Category Archives: Dzogchen

A Critical Remark about Misleading Polemical Amalgamations: “emptiness-of-other,” “subitism” and “practice linages”

Stéphane Arguillère (IFRAE / Inalco)

Much has been written about the debate on “emptiness-of-other,” “subitism” and “practice linages,”1 to the extent that some may have presented it as something that became central as early as the 14th century and remained so for the rest of Tibetan intellectual history. At some point, such an ideological device was constructed, but it actually became central as a commonly shared doxographical framework only in the nineteenth century with the “non-sectarian” (ris med) masters of eastern Tibet in their struggle for life against Gelug hegemony. In historical research, it is important to deconstruct false historiography—that is to say, to understand these late narratives as an ideological product of their own time, expressing the power games of that period, and basically irrelevant to the era we are studying.

In this later doctrinal construction, one witnesses a massive conflation of two completely unrelated issues: the Sakya polemic against subitism, on the one hand, and the (much later) Gelug denial of any “positive” aspects in the ultimate nature, on the other. Along with this conflation of two logically unrelated issues, another polemical boundary is fabricated: a distinction between the “practice lineages” (sgrub brgyud) and the “study lineages” (bshad brgyud). To summarize all this simply, the entire intellectual (and even spiritual) history of Tibet is fancifully portrayed and brutally simplified as a battlefield between only two camps: on the one hand there are the “practice lineages,” namely the Kagyüpas and the Nyingmapas (and perhaps all the other “red hat” schools), who are supposedly all subitistspartisans of the emptiness-of-other, and strong practitioners, and on the other hand there are the “study lineages,” namely the Gelugpas (the Sakyapas are presented in an ambiguous way), who are portrayed as dry intellectuals who hardly ever practice, are partisans of the “emptiness-of-self,” and gradualists.

It is a fact that Sakya Paṇḍita’s polemics2 target the Kagyüpas’ Mahāmudrā in a formula that also seems to blame the Nyingmapas, as it calls it “Chinese-style Dzogchen.”3 However, his anti-Mahāmudrā arguments are of three kinds. One is about the lack of real textual sources for such an approach. The Nyingmapas cannot be blamed for this, as they have a large canon of Dzogchen tantras, which is one among many important factors that distinguishes Dzogchen from Kagyü Mahāmudrā. For a supporter of neo-conservative orthodoxy such as Sakya Paṇḍita, the issue with the Nyingma lineages would then rather have been the authenticity of this literature in terms of Indian sources. However, for some reason,4 Sakya Paṇḍita does not discuss this aspect in that context, and his line of anti-Dzogchen arguments must not be confused with the anti-Mahāmudrā polemics, which do, nonetheless, take aim at Dzogchen too. The phrase “Chinese-style Dzogchen” can either be taken to mean that Dzogchen as such is a Tibetan outcome of Chan or perhaps that some have bent authentic Dzogchen in the direction of Chan ideas, which Sakya Paṇḍita rejects.

The second line of argumentation targeted by Sakya Paṇḍita’s treatise is about presenting this ultimate approach, Mahāmudrā, as being accessible without the tantric apparatus of empowerments, etc. This objection, which is relevant to Gampopa and his followers, is much less significant for the Nyingmapas, who generally practice Dzogchen on the basis of empowerments and specific texts they call tantras. The idea that ultimate nature can be accessed without any method is also present, of course, but perhaps this is what Sakya Paṇḍita calls “Chinese-style Dzogchen,” meaning that from his point of view there can be good and bad Dzogchen.

This brings us to the third point, which is the only one that could be linked, albeit rather artificially, to the “emptiness-of-other” question. Sakya Paṇḍita is definitely a strong gradualist, in the sense that he sees enlightenment as what Tibetan scholastics would call a “fruit of production,” (grub ’bras) something that results from causes and conditions: namely, the accumulations of merit and wisdom. Contrary to this assumption, the partisans of the “emptiness-of-other” understand it as something eternally pre-existing in ourselves, as our Buddha-nature. Enlightenment would then mean revealing this Buddha-nature.

Now, it is not at all in the context of his anti-Mahāmudrā polemic that Sakya Paṇḍita discusses the question of an eternally pre-enlightened Buddha nature, and it is only later authors who have amalgamated the two lines of arguments. Sakya Paṇḍita definitely rejects the idea that the accumulations of merit and wisdom do not need to be completed because they are originally present in our own essential nature5. On this particular point, he is probably addressing Lama Zhang.6 rather than Gampopa. And it is clear that, although he may not have been thinking of them, the Nyingmapas would be within the scope of the refutation, because if Dzogchen does not mean that all that is required for enlightenment is complete in our own nature, then it would mean nothing.

It must be understood, however, that the assumption that our own nature is always already perfect does not logically imply either the “emptiness-of-other” in any precise sense, nor does it imply subitism. 

On the first side, unless we want to stretch the concept to the point where it no longer has a definite meaning, “emptiness-of-other” implies the assumption that this ever-perfect Buddha nature is empty of the phenomenal aspects of the empirical world and ordinary mind, but not of itself, which means that it is absolutely real in and of itself, albeit in a way that may be inconceivable. Ultimate reality is then understood as that which remains when all that does not withstand critical analysis has been refuted. Now it is clear that such a line of reasoning is never to be found in Nyingma literature: its tendency, when it philosophizes, is rather to go to the very extreme of Madhyamaka negative reasonings in Candrakīrti’s style and then, admittedly, to describe what is discovered in positive terms, but never ever to say that it is something real that is immune to reasoning about emptiness, as Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), the inventor of the “emptiness-of-other,” would have it.

On the other side, Dolpopa is a very strong gradualist: he describes the path as a progressive purification of the two obscurations, achieved mainly through the two stages of higher tantric practice. For him, enlightenment is a “fruit of a suppression” or “of a privation” ( ’bral ’bras), not something that can be achieved by merely recognizing the ultimate nature in his own light. Therefore, in this respect as well, his teaching cannot be assimilated to either Kagyü Mahāmudrā or Nyingma Dzogchen.

As for the last ideological opposition to be deconstructed, that between “practice lineages” and “study lineages,” it obviously does not even deserve to be discussed. Of course, there is a historical tendency in all the countries where Buddhism has spread for it to become a mere object of pure scholarly discourse in monastic circles. But between two or more groups whose doctrines contain complete instructions for practice and an equally strong exhortation to apply them, to say that one is more meditation-oriented than the other can be at best a sociological fact, at worst a derogatory stereotype, but in no case is it relevant to describing the beliefs of either group.

  1. The full history of the fabrication of these amalgamations and stereotypes has not yet been written. The fact that they cannot be used as a frame of reference for serious history would not prevent them from being good objects of study for the historian. The purpose of inserting these explanations is merely to exorcise them so that we can appreciate the actual facts without the superimposition of irrelevant ideology. []
  2. For the actual meaning of this controversy in its original context, see especially David Jackson 1994. Most of what follows is a summary of the analyzes presented in this book, except for the more application to rNying ma doctrines which is based on Arguillère 2007, pp. 214–287, which present arguments in the sense of the radical incompatibility of the doctrines of gZhan stong and rDzogs chen. []
  3. rGya nag lugs kyi rdzogs chen la|… Sa skya paṇḍita 2006: p. 52. []
  4. Political explanations of doctrinal debates should be avoided, because they explain away the debates instead of really explaining them: they do not take them seriously because they want to believe that what is really at stake is not openly stated in the texts. Genuine “charitable reading” implies that we do not presume to know better than the author what he really thinks, and especially that we do not do so out of conceptual laziness, deciding before examination that a debate is futile. In this particular case, Sa skya paṇḍita’s opposition to bKa’ brgyud teachings cannot be reduced to the very real divergent interests of the two schools or groups of schools at the time. He did not ignore the rNying ma pas although, from a political point of view, they certainly did not weight much in his time. Other passages of the sDom gsum rab dbye contain a strong charge against the rNying ma pas: for example, on the rNying ma classification of the tantras and the nine graded vehicles (Sa skya paṇḍita 2006, p. 63); on the next page, he refuses the idea that a ti yo ga is a vehicle or, in fact, anything other than ye shes. In ibid., p. 83, he seems to be attacking the gter ma tradition as a whole as something purely fantastic (gter nas byung ba’i glegs bam dang|…). []
  5. It should be noted that this point occurs in a completely different part of the sDom gsum rab dbye (Sa skya paṇḍita 2006: p. 7 ff—the dharmadhātu is unconditioned and therefore is not “virtuous”) in a development altogether unconnected to the discussion about Mahāmudrā and maybe Dzogchen, and separated by 45 pages. Sa skya paṇḍita rejects the idea of a Buddha nature eternally endowed with all the attributes of perfect Buddhahood, and in this he would have rejected Dol po pa’s doctrine. However, he would have regarded it as merely philosophically wrong, and not as practically problematic, as Dol po pa did not in the least posit the possibility of direct enlightenment by a mere recognition of the ultimate nature through a path beyond the higher tantras with their four empowerments and two stages of practice. []
  6. Bla ma Zhang brTson ’grus grags pa (1123–1193). This figure and the opposition of Sa skya paṇḍita to his doctrines is well documented in David Jackson 1994. []

རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གཏེར་ནས་བཏོན་པའི་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཀ་དག་རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་སྤྱིར་བསྟན་དང་ཁོག་དབུབ་སྐོར།

Jean-Luc Achard
CNRS, CRCAO

གཏེར་ཆེན་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གཏེར་ནས་བཏོན་པའི་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཀ་དག་རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཨོ་རྒྱན་པདྨའི་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ཁོངས་སུ་གཏོགས་ཏེ་སྤྲོས་པའི་མཐའ་སྤྱོད་པའི་སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་པོའི་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ཡིན།  ཨ་འཛོམ་ཆོས་སྒར་གྱི་དཔེ་སྐྲུན་བཞིན་ཡང་ཟབ་གནད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་ཚན་ནི་ཆོས་སྡེ་བཅོ་ལྔ་ཐེམ་བྱང་དང་བཅས་པས་ཆོས་ཚན་བཅུ་དྲུག་ཡོད།  ཁྱད་པར་དུ་ཆོས་ཚན་དེ་རྣམས་དབང་དུ་བྱས་ན་ཞུས་ལེན་གནད་ཀྱི་ཡི་གེ་དང་གཅིག།  ཞལ་ཆེམས་རིན་ཆེན་གཟེར་བུ་དང་གཉིས།  མ་རིག་མུན་སེལ་དང་གསུམ།  སྙིང་པོ་བསྡུས་པ་རིག་པའི་དབང་དང་བཞི།  གནད་ཏིག་ཞལ་གདམས་ཟབ་མོའི་ཐེམས་དང་ལྔ།  ངོ་སྤྲོད་རང་རིག་རང་གསལ་དང་དྲུག།  གེགས་སེལ་ནོར་བུ་རཏྣའི་བང་མཛོད་དང་བདུན།  མན་ངག་གསལ་བའི་སྒྲོན་མ་དང་བརྒྱད་དོ།  རྒྱུད་གཉིས་ནི་ཀུན་གྲོལ་རྡོ་རྗེ་སེམས་དཔའི་རྒྱུད་ལེའུ་དགུ་པ་དང་།  རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་རྩ་བའི་རྒྱུད་ལེའུ་བཅུ་གསུམ་དང་བཅས་པའོ།  ཆོས་སྐོར་ཀུན་ཀྱང་ཚིག་དོན་གང་ཞེ་ན་མཉམ་པར་བཞག་པ་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གཙོ་བོར་སྟོན་པའི་ཡང་གསང་བླ་ན་མེད་པའི་སྙན་བརྒྱུད་ཡིན་ནོ། ༡༩༧༣ ལོར་པད་མ་ཆོས་ལྡན་གྱིས་པར་སྐྲུན་བྱས་པའི་དཔེ་ཚོགས་དེའི་སྙིང་དོན་ནི་གཤམ་གསལ་ལྟར་ཏེ།

དཀར་ཆག།

༠༽ཐེམ་བྱང་།་་་་་༡-༢

༡༽སྔོན་འགྲོ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་གནད་ཀྱི་གཟེར་ལྔ།་་་་་་་་༣-༣༡

༢༽གསོལ་འདེབས།་་་་་་་་་༣༣-༣༩ Continue reading

The Lineage of the Ka dag rang byung rang shar according to the Preliminaries known as The Five Nails (gZer lnga)

by Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)

The Natural Emergence of the Self-Arisen Primordial Purity (Ka dag rang byung rang shar) revealed by Rig ‘dzin rGod ldem (1337–1408) in 1366 in Zang zang Lha brag is sometimes regarded as a secondary or complementary rdzogs chen cycle associated with the famed Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra (Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal).1 Here I shall briefly introduce the structure of its preliminary practices (sngon ‘gro) and present its two main lines of transmissions.2 The principal source for this short note is The Five Nails making up the Key Points of the Precious Preliminaries (sNgon ‘gro rin po che gnad kyi gzer lnga) which is the second text belonging to the collection.3

Continue reading

  1. See the complete analytical description of this cycle in Peter Schwieger, Die Werksammlungen Kun-tu bzaṅ-po’i dgoṅs-pa zang-thal, Ka-dag raṅ-byuṅ raṅ-śar und mKha’-‘gro gsaṅ-ba ye-śes-kyi rgyud, pp. 114-132. []
  2. These lines of transmission are described in Schwieger, op. cit., p. 115. We shall see another line of transmission according to the main Supplication (gSol ‘debs) text of this cycle (duly described in Schwieger, ib., p. 116) in a forthcoming short note to appear on this website. []
  3. On this system of five preliminary practices described according to the dGongs pa zang thal, see Tulku Thondup, Boundless Vision, pp. 65-79; id., The Five Nails, passim. See also S. Arguillère, Manuel de la transparution immédiate, p. 117 et seq. []

A Line of Transmission of the dGongs pa zang thal according to the History of the Lineage known as the Garland of Gems (brGyud pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i ‘phreng ba)

Jean-Luc Achard

(CNRS, CRCAO)

The brGyud pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i phreng ba is a late work that has been included in some of the later editions of the dGongs pa zang thal.1 It was authored by one ‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po who is supposed to have been the 25th Sa skya khri chen, also known as Grags pa blo gros (1563–1617).2 I have so far been unable to identify any reference to the transmission of the dGongs pa zang thal in his biography, nor have I succeeded in locating in the same biography any interest of this master for rDzogs chen teachings. However, in the present narrative, he explains the lineage from which he has received transmission, including direct teachings from Chos kyi rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, Rig ‘dzin Nam mkha’ grags pa and rNam rgyal mgon po, among others. This direct proximity raises questions about his dates.3 He states (p. 68) that the transmission he obtained from Nam mkha grags pa occurred 74 years after the gter ma revelation by rGod ldem. This would correspond to 1439 (sa mo lug).4 He also explains that the transmission lasted until 1441 (lcags mo bya), covering a period during which he received the various empowerments of the dGongs pa zang thal.5 The teachings he received are connected to the following line of transmission:

  1. ‘Od mi ‘gyur ba/Samantabhadra (pp. 45-46)6
  2. Buddhas of the Five Clans (rigs lnga) (p. 46)
  3. Mahā Vajradhara/Vajrasattva (p. 46)
  4. Vajrapāṇi (pp. 46-48)7
  5. dGa’ rab do rje (pp. 48-49)
  6. ‘Jam dpal bshes gnyen (Mañjuśrīmitra) (pp. 49-52)
  7. Shrī seng ha (Śrī Siṃha) (p. 52)
  8. Padmasambhava (p. 52)
  9. Vairocana (p. 52)
  10. Vimalamitra (p. 52)8
  11. Chos rgyal Khri srong lde btsan (p. 53)
  12. (Ye shes) mTsho rgyal (p. 53)9
  13. gTer ston Rig ‘dzin smug nag (p. 56)10
  14. bSod nams bzang po (p. 66)
  15. Rig ‘dzin chen po Nam mkha’ grags pa (p. 66)11
  16. rNam rgyal mgon po (p. 68)12
  17. Sa skya ‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (p. 69)

The issue about the author of this text is thorny because his dates on the Sa skya side seem to be well established while they in fact do not fit with the chronology he himself gives of the transmission he received. A solution would be to suggest there has been two Sa skya ‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po-s, but I think it is pretty much unlikely.

 

Bibliography

Collective

sNga ‘gyur byang gter chos skor phyogs bsgrigs, s.l., 2015, 63 volumes, BDRC W2PD17457.

Rig ‘dzin rGod ldem (1337–1408)

— Byang gter phyogs bsgrigs: sNga ‘gyur byang gter chos skor phyogs bsgrigs, s.l., 2015, 63 vol. BDRC W2PD17457.

— Byaṅ gter rdzogs chen dgoṅs pa zaṅ thal and Thugs sgrub skor, Collections of texts from two cycles of rediscovered teachings of the Byaṅ-gter or Rdo-rje-brag tradition of the Rñyiṅ-ma-pa school, revealed from their place of concealment by Rig-‘dzin Rgod-kyi-ldem-‘phru-can. Reproduced from ancient manuscripts from the monastery of Gsaṅ-sṅags-chos-gliṅ in Spiti. Published by Orgyan Dorji, Suma, Kinnaur Distt., 3 volumes, 1978.

‘Jam mgon A mes zhabs (1597–1660)

sNgags ‘chang grags pa blo gros kyi rnam par thar pa bying rlabs char ‘bebs zhes bya ba, in The Biographies of Sa-skya Lo-tstshā-ba ‘Jam-pa’i-rdo-rje (1485–1533) sṄags-‘chaṅ Grags-pa-blo-gros (1563–1617), and ‘Jam-dbyaṅs bSod-nams-dbaṅ-po (1559-1621), Reproduced from clear prints of the Sde-dge Dgon-chen blocks, Sakya Centre, Dehradun, 1984, pp. 39-91.

‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (*1563–1617)

brGyud pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i phreng ba, in sNga ‘gyur byang gter chos skor phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, pp. 43-71.

Schwieger, Peter

Die Werksammlungen Kun-tu bzaṅ-po’i dgoṅs-pa zang-thal, Ka-dag raṅ-byuṅ raṅ-śar und mKha’-‘gro gsaṅ-ba ye-śes-kyi rgyud, Tibetische Handschriften und Blockdrucke, Teil 9,  Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1985.

 

  1. It is not, for instance, included in the 1978 three volume edition of the Byang gter rdzogs chen dgongs pa zang thal and Thugs sgrub skor. Nor is it contained in the A ‘dzom chos sgar edition. []
  2. About his life, see ‘Jam mgon A mes zhabs, sNgags ‘chang grags pa blo gros kyi rnam thar, pp. 39-91. His name is given on p. 43 as sNgags ‘chang Grags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, and as ‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po on p. 48. []
  3. The fact that he belong to the Sa skya lineage and that he therefore might really be the 25th Sa skya khri ‘dzin, is hinted at in the Nor bu’i phreng ba itself in which he introduces himself at one point as being of Sa skya lineage (p. 69: bdag sa skya ‘jam dbyangs bsod nams rgyal mtshan dpal bzang pos/…). []
  4. There is a discrepancy of about one century and a half when comparing these dates with those that are traditionally associated with the 25th Sa skya khri ‘dzin. []
  5. The list he gives enumerates: spros bcas dbang, spros med dbang, shin tu spros med dbang, rab tu spros med dbang, as well as thugs dbang, and rtsal dbang. []
  6. ‘Od mi ‘gyur ba (“Immutable Light”) is the name of the primordial Buddha as it appears in several Tantras of the dGongs pa zang thal (and elsewhere). This name can be interpreted as symbolically referring to the natural state (gnas lugs) which is defined as the nondifferentiation of Emptiness and Clarity (stong gsal dbyer med). The Emptiness aspect (stong cha) of this state is to be associated with the “Immutable” (mi ‘gyur ba) Essence (ngo bo) of the Buddha, while the “Light” or Clarity aspect (gsal cha) is connected to his Nature (rang bzhin). See also P. Schwieger, Die Werksammlungen Kun-tu bzaṅ-po’i dgoṅs-pa zang-thal, p. xix. []
  7. Starting with the next in the line of transmission, i.e., dGa’ rab rdo rje, all masters belong to the human realms, while nos. 1-4 were associated with divine abodes. []
  8. Padmasambhava, Vairocana, and Vimalamitra are traditionally presented as having all been disciples of Śrī Siṃha, although not at the same time. []
  9. She was a disciple of Padmasambhava (no. 8), not of Vairocana or Vimalamitra. And even though she had been married to king Khri srong lde btsan she was in no way his disciple either. []
  10. This is of course Rig ‘dzin rGod ldem (1337–1408). In the lineage of the Ka dag rang byung rang shar (Byang gter phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 3 p. 11), he is described as a great Knowledge-Holder (rig ‘dzin chen po) having a dark red or brown complexion (sku mdog dmar smug). []
  11. bSod nams bzang po and Nam mkha’ grags pa are both direct disciples of Rig ‘dzin rGod ldem. []
  12. He was Rig ‘dzin rGod ldem’s son. []

An Unknown Master of Rig ‘dzin rgod ldem: Sba ston/rGa ston dpal ba and Mañjuśrī’s Dzogchen

Rigdzin Gödem – Unknown source.

An Unknown Master of Rig ‘dzin rgod ldem: Sba ston/rGa ston dpal ba and Mañjuśrī’s Dzogchen: Rig ’dzin rGod ldem in the ’Jam dpal rDzogs chen lineage stemming from Sar ban phyogs med (XIth century) and its possible connections with ’Jam dpal tshe bdag

During my preliminary investigation in the fifth Dalai Lama’s Record of Teachings Received (gSan yig), I spotted the presence of Rigdzin Gödem in the context of a little-known lineage, that of ’Jam dpal rdzogs chen. There is actually no doubt about his identity, as the next figures in the lineage are very well-known masters of the Northern Treasures.

Continue reading

Recovering the tantras of the Brahmin Cycle of the Dzogchen Yangti (rDzogs chen Yang ti bram ze’i skor)

In Rigdzin Gödem’s biographies, it appears that his father, Lopön Düdül (sLob dpon bDud ’dul, or Sidüdül–Srid bdud ’dul), was a practitioner of the Yang ti bram ze. What do we know about this little-known cycle of Dzogchen tantras?

There are clearly none extant practice instruction manuals (khrid yig), let alone masters who would know the practice in concrete terms. I could not even find a precise list of the tantras of this class. After a discussion with Jean-Luc Achard, I understood that we were indeed in such a total vagueness that his own efforts produced only a tentative list of these tantras by starting from the idea that the Yang ti was subdivided into two–Yang ti nag po and Yang ti bram ze. The Yang ti nag po being a living tradition, its tantras are well known (or at least, there is no ambiguity as to their list). It would therefore be possible to reconstitute the list of tantras of the Yang ti bram ze by eliminating the tantras of the Yang ti nag po from the whole of the tantras of the Yang ti (assuming that there are indeed only these two classes–which is not self-obvious, as, sometimes, one also finds mention of the Yang ti sangs rgyas mnyam sbyor, to which a cycle revealed by Guru Chöwang (Gu ru Chos dbang) belongs).

Continue reading