LEONARD W. J.

VAN DER KUIJP

AN E A R L Y T I B E T A N VIEW OF T H E S O T E R I O L O G Y OF
B U D D H I S T E P I S T E M O L O G Y : THE CASE OF ' B R I - G U N G
' J I G - R T E N MGON-PO*

In a stimulating paper, Steinkellner (1983) has studied the early Dga '-ldan-pa
concept of "the person of absolute authority" (tshad-ma'i skyes-bu) on
the basis of Rgyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen's notes of Tsong-kha-pa's lectures
and his brief manual on the pramd.nasiddhi chapter of Dharmakirti's
Pramd.navdrttika, the Tshad-ma'i lam-khrid, as well as Mkhas-grub Dge-legs
dpal-bzang-po's own Tshad-ma'i lam-khrid. As he has remarked, this concept
is derived from, and linked with, the well-known Bka'-gdams-pa three-fold
classification of the human personality which ultimately goes back to at
least Vasubandhu. 1 Taken on its own terms, tshad.ma'i skyes-bu is used as
an epithet of (a) Buddha, and is in all probability a contraction of tshad-mar
gyur-pa'i skyes-bu, "the person who has become absolutely authoritative" 2,
where skyes-bu is gualified by the first term of Dign~ga's famous invocation
of his Pramd.nasamuccaya. While Rgyal-tshab explicitly makes mention of
the Bka'-gdams-pa notion of the "three individuals" (skyes-bu gsum) in the
context of Buddhist epistemology (pramdna, tshad-ma), Mkhas-grub only
makes marginal use of tshad-ma'i skyes-bu and does not expressly link this
term to the early Bka'-gdams-pa idea. The exact origin of this linkage is
also not as clear as one could wish for. Steinkellner (1983: 282-283) has
made the suggestion that it should probably be sought in the teachings of
the Sa-skya-pa scholar Red-mda'-ba Gzhon-nu blo-gros (1348/49-1412)
but, as I have tried to indicate elsewhere 3, this is rather improbable. Indeed,
the available evidence would argue for Tsong-kha-pa having been its initiator,
despite Steinkellner's reservations, and this particular interpretation came
to characterize the subsequent post-Dga'-ldan-pa, that is, Dge-ldan-pa and
Dge-lugs-pa tshad-ma exegeses.4
Generally, with the exception of the Dga'-ldan-pa and the rather short
lived tradition that arose around the tshad-ma writings of Bo-dong Pa.n-chen
Phyogs-las rnam-rgyal (1376-1451), the status of tshad-ma qua "the science
of the logical argument" (hetuvidyd, gtan-tshigs-kyi rig-pa) in Tibet was one
of a non-Buddhist, secular science on a par with linguistics, technology and
medicine. This opinion was shared by virtually all the pre- and post-Tsong-kha-pa

Journal of Indian Philosophy 15 (1987) 57-70

1987 by D. ReidelPublishingCompany.

58

LEONARD W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

scholars of the Sa-skya-pa, Gsang-phu-ba, Zhwa-lu-pa, Snar-thang-pa, and

Bo-dong-pa persuasions, s As far as pre-Tsong-kha-pa Tibet is concerned,
it finds its corroboration in the tshad-ma writings of Sa-skya Pan.dita, his
student U-yug-pa Rigs-pa'i seng-ge, and Bu-ston, all of which conspicuously
lack any form of an appraisal of the soteriological possibilities of the
Pramdnavdrttika to which Bo-dong Pan-chen and the early Dga'-ldan-pa
had drawn attention. While the Tibetan tradition has held with good reasons
that, until the appearance of Sa-skya Pan.dita's retranslation (not revision!)
of the Pramdnavdrttika, it was the Pramdnavini~caya that formed the core
of the monastic curricula, the situation does not appear to be as simple as
all that. 6 If unequivocally true, it would of course help to explain the
"secular" attitude with respect to tshad-ma on the part of the Bka'-gdams-pa
exegetes who were active at Gsang-phu ne'u-thog monastery and its affiliates
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As is known, they were mainly
concerned with interpreting the Pramd.navini~caya which, in contradistinction
to the Pramdnavdrttika, could easily have been conceived as a manual on
epistemology alone, inasmuch as many passages of the latter which were to
lend themselves for soteriological interpretations are wholly absent in it.
On the other hand, this argument loses some weight when we consider that
some of the pre-Sa-skya Pan.dita texts do refer to the Pramdnavdrttika in
terms of citations and that, more significantly, the Sa-skya-pa interpretation
of the Pramdnavdrttika itself is also characterized by the secular view of
tshad-ma. Hence, while the predominant position of the Pramdnavinigcaya
could account for the Bka'-gdams-pa attitude towards tshad-ma, the situation
with Sa-skya Pan.dita and his students is much more difficult to explain. The
"records of the teachings heard/received" (gsan/thob-yig) that have come
down to us embedded in several of his biographies, make it clear that Sa-skya
Pan.dita not only had studied tshad-ma with several Bka'-gdams-pa teachers,
but also that he was privy to some of the most distinctly Bka'-gdams-pa
lam-rim texts. If we couple this to his extensive studies of the Pramdnavdrttika
and its Indian commentarial literature, then it is striking that he nowhere
mentions the tshad-ma'i skyes-bu connection. Probably, we will have to
seek for the reason for its absence in the lines of transmission which his
Indian and Nepalese teachers had passed on to him. These most likely did
not include the closed-system hermeneutics of the lugs-'byung (*anuloma)
and lugs-ldog (*pratiloma) grid which we find applied to the argumentative
structure of the Pramdnasiddhi chapter in the curious notes of Vibhfiticandra. 7

AN EARLY TIBETAN VIEW OF SOTERIOLOGY

59

This two-pronged interpretation is met with in the earliest Tibetan

Pramdnavdrttika commentary by U-yug-pa,a and we also come across this

framework in those commentaries that data from the fifteenth century
onward. The earliest available texts in question are those of Rgyal-tshab and
Mkhas-grub. It is therefore quite tempting to see the *anuloma-*pratilorna dyad
as a lain-rim precursor to the tshad-ma'i skyes-bu idea and, hence, to suggest
that it played an essential role in its formation. So far, however, there is
no textual evidence for this and, furthermore, it is quite likely that we
should name Dpang Lo-ts~-ba Blo-gros brtan-pa (1276-1342) as having
been the one to introduce Vibhf~ticandra's notes into the Tibetan exegesis
of Dharmaklrti. 9
The few lines that now follow are designed to show that from the second
half of the twelfth century onward, there did indeed exist a niche in Tibetan
Buddhism where the spiritual-cum-soteriological significance of tshad-ma was
propagated. In fact, this niche even went so far as to declare that tshad-ma
was the expression of buddhahood, plain and simple. The fragmentary nature
of this note owes itself to the rather frustrating circumstance that so little
of the earliest Tibetan writings on tshad-ma has come down to us. 10 It is
for this reason that what follows is largely expository and only marginally
exploratory. The lack of fundamental sources would not allow otherwise.
The earliest documentable instance in which tshad-ma was considered
to have a definite soteriological meaning, is contained in the formative
writings of the 'Bri-gung-pa sect of the Bka'-brgyud-pa. This sect developed
around the famous monastery of 'Bri-gung-thel which, according to some,
had been founded by Mi-nyag Sgom-ring, 11 and the teachings of its first
patriarch, the great 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten mgon-po (1143-1217), alias Rin-chendpal, alias Zhe-sdang rdo-rje. Judging from his oeuvre, 'Jig-rten mgon-po
was undoubtedly one of the most learned scholars of his day and, at the same
time, one of Tibet's greatest devotionalists. The latter is attested by his odes
to Tara, for instance, which exhibit the same stirring sentiments and vibrant
spirituality as the very best of the Indian bhakti literature.12 Along with
his particular transmission of several mahdrnudra precepts known as the
Phyag-chen lnga-ldan-rna, 'Jig-rten mgon-po's most influential teachings
were those contained in his Theg-chen bstan-pa'i snying-po, a little work
of the lain-rim genre, la and his so-called "Adamantine Pronouncements"
(rdo-r/e'i-gsung) of the extremely controversial "Single Intention" (dgongsgcig) textual cycles. The majority of what came to amount to some two

60

LEONARD W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

hundred-and-one of these were collected by his student, biographer, and

nephew Dbon-po Shes-rab 'byung-gnas (1187-1241) in around 1228 at
Mkhar-chu. 14 No doubt he was also responsible for their arrangement into
eight chapters which, in fact, form the principal body of the dgongs-gcig
cycles and which contain one hundred-and-fifty of these "adamantine
pronouncements". Relevant for this paper are pronouncements sixteen and
seventeen of the first chapter. It is in these, namely, that 'Jig-rten mgon-po
has given expression to what he considered to be the essence and scope of
tshad-ma. My approach in dealing with these two will be firstly to give their
Tibetan text together with a translation, after which they will be discussed
on the basis of the earliest commentary written on them by Shes-rab 'byunggnas. is Thereafter, I shall deal with the little and circumstantial evidence
that exists for the possibility that Tsong-kha-pa could have been influenced
by this 'Bri-gung-pa view of tshadoma.

Adamantine Pronouncement No. 1616

tshad ma ni mu stegs kyi rigs byed a dang thun mong du gyur pas
sangs rgyas kyi chos su mi 'gyur bar 'dod pa yod mod kyi / 'dir
ni tshad ma sangs rgyas kyi mkhyen pa ~ye shes su bzhed d o / /
a. Read: rig byed.
"While there indeed exists the claim that tshad-ma, inasmuch
as (it) corresponds to the veda of the non-Buddhists, would
not be the Buddha's doctrine, here (in my view) tshad-ma is
acknowledged as the originary cognitiveness (ye-shes, *jadna)
of the wisdom of sangs-rgyas 17 (*buddha)."

Adamantine Pronouncement No. 17

tshad-ma ni grub-mtha' ngan-pa sun-'don-pa-nyid yin-pa las
tshad-ma 'i-'bras-bu med-par 'dod-pa yin-mod-kyi / 'dir ni
tshad-ma'i-bras-bu chos-nyid stong-pa-nyid ston-par bzhed-do //
"While it is indeed claimed that (with respect to) tshad-ma,
aside from (being of) the nature of (a means for) refuting bad
philosophical systems, there is no (intrinsic) result of tshad-ma,
here (in my view) the result of tshad-ma is acknowledged to be
a demonstration of ultimate reality's emptiness."

AN EARLY TIBETAN VIEW OF SOTERIOLOGY

61

Remarks
Shes-rab 'byung-gnas' comments to no. 16 first identify the referents of the
p~rvapak.sa, that is to say, Rngog Lo-tsfi-ba Blo-ldan shes-rab (1059-1109)
and Jay~manda. The first of these was the initiator of the so-called Rngog
tradition (rngog-lugs) of Tibetan Buddhist epistemology who, at least for
his opinion concerning the status of tshad-ma, was apparently indebted
to one of his teachers of Buddhist pramd.navdda,to *Bhavyarfija (Skal-ldan
rgyal-po). 18 Jayananda, the *prdsahgika-mddhyamikafrom Kashmir, was
active at Khro-phu and Gsang-phu ne'u-thog monasteries during the first half
of the twelfth century, and was the author of a little work on epistemology,
the Tarkamudgara.19 This text also explicitly stresses the "provisional"
function of tshad-ma, its non-soteriological range, and the hierarchical
superiority of plain madhyamaka analysis. The opinion which was shared
by all the Bka'-gdams-pa of this period was that the primary and perhaps
only function of tshad-ma was to provide a tool for the successful elimination
of misconceptions and doubts concerning questions of doctrine. It was for
this reason, they alleged, that pramd.navddaas a pan-scholastic enterprise
was studied by all the Indian philosophical schools, whether they be Buddhist
or not, and that members of one school would study the pramd.na theories
of another school so as to sharpen their dialectical skills in preparation for
the much favoured debating sessions. Hence, for them tshad-ma had a purely
secular and dialectical function, and the treatises that dealt with tshad-ma
related subjects were not spiritually or, better, scripturally authoritative.
The DGYC I p. 402 states:
"... in order to overthrow the non-Buddhist's argument, the (texts dealing with) tshadma are not treatises of scriptural authority since, not being baged on the Buddha's
word, (they) are written through logical reasoning alone."
According to 'Jig-rten mgon-po, h o w e v e r # tshad-mameant "infallibility"
(mi-bslu-ba, avisamvdda)and it seems highly unlikely that he did not have
in mind the exposition of the PV II: 1-7a. The commentary cites passages
from the *Bodhi(satt~a-)pattide~andand the well-known invocation of the
Pramd.nasamuccayawhere Buddha is said to be the embodiment of tshad-ma.
This is then correlated with the notion of "absolutely correct understanding"
(yang-dag-pa'ishes-pa, samyagffidna) of the Prarnd.navinigcayaof which
the introductory line is quoted (Vetter 1966:30-31):

62

LEONARD W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

"Da Erlangen und Vermeiden yon Niitzlichem und Scl~dlichem unbedingt richtige
Erkenntnis voraussetzen, wird, um diese den Unwissenden zu erkl~ren, dieses (Werk)
begonnen."
This absolutely correct understanding operates on two different levels
of which the first, the provisional (gnas-skabs) one, is involved with
"the meaningful" (don-dang-ldan-pa...), that is to say, with everyday
practicalities. 21 The second base of operation, the so-called "ultimate"
(mthar-thug) level has to do with buddhahood, the elimination of all negative
functions and the consequent establishment o f Buddha-qualities. 22 It is
this last level which the commentary identifies with, on the one hand
tshad-ma, and with the originary cognitiveness on the other. This identity
being established, the DGYC Ip. 405 concludes:
"... since tshad-ma treatises are certified (gtan-laphab-pa) (as) the word of the
Victorious One (rgyal-ba'i bka "lung) and were written on the basis of (such sutras
of) the ultimate intent doctrinal cycle 23 (as) the La~ikdvatdraetc., tshad-ma (texts)
are treatises that are based on both scriptural authority and logical reasoning."
To be observed here is that content wise there is no compatibility between
the commentary and the original pronouncement in which nothing was
said about the status or classification o f the (Indian)pramd.na literature.
In the commentary this last line is prefixed by "secondly" (gnyis-pa) whereby
the expected "firstly" or any of its cognates is absent in what precedes it.
Hence, we must perforce suppose that either Shes-rab 'byung-gnas implicitly
considered his analysis of tshad-ma qua the aforementioned originary
cognitiveness to be the first part of his exegesis - this I think is unlikely
- or that, what is more probably the case, the text has not come down
to us in good order. Whatever the true state of affairs may be - this can
only be established by way o f a careful examination o f a much larger sample
of the commentary - it is intriguing to note that this portion which deals
with the question of the nature o f tshad-ma literature, that is, whether it
is Buddhist-spiritual or non-Buddhist-secular, came to be discussed in some
detail by the early Dga'-ldan-pa. 24
Turning to his comment on No. 17, it should first be pointed out that
the term "result" ('bras-bu, *phala) is not used in the technical sense o f
the issues raised by Dign~ga and Dharmakirti in their discussion o f the
relationship between the cognitive act and its content. Rather, 'Jig-rten
mgon-po intends it to simply mean something like "cash-value", the spiritual

AN EARLY TIBETAN VIEW OF SOTERIOLOGY

63

cash-value of tshad-ma, the extent to which it is conducive to spiritual insight

and realization. The commentary cites Ati~a (Satyadvaydvatdra 13b-d,
see Lindtner 1981: 190-1) and the Tarkamudgara to the effect that tshad-ma
does not, cannot lead to the understanding-realization of what there is
(de-nyid, *tattva), and that this is the exclusive domain of Madhyamaka.
So much for the pff.rvapak.sa. The beginning of Shes-rab 'byung-gnas' exegesis
of 'Jig-rten mgon-po's view shows, as one could expect, his indebtedness to
the sort of tshad-ma interpretations that were current at Gsang-phu ne'u-thog.
Thus, we find here the seven-fold classification of awareness (blo rigs
bdun) as well as, interestingly enough, a four-fold classification of the
argumentative justifications (rtags, *hetu/linga) rather than the customary
three. 2s Of these, none have any soteriological value except for two instances
of immediate perception (mngon-sum, pratyak.sa), namely, non-referential
(self-) awareness (rang-rig, svasam,vedana-) and mystical intuition (rnal-7~yor-gyi
mngon-sum, *yogipratyak.sa). 26 It is in these two that the quintessentially
Buddhist contemplative praxis (and technique) of "pacification" (zhi-gnas,
gamatha) and "higher insight" (lhag-mthong, vipagyana-) can come to realisation
In this context, the non-referential (self-) aware aspect of awareness as such
is significant insofar as it safeguards the continuity and identity of the subject
of awareness, yet it is the mystical intuition which plays an overriding role
here. The latter is, of course, nothing other than the means for the breakthrough towards emptiness (stong-pa-nyid, ~nyata-) or, putting it differently,
the modus apprehendi of the non-existence of ontological essence(s) (bdagmed, nairdtmya). 27 As avehicle for such a "de-ontologization", it is the
means by which the practitioner breaks through into the path-of-seeing,
that is to say, to the first Bodhisattva-level. Hence, Shes-rab 'byung-gnas
sets up the following relationship which, owing to his Bka'-brgyud-pa
background, is perhaps not at all surprising:
mystical intuition = meditative equipoise (mnyam-bzhag,

samdhita) = "great seal" (mahdmudra)

The mystical intuition of "what there is", namely, the emptiness of all
phenomena is equated with mahdmudra. Once this has been achieved, the
experience then fails back on the other forms of tshad-ma which were not
endowed with any form of apodicticty, regulates these, and permeates them
with a validity of their own.
Furthermore, according to Shes-rab 'Byung-gnas, the invocation of the

64

LEONARD W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

Pramd.nav~rttika (PV I: 1) also would substantiate this claim, especially

the first p&/a which reads: "Having eliminated the lattice of conceptual
c o n s t r u c t s . . . " (vidh~takalpan~dla...). In his opinion, this also points
to a certain facet of mah~mudra, and it is hardly a coincidence that virtually
the same pads is also found in the PV III: 281c at the outset of Dharmakirti's
exposition of mystical intuition. More convincing, however, is the parallel he
draws between the PV III: 360 (this verse is also found in the Pramd.naini~caya
- Vetter (1966: 92)), in which Dharmakirti seeks to dissolve the problems
that arise from the tension between the noetic and the noematic, and what
was considered by the early Tibetans to be an important argument for
Madhyamaka exegetical praxis. The verse in question is an instance of
several applications of the so-called *ekdnekaviyogahetu (gcig-dang-du-ma
dang-bral-ba'i gtan-tshigs/rtags) in the Pramd.navdrttika, and its frequent use
by Dharmakirti has led a number of the pre-Sa.skya Pa.n.dita commentators
(and others later onwards) to the conviction that the Pramd.navdrttika was
a Madhyamaka text, albeit of a special type. :s It is for this reason that
Shes-rab 'byung-gnas can conclude:
" . . . since there is not the slightest difference in the intent of this (verse), our own

mah~mudra, and Madhyamaka, (he, 'Jig-rten mgon-po) accordingly said for many
reasons that the result of tshad-mais a demonstration of ultimate reality's emptiness."
Given this early plea for tshad-ma's soteriological significance, is it possible
to set up a causal or conceptual link between the foregoing and the sort
of thing Mkhas-grub-rje predicated of Tsong-kha-pa, one of his teachers? In
the earliest, and arguably the most authoritative, biography of Tsong-kha-pa,
Mkhas-grub-rje writes the following:
"Then, having been invited by Ldan-ma Rin-chen-dpal, the 'Bul-dpon (9.) of 'Bri-khung. 29
(he, Tsong-kha-pa) went (there), accompanied by his Buddha-activity ('phrin-las-pa-dang
'grogs-te).In the summer of the ox-year (1373), he left for the dense forest of 'Brikhung-dpal. Since Chos-kyi rgyal-po, the Spyan-snga Rin-po-che of 'Bri-khung was
staying (there) at the time, (he) met him and heard (from him such teachings as) the
method of generating the enlightened attitude of the MahhyLna, the Phyag.chen-lngaldan-rnaetc". 3
Regrettably, none of the pertinent Dga'-ldan-pa or 'Bri-gung-pa sources
elaborate on the contents of "etc." (la-sogs-pa), the teachings the young
Tsong-kha-pa had received from 'Dzam-gling Chos kyi rgyal-po (1335-1407),
the eleventh (or, according to some, the twelfth) abbot of 'Bri-gung-thel.
And, hence, v~e can hardly categorically surmise that his assessment of

AN EARLY TIBETAN VIEW OF SOTERIOLOGY

65

tshad-ma's soteriology was due to the 'Bri-gung-pa teachings he had heard

shortly after he had arrived in Dbus from his home in Amdo. On p. 38 of
his biography we read that he had received teachings on the collected works
(gsung-TJum) of 'Jig-rten mgon-po from Spyan-snga Grags-pa byang-chub
at Gdan-sa-thel in around 1385. But, again, none of the available biographies
indicate any form of influence from these on Tsong-kha-pa. More likely,
Tsong-kha-pa's specific interpretation of this aspect of Dharmakirti's thought
was the result of the nexus linking the intellectual turbulence, so characteristic
of the second half of the fourteenth century, reaching its apex in the fifteenth
century, and his own genius. Having been privy to a manifold of different
textual traditions, Tsong-kha-pa stood at the center of things that, so to
speak, were in the air and which stood in dire need of articulation. His
identity and individuality as a thinker still stand to be ascertained in an
un-predisposed way, and this can only be done within a framework which
must include not only a careful examination of his oeuvre, but also that
of the lineages of transmission he received from his teachers, the pertinent
theories of his precursors, his secular affdiations with some of central Tibet's
ruling families, and the reactions of those who vigorously disagreed w i t h
what he had to say. Until this is done, any pronouncement on his (unique)
contributions or alleged originality 31 is merely speculative and hypothetical
and, as such, a bare opinion. Tentatively, and only tentatively, the differences
between the 'Bri-gung-pa view of tshad-ma and that of Tsong-kha-pa would
seem to indicate that he had laid his finger on something which had not
been seen earlier, and which his students, Rgyal-tshab and Mkhas-grub-rje
in particular, took pains to vindicate. As far as Tibetan intellectual history
is concerned, however, the first reasoned out soteriology on Dharmakirti's
thought is claimed by the 'Bri-gung-pa, in the person of the wondrous
'Jig rten mgon-po.
Institute for Indian Philology and Art History,
Free University o f Berlin
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS*
DGYC I, II Dgongs-gcigyig-cha. Detailed presentations of 'Bri-ging 'Jig-rten mogo-po's
Dgongs-gcigprecepts of Mahdy~na Buddhist Philosophy by Dbon-po Shes-rab
'byung-gnas, Vols. I, II, BiL 1975

66

L E O N A R D W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

Elmer, H. (1978). Bodhipathaprad~pa. Fin Lehrgedicht des A ti~a (Dipamkara~ri/adna)

in der tibetischen Uberlieferung, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
van der Kuijp, L. W. J. (1978). 'Phya-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge's Impact on Tibetan Epistemological Theory', Journal of Indian Philosophy 5: 355-369.
van der Kuijp, L. W. J. (1983). Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist
Epistemology, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Lindtner, Chr. (1981). 'Ati~a's Introduction to the Two Truths, and Its Sources',
Journal of lndian Philosophy 9:161-214.
Lipman, K. (1980). 'N[tdrtha, Neydrtha, and Tathdgatagarbha in Tibet', Journal of
Indian Philosophy 8 : 8 7 - 9 5 .
PV Pramd.navdrttika of Dharmakirti, Y. Miyasaka (ed.), Acta Indologica H, 1972; for
text-immanent criteria (as well as for philosophical reasons) I have followed the
chapter-order of Devendrabuddhi, rather than the one proposed by Miyasaka on
the basis of Prajfifikaragupta and Manorathanandin.
Ruegg, D. Seyfort (1981). The Literature of the Madhyamaka School o f Philosophy
in India, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Sherburne, R. (1983). A Lamp for the Path and Commentary, London: George Alien
& Unwin.
Simonnson, N. (1957). Indo-tibetische Studien. Die Methoden der tibetischen Ubersetzer,
untersucht im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung ihren Ubersetzungenfiir die Sanskritphilologie, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wikselis.
Steinkeliner, E. (1983). "Tshad-ma'i skyes-bu. Meaning and Historical Significance of
the Term", in Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy,
Vol. 2, eds. E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher, Wien: Arbeitskreis for Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien der Universit~it Wien: 275-284.
Steinkellner, E. (1978). 'Yogische Erkenntnis als Problem im Buddhismus', in Transzendenzerfahrung, Vollzugshorizont des Heils, G. Oberhammer (ed.), Wien: 121 - 1 3 4
Takasaki, J. (1966). A Study of the Ramagotravibhftga, Roma: ISMEO.
Tillemans, T. J. F. (1984). 'Two Tibetan Texts on the "Neither one nor many" Argument
for SOnyat,q', Journal of Indian Philosophy 12: 357-388.
Tucci, G. (1980). The Religions of Tibet, G. Samuel (trs.), London: Routledge & Kegan
PauL
Vetter, T. (1966). DharmaMrti's Prdma.navinigcaya.h. 1 Kapitel: Pratyak.sam, Wien:
Hermann B6hlaus.
Vetter, T. (1984). Der Buddha und Seine Lehre in Dharmakfrti's Pramd.navdrttika,
Wien: Arbeitskreis fOr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitiit Wien.
Wayman, A. (1955). 'Notes on the Sanskrit Term Jfi~na', Journal of the American
Oriental Society 75:253-268.

NOTES
I See Eimer (1978: 104-106) and Sherburne (1983: 18-20).
2 This expression is found in, for instance, Rig-'dzin Chos-kyi grags-pa's (1595-1659?)
Dam-pa 'i-chos dgongs-pa gcig-pa'i rnam-bshad lung-don gsal-byed nyi-ma 'i snang-ba,
in 'Bri-gung-pa Texts, Vol. II, Leh, 1972, p. 6.
3 See my "Mkhas-grub-rje's Epistemological Oeuvre and his Philological Remarks on
Dignga's Pram~n.asamuccaya", forthcoming in the Bediner Indological Studien.

AN E A R L Y TIBETAN VIEW OF S O T E R I O L O G Y

67

4 In this connection, an important text is Tshe-mchog-gling Yongs-'dzin Ye-shes

rgyal-mtshan's (1713-1791) .TFk-chenrigs-pa'i rgya-mtshor mchod-brjod dang rtsom-par
dam-bca'i-don rnam-par bshad-pa rigs-lam gsal-byed, in Collected Works, Vol. 21, New
Delhi, 1976, pp. 1-213.
s For an overview, see Sde-srid Sang-rgyas rgya-mtsho's Faid.arya-g.ya-sel, Vol. I,
Dehradun, 1976, pp. 517-518.
6 Such conclusions were drawn by me in van der Kuijp (1978: 357) and (1983: passim).
These will have to be somewhat revised in the light of what follows in this paper as well
as due to the fact that quotations from the Pramdn.avdrttika are also, albeit seldom,
encountered in pre-Sa-skya Pan.dita Tibetan literature.
7 See Steinkellner (1983: 279-280). While part of Sfikya~ribhadra's entourage,
Vibhfiticandra never seems to have met Sa-skya Pan.dita and, instead enjoyed close relations with the 'Bri-gung-pa. It would appear that his view of the interrelationship of the
three vows (sdom-gsum, trisamvara) was taken over by the 'Bri-gung-pa whereafter the
latter became a target of Sa-skya Pan.dita's sustained criticism in his Sdom-gsum rnam-dbye
8 See his Tshad-ma rnam-'grel-gyl 'grel-parigs-pa 'i-mdzod, Sde-dge print, Vol. I, Dolanji,
1982, pp. 210 ff.
9 This is a working hypothesis largely based on the evidence that Dpang Lo-tsfi-ba had
consulted a number of Sanskrit pramdna texts which may have been housed at Sa-skya.
While the Pramdnavdrttika commentary by Manorathanandin Vibhfaticandra's notes are
appended to this work which was recovered by R. SA.nlfftyAyana- was not translated into
Tibetan, it was not unknown to the Tibetan scholarly world and even appears to have
been occasionally consulted. For some references, see note 31 of my paper cited above
in note 2. T. Tillemans has drawn my attention to the fact that the terms *anuloma and
*pratiloma are already found in Devendrabuddhi's PV-pafl]~ka. It is still surprising that
the Sa-skya-pa tradition did not draw such conclusions as would be immanent to their
semantic possibilities. The reason for this was probably due to the fact that the early
Indian commentarial tradition of Dharmakirti did not really conceive of these two terms
as a hermeneutic grid for establishing the PV's soteriological aims and that, so wedded to
the traditions of Indian scholarship as Sa-skya Pandita was, he did not think it legitimate
to overstep the boundaries dictated by Indian commentarial tradition of the PV.
n0 An attempt at indexing this corpus is found in van der Kujip (1983: 57, 59ff.,
116ff.). Fortunately, a cursive dbu-med manuscript of Nepalese origin of Gtsang-nag-pa's
(0000-1171 )Pramd.navini~caya commentary is now housed at the 0tani University
Library. Let us hope that the authorities concerned will hand this important work to
some scholar for editing and eventual publishing.
11 See, for instance, Tucci (1980: 36) who, though he does not cite any sources,
followed a corrupt Tibetan tradition. The 'Bri-gung-pa do not countenance such an
ascription and instead hold that 'Jig-rten mgon-po was its founder. The last and most
authentic analysis of the abbatial succession (gdan-rabs) and the most important
personalities associated with 'Bri-gung-thel (also 'Bri-gung-mthil and Dpal 'Bri-gung byangchub-gling) unambiguously states that 'Jig-rten mgon-po founded this monastery in 1179
in the vicinity of the earlier seminary of Mi-nyag; see Che-tshang IV Bstan-'dzin padma'i
rgyal-mtshan (1770-0000), Nges-don bstan-pa'i snying-po mgon-po 'bri-gung-pa chen-po 'i
gdan-rabs chos-kyi byung-tshulgser-gyiphreng-ba (1800-1803), Bir, 1977, p. 117.
12 See 'Bri-gung Chos-rje 'Jig-rten mgon-po Rin-chen-dpal, The Collected Writings
(gsung-'bum), Vol. 2 (Kha), New Delhi, 1971, pp. 2 8 - 2 9 and Vol. 3 (Ga) pp. 2 5 2 253, etc.

68

L E O N A R D W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

13 The textbooks of this teaching were published as: Ngo-rje ras-pa, Bstan-snying
yig-cha, Bir. 1974. 'Jig-rten mgon-po had received the lain.rim precepts from Phag-mo
gru-pa (1110-1170), alias Rdo-rje rgyal-po, and from such Bka'-gdams-pa scholars
as Rtsags Dbang-phyug seng-ge and 'Jam (-dbyangs) seng (-ge) at Gsang-phu ne'u-thog.
Though not identified as such, Phag-mo grupa's own lam-rim text was published under
his alias of Rdo-rje rgyal-po: Sangs-rgyas-kyi bstan-pa-la rim-gyis 7ig-pa'i-tshul, Bit,
1977. This is no doubt the Bstan-rim to which Pan-chen Bsod-nams grags-pa (14781554) refers in his Bka "gdams gsar-rnying.gi chos-'byung yid-kyi mdzes-rgyan, in Two
Histories oftheBka'gdams-pa Tradition, Gangtok, 1977, p. 21.
14 The Preface to the DGYC I states that the "Dgongs gcig texts were transcribed at
Mkhar-chu, probably in 1226". However, according to the chronology of the events
prior to this coUection-cum-transcription found in the Dbon-po's biography, Spyan-snga
'bri-gung gling-pa'i rnam-thar snyan-pa'i 'brug-sgra, in the DGYC I pp. 113-115, the
date should be preferably 1228. Other notes on their collection can also be found in,
for instance, (Dbon-po's?) Dam-chos dgongs-pa gcig-pa'i khog-clbub, in the DGYC I
pp. 203ff.
is For their texts see the Chos-kyi 'khor.lo'ignas-bsdus.kyi tshoms, in the DGYC I
pp. 402-408, a portion of which is paralelled in the 'Bras-bu sangs-rgyas-sa 'i tshoms,
in the DGYC II pp. 509-511. They form the first and last chapters of the Dbon-po's
commentary to the eight chapters of the first Dgongs-gcig cycle which bore the title
of Snang-mdzad ye-shes-kyi sgron.ma. The concluding remarks of the last chapter
(p. 546) contain the term tshad-ma'i skyes-bu which even if these do not actually stem
from the Dbon-po, may still be the earliest occurrence yet.
16 For their texts see the Dam-chos dgongs-pa gcig-pa 'i rtsa-tshig rdo-rje'i-gsung
brgya-Inga-bcu-pa, in the DGYC I p. 158. Their readings, and the same holds for the
comments of Dbon-po Shes-rab 'byung-gnas, have been compared with the Bhutanese
edition of these teachings published as the Dam-chos dgongs-pa gcig-pa'i yig-cha, Vol. I,
Thimphu, 1976.
17 Here, mkhyen-pa'iye-shes should probably be interpreted as nirvana as per his
Collected Writings, Vol. 1 (Ka), New Delhi, 1971, p. 278 where the following definition
is given: sems-'di rtogs tsa-ne / 'khor-ba dang rnam-par-rtog sa ma (!)-spangs-par rang-sat

grol-bas-na / 'di-nyid-la mya-ngan-las- 'das-pa'am // mkhyen-pa'i ye-shes zhes-bya'o //.

The qualificand sangs-rgyas = *buddha is semantically ambiguous. On the one hand,
it can refer to the enlightened individual who has the enlightening experience. On the
other hand, it can also signify the experience as such, without any implied "possessor",
in which the impediments to this experience have subsided (sangs) whereby the vision
of what there is becomes expanded (rgyas). Such an interpretation of "buddha" is
already found in the Sgra-sbyor bam-po gnyis-pa (*Madyavyutpatti) of the first half
of the ninth century. The relevant passage has been translated in Wayman (1955: 257)
and Simonnson (1957: 265-66) where the latter is to be preferred.
is For this, see van der Kuijp (1983: 29ff.) and for *Bhavyarfija's unorthodox theories
which (some would hold adversely) influenced Rngog Lo-tsfi-ba, see van der Kuijp
(1983: 46, 286).
19 On him and his oeuvre, see Ruegg (1981:113-114) and van der Kuijp (1983: 69)
for his relations with some of the leading Bka'-gdams-pa scholars of his time, one of
whom wrote a commentary to his Tarkamudgara.
2o The explanation of what 'Jig-rten mgon-po's own views consisted of starts with
the statement 'dir zhal-snga-nas. What Dbon-po Shes-rab 'Byung-gnas then writes would

AN E A R L Y TIBETAN VIEW OF S O T E R I O L O G Y

69

probably be an accurate presentation of the oral teachings he received from his uncle.
Yet, one cannot dismiss the high likelihood that at least some portion of his exegesis
was steered by his own sensibilities and that what he has to say may not always have
had its origin in his uncle's teachings.
21 It is tempting to see here an echo of Prajfifikaragupta's two-fold "functional" distinction ofpramd.na as found in his commentary to the f'trst verses of the Pramdnasiddhi
chapter; for some references, see van der Kuijp ( 1983: 113, 311 - 12).
22 For these qualities, see the third chapter of the Uttaratantra/Ratnagotravibh~ga in
Takasaki (1966: 336-350).
23 For brief surveys of the relevant literature and some of the controversies, see Lipman
(1980) and van der Kuijp (1983: 42ff.). Shes-rab 'Byung-gnas doubtless had in mind
some of his notes to adamantine pronouncement no. 11, for which see the DGYC I
pp. 390-393.
24 See, for instance, Mkhas-grub Dge-legs dpal-bzang-po, Tshad-ma sde-bdun-gyi-rgyan
yid-kyi mun-sel, Coll. Works, Lhasa Zhol ed., Vol. Tha, Dharamsala, 1981, pp. 6ff.
25 For the seven-fold typology of awareness (blo-rigs), which most likely had its origin
in the writings of Phya-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge (1109-1169), see van der Kuijp (1978).
The four-fold division of the justification is based on a conceptual distinction made
between what came to be called rgyu 'i-rtags (*kdra.nahetu) and 'bras-bu'i-rtags
(*kdryahetu). Both of these, however, would seem to be grounded in the kdryahetu.
26 This statement in based on a quotation (see the DGYC I p. 406) allegedly from the
Samddhird]asatra (=Candrapracl[pa). I have not been able to identify it, but it reads
as follows: mig-dang rna-ba sna-yang tshad-rna-min // Ice-dang lus-dang yid-kyang tshad-

ma-min // gal-te dbang-po 'di-dag tshad-yin-na // 'phags-pa'i-lam-gyis su-la ci.zhig-bya //.

:7 Dharmakirti's indication at the outset of his discussion of *yogi-pratyaksa in the
PV III: 281a (prdguktarn yogindm ]adnam) undoubtedly refers to the PV II: 205cff.
where he analyzes the Buddhist path. For some further pertinent remarks, see also
the valuable analysis of Steinkellner (1978) and the translation of the Path in the
Pramdnavdrttika in Vetter (1984: 105ff.).
2a For this argument and its place in Dharmakirti's thought, see Tillemans (1984)
and his earlier contributions cited therein, and van der Kuijp (1983: 289-290).
29 According to the 'Bri-gung (khung)-pa, both forms of "'Bri-gung" and "'Bri-khung"
are acceptable. See, for instance, 'Bri-gung Bstan-'dzin chos-kyi blo-gros' Gsangdam

sgrub-pa 'i gnas-chen nyer-bzhi'i ya-g.yal gau-da-wa-ri'am / 'Brog-la-phyi gangs-kyi ra-ba 'i
sngon-byung-gi tshul-las brtsams-pa'i gtam-gyi rab-tu byed-pa nyung-ngu rnam-gsal,
published as A Guide to the Pilgrimage Retreats near Labchi, .Gangtok, 1983, p. 17,
but the orthography of "'Bri-gung-pa" was favoured by the authors of this sect.
Bstan-'dzin chos-kyi blo-gros completed this fascinating account in 1901 (the iron-ox
year of the fifteenth cycle); he himself was the thirty-fourth abbot of 'Bri-gung-thel.
3o See Mkhas-grub-rje's R]e-btsun bla-ma Tsong-kha-pa chen-po'i ngo-mtshar rmad-du
byung.ba 'i rnam-par thar-pa dad-pa'i 7ug-ngogs, Xining: Qinghai People's Publishing
House, 1982, p. 18. This is the Sku-'bum Byams-pa-gling print of the biography.
31 In traditional Tibetan scholarly circules, originality is hardly a positive quality and
smacks of "self-fabrication" (rang-bzo-ba). To some extent one can claim "originality"
on Tsong-kha-pa's part:but only after he began to receive direct instructions from
allegedly Mafijuri in the course of numerous visions during 1390 that were mediated
by Bla-ma Dbu-ma-pa. These visions mark the starting-point of his re-evaluation of
the philosophical foundations of both the exoteric and esoteric domains of Buddhist

70

L E O N A R D W. J. VAN DER KUIJP

learning, and resulted in his most famous, and in some quarters, his most disturbing
treatises. Though the Dga'-ldan-pa tradition clearly accepted that these visions originated
from Mafiju~i, thereby vindicating Tsong-kha-pa's, to some extent, unprecedented
notions, his critics did not. Thus, his contemporary, the Sa-skya-pa scholar Rong-ston
~kyaorgyal-mtshan (1367-1449) is said to have opined that Tsong-kha-pa's vision was
not that of a tutelary deity, but rather one of a '~utelary demon" (lhag.pa'ilha.min);
we Gser-mdog Pan-then Sakya-mehog-ldan, R/e-btsun thams-admkhyen-pa Bshes.gnyen
Sdkya-rffyal-mishan-ffyi mare-that ngo-mtshardad-pa'i rol-mtsho, Collected Works,
Vol. 16, Thimphu, 1975, p. 342. A similar sentiment is expressed by another critic of
Tsong-kha-pa, namely, the Sa-skya-pa Go-rams-pa Bsod-nams seng-ge (1429-1489) who
speaks in this context of a "tutelary ghost" (bdudyi-dam); see his Lta-ba'i shan-'byed
theg-mchoggnad-kyt 'od-zer, Sa-skya-pa'i bka"bum, comp. Bsod-nams rgya-mtsho,
Vol. t3, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1969, p. 18/3/4.