explains (according to bSod nams rtse mo) that while all things are
ultimately naturally nirvax;ta, conventionally there is a difference
between the attainment of nirvax;ta and sa1flsara according to "the
extinction or non-extinction of the adventitious causes that generate affiictions."51 rNog's explanation, then, may have relied on that
of Prajfiakaramati, or at minimum was drawn from consultation of
a Sanskrit version of Santideva's text related to that preserved in
Prajfiakaramati's commentary, a version that facilitates a "natural
nirva1'}a versus attained nirva1'}a" reading of the objection and answer.
Surprisingly, Prajfiakaramati's and rNog's explication of this
passage was not adopted by other early bKa' gdams pa authors.
One reason for this departure is the above-noted ambiguity of the
Tibetan translation of Santideva's question. A second reason is
Santideva's somewhat cryptic answer: "If the causes do not have
their continuum cut, illusion also is not stopped; upon the causes
having their continuum cut, it does not arise even conventionally."52
Following Prajfiakaramati, "the causes" would be ignorance, desire, and hatred - the causes of sa1flSara; the cutting of their continuum would refer to the reversal of the twelve links of dependent
arising. The parallel construction of this passage implies that what
"does not arise even conventionally" is "illusion." However, the variety of interpretations left open by the objector's question allows
Tibetan authors to develop various readings of just what has its
"continuum cut" and just what Santideva claims "does not arise,"
readings that give rise to distinct classifications of Madhyamaka.
51 bSod nams rtse mo, sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa, 495.3,4 (295b4):
non mons pa skyed pa'i rgyu glo bur ba zad ma zad kyis 'byed do.
52 La Vallee Poussin, Prajniikaramati's Commentary (1907), 386,67: pratyayiiniim anucchede miiyiipy ucchidyate na hi I pratyayiiniirrz
tu vicchediit sarrzvrtyiipi na sarrzbhavaJ:z II Oldmeadow, A Study of the
Wisdom Chapter, vol. 2, 35: rkyen nams rgyun ni ma chad na II sgyu
ma'ang ldog par mi 'gyur gyi II rkyen nams rgyun ni chad pas na II kun
rdzob tu yan mi 'byun no II While the original has no pronoun in the final
piida, I insert "it" as a placeholder for the interpretations discussed below.
304
Kevin Vase
Rather than charging Madhyamaka with a suffering Buddha through the confiation of natural nirvii1}a and the attainment of
nirvii1}a - in this interpretation the objector is concerned about
what a Buddha can perceive. The equations that the Tibetan translation allows between nirvii1}a and the ultimate, on one hand, and
53 bSod nams rtse mo, sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa, 495.3,5 (295b5):
Mad pa de ha cali legs pa ma yin no II 'di la 'grel chen byed pas 'di ltar
'chad de I
54 bSod nams rtse mo, sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa, 495.3,5-495.4,2
(295b5-296a2): spyir mdo sde pa rali gi grub mtha' mya lian las 'das pa'i
dmigs pa ni don dam pa yin la I kun nas non mons pa'i dmigs pa ni kun
rdzob ces bsams nas rgol ba ni I gal te don dam mya nan 'das II 'khor ba
kun rdzob de Ita na II sans rgyas kyan ni 'khor 'gyur bas II byali chub
spyod pas ci zig bya II zes smos te I gal te don dam pa ni mya lian las 'das
pa yin na 'khor ba ni kun rdzob kyi spros pa yin na sans rgyas la'ali snan
bcas kyi blo yod dam med I med na salis rgyas dlios med dam bems por
thalIa I yod na de kun rdzob yin nam don dam yin I don dam yin na blo
ni kun rdzob yin par brjod kyi dam bca' nams la I kun rdzob yin na kun
rdzob kun nas non molis spros pa yod pas 'khor bar thallo I de 'dod na
byali chub spyod pas ci Zig bya zes rgol ba na I
305
sa1!lsiira and the conventional, on the other, leaves the Buddha perceiving only an ultimate emptiness, without the ability to perceive
conventional appearances. If a Buddha perceives conventional appearances, the objector reasons, that Buddha must have "conventional, thoroughly afflicted proliferations," which the bodhisattva
path was to have removed.
bSod nams rtse mo's interpretation of the issue is not unique to
him but is first found in rGya dmar pa's commentary. rGya dmar pa
further reads the objector to equate "mistake" (,khrul pa, bhriinta)
and awareness (bla, buddhi); a Buddha's perception of appearances
would entail a mistaken Buddha. 55 rGya dmar pa and bSod nams
rtse mo thus see a debate on just what connection a Buddha has
with the conventional world. Specifically, if nirviilJa is the ultimate,
do those who reach nirviilJa perceive the conventional, which has
(in this interpretation) been declared to be sa1!lsiira? And if they
do, do these perceptions entail on the part of Buddhas ignorance,
the root of sa1!lsiira?
rGya dmar pa notes that Madhyamikas have two possible answers to this objection, which divides them into two camps: "those
who assert that wisdom has its continuum cut" and "those [who
assert] that wisdom does not have its continuum cut." rGya dmar
pa clearly reads Santideva's answer ("upon the causes having their
continuum cut, it does not arise even conventionally") in a new
way: here, the issue is whether awareness continues through the
transformation to buddhahood or, alternatively, whether it is a
Buddha's wisdom that "does not arise." On the first group's answer,
rGya dmar pa tells us
Some Madhyamikas assert that since all awareness is mistaken, when
mistake is extinguished awareness itself does not exist and thus wisdom has its continuum cut; "even conventionally" wisdom does not
exist. These assertions are not reasonable. . .. Even though mistake is
extinguished, wisdom is not stopped .... Since [Buddhas] see (gzigs
pa) illusory dependent arising as just illusion without the capacity to
apprehend it as true, they are not mistaken. 56
55
56
rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar Mad pa, 133,3-4 (63a3-4).
rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar bsad pa, 134,6-135,1 (63b6-64a1):
306
Kevin Vose
'on kyan blo thams cad 'khrul pa yin pas 'khrul pa zad pa'i tshe blo iiid
med pas ye ses rgyun chad do ies kun rdzob du yan ye ses med do ies dbu'
ma pa kha cig 'dod pa ni mi rigs ste / ... 'khrul pa zad kyan ye ses de mi
ldog go / ... rten 'brei sgyu' ma la bden par 'dzin pa mi mna' bar sgyu' ma
iiid du gzigs pas ma 'khrul ies bya'o /
57 rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar Mad pa, 133,7-8 (63a7-8): sans
rgyas pa'i tshe' 'khor bas bsdus pa'i rkyen rnams rgyun ni chad pas na /
'khor bas bsdus pa kun rdzob du yan mi 'byun no /
58 rGya dmar pa, Tshig don gsal bar Mad pa, 134,3 (63b3): ye ses myed
na sans rgyas iiid med pas / de'i bstan pa ilid med cin de la bsgrub pa'i
dge 'dun med pas /
307
59 bSod nams rtse mo, sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa, 495.4,4-495.4,5
(296a4-296a5): rkyen rnams rgyun ni chad pa na* ste rdo rje ita bu'i tin
ne 'dzin gyis mtshan ma dan rnam par rtog pa thams cad rgyun bead pas
non mons pa rgyun bead / de bead pas las rgyun bead / de rgyun bead
pas snan bcas kyi blo rgyun bead pas 'khor ba kun rdzob tu'an no i.es bya
ba'o / * The text incorrectly reads ma chad pa for chad pa na.
60 bSod nams rtse mo, sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa, 496.1,1 (296b1):
kho bo cag kun rdzob thams cad 'khor bar khas mi len / mya nan 'das pa
thams cad don dam du khas mi len te / dpyad bzod mi bzod kyis don dam
kun rdzob tu 'jog go /
308
Kevin Vase
309
310
Kevin Vose
referent of consciousness" and that Buddhas have no mind very literally.64 Since the ultimate is beyond awareness, Jayananda tells us,
realization of the ultimate must entail the cessation of awareness
and with it the ability to perceive appearances. 65 Phya pa argued
at length against these positions, for reasons quite like bSod nams
rtse mo's: Buddhas must have wisdom, wisdom is a type of awareness, and so awareness must continue in a purified form through
the transformation to buddhahood; to hold otherwise, Phya pa says,
one's position would resemble the nihilism of the Carvakas. 66 Phya
pa, in turn, was criticized for his "reified ultimate," an ultimate that
bears analysis and is accessible to awareness (although, as noted
311
312
Kevin Vose
313
younger brother, writes of a division within the "utterly non-abiding" Madhyamaka position between "Continuum Cutting Utterly
Non-Abiding [Madhyamikas]" and "Union Utterly Non-Abiding
[Madhyamikas]."71 In his discussion of these two groups, instead
of these unwieldy names Grags pa rgyal mtshan calls the former
"PrasaiLgika" and the latter "Svatantrika." His explanation of the
two categories maps very closely onto the divisions we have seen
rGya dmar pa and bSod nams rtse mo make: Prasangikas hold
that "Since Buddhas are always in meditative absorption, they
only [have] ultimate [awareness];"72 ordinary awareness perceiving appearances has had its continuum cut. The Svatantrika position, which Grags pa rgyal mtshan endorses, instead holds that
"Buddhas' non-conceptual minds are ultimate; as [their] pure
worldly wisdom is supported by [non-conceptual] wisdom, it accords with the conventional."73 Grags pa rgyal mtshan's notion of
71 Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Rin po che'i !jon sin, 21.4,1 (42b1): rgyun
chad rab tu mi gnas pa'i 'dod tshul dan / zun 'jug rab tu mi gnas pa'i 'dod
tshul.
72 Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Rin po che'i !jon shin, 21.4,5-6 (42b5-6):
dbu ma thaI 'gyur pa dag ni ... sans rgyas ni dus rtag tu mfiam par gtag
pa yin pas don dam pa 'ba' zig go tes zer ro / This passage is set within
a discussion of what kinds of awareness ordinary and enlightened beings
possess (21.3,6-21.4,1 [42a6-42b1]: blo thams cad bsdu na blo kun rdzob
pa dan / blo don dam pa tes bya ba gfiis yin pas na / blo gfiis po de gan
zag gan gi rgyud la ldan ze na / "When encompassing all awareness, there
are two: conventional awareness and ultimate awareness. Thus, one might
ask, 'Which persons have these two awarenesses in their continua?"').
Grags pa rgyal mtshan goes on to list four positions (the "Hearer" position, the Yogiiciira position, the PriisaIigika position, and the Sviitantrika
position), detailing where each school stands on the mental states of "ordinary beings" (so so skye bo), iiryas, and Buddhas.
73 Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Rin po che'i !jon sin, 22.1,1-3 (43a1-3): dbu
ma ran rgyud pa dag ... sans rgyas kyi thugs rnam par mi rtog pa ni
don dam pa yin la / dag pa 'jig rten pa'i ye ses ni ye ses la dmigs nas
rnam grans kyi kun rdzob yin no / For a more substantial discussion of
this passage that discusses Grags pa rgyal mtshan's views on "concordant
ultimates" and "concordant conventionals," see Vose, Resurrecting Candrakfrti, 104-107.
314
Kevin Vase
"pure worldly wisdom" mirrors his brother's "conventional wisdom;" both show how Buddhas can continue to perceive conventional appearances along with their realization of emptiness. Grags
pa rgyal mtshan further notes that both kinds of wisdom are necessary to explain non-abiding nirviilJa (aprati~rhitanirviilJa, mi gnas
pa'i mya nan las 'das pa), in which Buddhas are both fully realized
and fully able to aid sentient beings. 74
Grags pa rgyal mtshan's discussion suggests that, at least in one
reckoning, Prasailgika and Svatantrika evolved out of the "utterly
non-abiding position" and that neither could be mapped onto the
"illusionist" position, which was widely rejected in bKa' gdams pa
circles. Having cast aside the "illusionist" view, early bKa' gdams
pa authors (and their Sa skya pa students) found significant enough
philosophical differences to split further the Madhyamaka view.
Despite a mutual adherence to the "non-abiding" of all phenomena,
disputes over buddhahood produced, at least in part, the PrasailgikaSvatantrika divide.75 The only outlier category is gTsail nag pa's
"Great Madhyamaka," interestingly posited by the one Candraklrti
supporter in this group of commentators. Above, we saw that gTsail
nag pa's "Great Madhyamaka" refers to Candraklrti's revivalists,
whom others in this time period would call "Prasailgikas." The
similarities between gTsail nag pa's views and those of Jayananda,
as well as the positions that bSod nams rtse mo and Grags pa rgyal
mtshan criticize (and label "Prasailgika"), strengthens this identi-
315
316
Kevin Vose
scendent reading, consistent with how Candraklrti's twelfth century revivalists portrayed his views. However, reading Santideva
as advancing views similar to those of Srlgupta, Jfianagarbha,
Santarak~ita, or KamalaSIla held historical credibility and remained a viable option for early Tibetan commentators. We see
in these commentaries a variety of ways to reconcile Santideva's
seemingly transcendent ultimate with his broader project of mapping the practices of enlightenment. Harmonizing the ultimate
with the path leading to its realization is an issue at the very core of
Mahayana Buddhism; harmonizing realization of the ultimate with
the kind of epistemological program that gSari. phu Ne'u thog was
known for would remain a defining feature of Tibetan Buddhist
scholasticism. Early Tibetan Bodhicaryiivatiira commentaries provide a glimpse of how these processes played out in the making and
remaking of one of the preeminent figures of Buddhist India.
References
Sanskrit and Tibetan works cited
Grags pa rgyal mtshan. rGyud kyi mnon par rtogs pa rin po che'i ljon sin. In
Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum, volume 3. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968.
Gro lun pa BIo gros 'byun gnas. bsTan rim chen mo. Mundgod: Library of
His Eminence Trijang Rinpoche, 2001. Also, bKa' gdams gsun 'bum, volumes 4 and 5.
rGya dmar pa Byan chub grags. Byan chub sems dpa'i spyod pa la 'jug pa'i
tshig don gsal bar Mad pa. In bKa' gdams gsun 'bum, volume 6,11-175.
Jayananda. Madhyamakilvatilratfkil (dBu ma la 'jug pa'i 'grel Mad). bsTan
'gyur, sDe dge edition, Tohoku 3870; dbu ma, volume ya.
bKa' gdams gsun 'bum phyogs bsgrigs. Chengdu: dPal brtsegs bod yig dpe
riii:f1 fib 'jug khan, 2006.
rNog Blo ldan ses rab. sPrin yig bdud rtsi thig Ie. In bKa' gdams gsun 'bum,
volume 1,707-710.
Phya pa Chos kyi sen ge. dBu ma sar gsum gyi ston thun, edited by Helmut
Tauscher. Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien
Universitat Wien, 1999.
- bDe bar gsegs pa dan phyi rol pa'i giung mam par 'byed pa. In bKa'
gdams gsun 'bum, volume 9, 7-73.
317
- sPyod jug bsdus don. In bKa' gdams gsun 'bum, volume 7, 131-145.
Prajfiakaramati. Bodhicaryavatarapafijika. See La Vallee Poussin.
Santideva. Bodhicaryavatara (Byan chub sems dpa'i spyod pa la jug pa).
bsTan 'gyur, sDe dge edition, Tohoku 3871; dbu ma, volume ya.
bSod nams rtse mo. sPyod pa la jug pa'i 'grel pa. In Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum,
volume 2. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968.
gTsan nag pa brTson 'grus sen ge. sPyod jug gi rnam Mad. In bKa' gdams
gsun 'bum, volume 13, 487-581.
VibhUticandra. Bodhicaryavataratatparyapafijika Vise~adyotanf(Byan chub
kyi spyod pa la jug pa'i dgons pa'i 'grel pa khyad par gsal byed). bsTan
'gyur, sDe dge edition, Tohoku 3880; dbu ma, volume sa.
318
Kevin Vose