History of buddha-nature in Tibet

From Buddha-Nature
Topic: History of buddha-nature in Tibet

Books

Book
A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes
A translation of Sakya Paṇḍita's famous work on the three sets of Buddhist vows.
Rhoton, Jared Douglas, trans. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems. Edited by Victoria R. M. Scott. SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Book
A Direct Path to the Buddha Within
A translation and study of an important Kagyu commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.
Book
Bde gshegs snying po rigs kyi chos skor
This collection includes a history of buddha-nature theory in Tibet by Thupten Jinpa and seven texts influential in the development of buddha-nature teachings in Tibet. The texts included represent many lineages and historical periods. Along with the root text the following texts appear: 1) Butön's commentary to the Uttaratantrashastra (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པ་མཛེས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་རྒྱན། pp 3-63). 2) The Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's commentary (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་བསྟན་པ། pp 65-69). 3) The Fifteenth Karmapa Khakyap Dorje's commentary (དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པའི་སྙིང་པོ་བསྟན་པའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཀྱི་མཆན་འགྲེལ། pp 71-88). 4) Rongton's commentary (ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལེགས་པར་བཤད་པ། pp 89-206). 5) Shakya Chokden's commentary (ཆོས་དབྱིངས་བསྟོད་པའི་འགྲེལ་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་དབྱིངས་རྣམ་པར་ངེས་པ། pp 207-238). 6) Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's text on the disposition (gotra, rigs) (རིགས་ཀྱི་སྤྱི་དོན། pp 239-287) 7) Mipham Gyatso's Lion's Roar (བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོའི་སྟོང་ཐུན་ཆེན་མོ་སེངྒེའི་ང་རོ། pp 289-316).
Jinpa, Thupten, ed. Treatises on the Buddha Nature. Tibetan Classics Series 17. New Delhi: Institute of Tibetan Classics, 2007.glang ri ba thub bstan sbyin pa. bde gshegs snying po rigs kyi chos skor. bod kyi gtsug lag gces btus 17. bod kyi gtsug lag zhib dpyod khang, 2007. གླང་རི་བ་ཐུབ་བསྟན་སྦྱིན་པ། བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་རིགས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་སྐོར། བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་གཅེས་བཏུས། ༡༧ བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་ཞིབ་དཔྱོད་ཁང་།, 2007.
Book
Buddha-Nature and Emptiness
An essential study of a key text that presents buddha-nature theory and its transmission from India to Tibet, this book is the most thorough history of buddha-nature thought in Tibet and is exceptional in its level of detail and scholarly apparatus. It serves as a scholarly encyclopedia of sorts with extensive appendices listing every existent commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantraśāstra), as well as covering Ngok Lotsawa's commentarial text and his philosophical positions related with other Tibetan thinkers.
Kano, Kazuo. Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 91. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016.
Book
Jamgön Mipam: His Life and Teachings
Jamgön Mipam (1846-1912) is one of the most extraordinary figures in the history of Tibet. Monk, mystic, and brilliant philosopher, he shaped the trajectory of Tibetan Buddhism's Nyingma school. This introduction provides a most concise entrée to this great luminary's life and work. The first section gives a general context for understanding Mipam's life. Part Two gives an overview of Mipam's interpretation of Buddhism, examining his major themes, and devoting particular attention to his articulation of the Buddhist conception of emptiness. Part Three presents a representative sampling of Mipam's writings. (Source: Shambhala Publications)
Duckworth, Douglas S. Jamgön Mipham: His Life and Teachings. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2011.
Book
La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra
Le tathāgatagarbha, « embryon » ou « matrice » de Tathāgata, est le genre de la nature de Bouddha qui, selon certains textes du Mahāyāna, est présent en tous les êtres. Cette théorie joua un rôle considérable dans le bouddhisme de la Chine, du Japon et du Tibet. Elle est liée à d'autres points de doctrine importants, que M. Ruegg a examinés également ici, ceux du gotra ou « lignée » spirituelle, de l'Eveil universel, du Véhicule unique de salut, de la luminosité naturelle de la pensée. Toutes ces théories, étroitement liées entre elles, touchent de très près à l'essence même du bouddhisme du Grand Véhicule, comme l'a montré excellemment M. Ruegg. Celui-ci a pourtant limité le champ de ses investigations à certaines sources, sūtra sanskrits du Mahāyāna, traités des Mādhyamika et des Yogācāra, commentaires et traités tibétains d'époques diverses, laissant de côté notamment toute l'abondante littérature chinoise et japonaise sur le sujet. Prudemment, il s'en est tenu à une étude doxographique, sans traiter aucun des problèmes de philologie et d'histoire. Cependant, la maîtrise acquise par lui en sanskrit et en tibétain, et sa grande familiarité avec la pensée bouddhique, même dans ce qu'elle a de plus abstrus, permettent à M. Ruegg de se jouer aisément de toutes les difficultés, fort nombreuses et redoutables, dont un tel sujet était hérissé. On regrettera seulement qu'il n'ait guère fait effort pour rendre son livre accessible au lecteur non spécialiste. Pourtant, cet ouvrage, qui est une contribution capitale à notre connaissance de la pensée bouddhique, mérite d'être connu d'un large public de philosophes et d'historiens des religions. Souhaitons que son auteur en donnera bientôt un condensé sous une forme claire. Mais ce défaut, qui ne concerne que l'expression et est en quelque sorte la rançon de la compétence de M. Ruegg, n'enlève rien à la valeur intrinsèque de ce travail, l'un des meilleurs qu'ait produits l'étude du bouddhisme ces dernières années. (Source: Review by André Bareau, Revue de l'histoire des religions)
Ruegg, David Seyfort. La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra: Études sur la sotériologie et la gnoséologie du Bouddhisme. Publications de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient 70. Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1969.
Book
Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas", and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong
In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, there is an ongoing debate about whether the gzhan stong system was "invented" by Tibetans, in particular by Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361), or whether there are Indian precursors of that view. Here, I will (1) discuss evidence for a number of typical positions of the gzhan stong system in several Indian texts, (2) provide a sketch of the transmission of the five works of Maitreya from India to Tibet and the beginning of a Tibetan gzhan stong tradition preceding Dol po pa, and (3) trace some typical gzhan stong assertions in a few early Tibetan works before Dol po pa that are considered by Tibetan writers as belonging to the gzhan stong system. (Brunnhölzl, introduction, 9)
Brunnhölzl, Karl. Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas", and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 74. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2011.
Book
The Life and Works of Kyotön Monlam Tsultrim
Many important early Tibetan works on Buddha-Nature are reproduced in this volume.
Phuntsho, Karma, ed. སྐྱོ་སྟོན་སྨོན་ལམ་ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་ཀྱི་མཛད་རྣམ་དང་གསུང་རྩོམ། The Life and Works of Kyotön Monlam Tsultrim. Bhutan: Loden Foundation, 2023.
Book
The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows
With its emphasis on the concept of buddha-nature, or the ultimate nature of mind, the Uttaratantra is a classical Buddhist treatise that lays out an early map of the Mahāyāna path to enlightenment. Tsering Wangchuk unravels the history of this important Indic text in Tibet by examining numerous Tibetan commentaries and other exegetical texts on the treatise that emerged between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries. These commentaries explored such questions as: Is the buddha-nature teaching found in the Uttaratantra literally true, or does it have to be interpreted differently to understand its ultimate meaning? Does it explicate ultimate truth that is inherently enlightened or ultimate truth that is empty only of independent existence? Does the treatise teach ultimate nature of mind according to the Cittamātra or the Madhyamaka School of Mahāyāna? By focusing on the diverse interpretations that different textual communities employed to make sense of the Uttaratantra, Wangchuk provides a necessary historical context for the development of the text in Tibet. (Source: SUNY Press)
Wangchuk, Tsering. The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows: Tibetan Thinkers Debate the Centrality of the Buddha-Nature Treatise. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2017.
Book
When the Clouds Part
"Buddha nature" (tathāgatagarbha) is the innate potential in all living beings to become a fully awakened buddha. This book discusses a wide range of topics connected with the notion of buddha nature as presented in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and includes an overview of the sūtra sources of the tathāgatagarbha teachings and the different ways of explaining the meaning of this term. It includes new translations of the Maitreya treatise Mahāyānottaratantra (Ratnagotravibhāga), the primary Indian text on the subject, its Indian commentaries, and two (hitherto untranslated) commentaries from the Tibetan Kagyü tradition. Most important, the translator’s introduction investigates in detail the meditative tradition of using the Mahāyānottaratantra as a basis for Mahāmudrā instructions and the Shentong approach. This is supplemented by translations of a number of short Tibetan meditation manuals from the Kadampa, Kagyü, and Jonang schools that use the Mahāyānottaratantra as a work to contemplate and realize one’s own buddha nature. (Source: Shambhala Publications)
Brunnhölzl, Karl. When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra. Tsadra Foundation Series. Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2014.

Articles

Article
A History of Buddha-Nature Theory: The Literature and Traditions
A lengthy historical survey of buddha-nature theory through the literature and traditions, based on academic scholarship.
Gardner, Alex. "A History of Buddha-Nature Theory: The Literature and Traditions." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, October 9, 2019. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/A_History_of_Buddha-Nature_Theory:_The_Literature_and_Traditions.
Article
*Bodhigarbha: Preliminary Notes on an Early Dzokchen Family of Buddha-Nature Concepts
It has recently been alleged by scholars of the Tibetan "Ancient" (rnying ma) tradition that although buddha-nature theory was well known in Tibet from as early as the eighth century, it played quite an insignificant role in early Nyingma exegesis.[1] I intend in this chapter to challenge this assertion by demonstrating that buddha-nature concepts played a highly significant part in Dzokchen thought during the so-called early diffusion (snga dar) period, albeit mostly in the form of autochthonous *bodhigarbha (byang chub snying po) or bodhi-nature concepts rather than their well-known Indian counterpart tathāgatagarbha[2] (de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po), as well as the as yet unattested but virtually synonymous *sugatagarbha[3] (bde bar gshegs pa'i snying po), which are both usually translated as buddha-nature. Although this family of terms is widespread in preclassical Dzokchen exegesis and therefore of inestimable importance for understanding the early development of buddha-nature theories in Tibet, it has hitherto received no attention in contemporary Buddhist studies. In determining the reasons for the obvious predilection for this indigenous family of buddha-nature concepts from the eighth to eleventh centuries, my aim is to clarify how bodhi-nature was understood by early Dzokchen authors, why it was distinguished from mainstream Mahāyāna-based buddha-nature concepts, and how it eventually became overshadowed by these latter during the classical period (13th–14th c.) as Indian non-tantric buddha-nature theories and controversies took center stage.[4] It is hoped that this short survey of Dzokchen bodhi-nature ideas and their cultural milieu will fill some gaps in our still fragmentary understanding of the origins of Tathāgatagarbha theory in Tibet. At the very least, it will show that a decidedly affirmative indigenous current of buddha-nature teachings flourished in Tibet several centuries prior to the ascendancy of the New (gsar ma) traditions and their polemically heated debates over rangtong (rang stong) and zhentong (gzhan stong) interpretations of buddha-nature. (Higgins, "*Bodhigarbha," 29)
Notes
  1. Wangchuk, "rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations" 179. "Yet even though the [buddha-nature] theory has certainly been present from early times in the rÑiṅ-ma literature, it seems to have played quite an insignificant role and never gained prominence or an independent status, in the way it was conceived, for instance, in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra" This conclusion is repeated by Almogi, Rong-zom-pa's Discourse on Buddhology 160.
  2. For a detailed discussion of the term buddha-nature, see Zimmermann 2002, 39-40.
  3. Although *sugatagarbha is not attested in Sanskrit (see Seyfort Ruegg, Traite du tathagatagarbha 68), Wangchuk, "rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations" 178 and n. 21, points out (on the basis of references provided to him by Kazuo Kano) that "the term bde gśegs sñiṅ po does occur in the Tibetan translations of the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra (P fol. 174a5; D fol. 166b2: bde gśegs sñiṅ po theg pa che las skyes) and Ghanavyūhasūtra (P fol. 62b 1; D fol. 55b 1: bde gśegs sñiṅ po dge ba'aṅ de; cf., however, Taisho 747a7) for which the Sanskrit is not extant." We may add that the term bde [bar] gshegs [pa'i] snying po occurs in a large number of Tibetan translations of Indian works. A search of the Derge Bka' 'gyur and Bstan 'gyur canons using the contraction bde gshegs snying po turned up occurrences in the following sūtras in addition to those mentioned earlier: Bhadrakalpika (D 94), Sūtrasammucayabhāṣtaratnālokālaṃkāra (D 3935), Laṅkāvatāravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra (D 4031), and Sūtrālaṃkārapaṇḍārtha (D4031). It is also found in twenty-two tantric works: D 453, 829, 832, 833, 834, 837 (these last four belong to the Māyājāla-Guhyagarbha cycle), 1202, 1401, 1407, 1414, 1613, 1630, 1644, 2128, 2304, 2626, 2816, 2834, 2837, 3713, 3723, and 4449. The unabbreviated bde bar gshegs pa'i snying po occurs in the following tantric works: Kaṇha's Hevajranāmamahātantrarājadvikalpamāyapañjikāsṃrtinipāda (Rgyud kyi rgyal po dgyes pa'i rdo rje zhes bya ba sgyu ma brtag pa gnyis pa'i dka 'grel dran pa'i 'byung gnas), which, however, does not contain the term buddha-nature, D 1187; Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgītiṭīkāvimalaprabhā ('Jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa'i grel pa dri ma med pa'i od), D 1398; Bhagavatsarvadurgatipariśodhanatejorajatathāgatāhatsamyaksaṃbuddhamahātantrarājavyākhyāsundarālaṃkāra (Bcom Idan 'das de bzhin gshegs pa dgra bcom pa yang dag par rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas ngan song thams cad yongs su sbyong ba gzi brjid kyi rgyal po chen po'i rnam par bshad pa mdzes pa'i rgyan), D 2626; Vajravidāraṇānāmadhāraṇīpaṭalakramabhāṣyavṛttipradīpa (Rdo rje rnam par 'joms pa'i gzung zhes bya ba'i rim par phye ba'i rgya cher 'grel ba gsal ba'i sgron ma), D 2687; Tantrārthāvatāravyākhyāna (Rgyud kyi don la 'jug pa'i grel bshad), D 2502; Mahābalikarmakramavṛtti (Gtor ma chen po'i las kyi rim pa'i grel pa), D 3773. This is not the place for an analysis of these occurrences. It is hoped that future research may determine whether any of them can be traced to an extant Indian work containing the term *sugatagarbha.
  4. On problems of Tibetan historical periodization and a useful variant based on existing schemes, see Cuevas, "Some Reflections." For a useful doctrinal-historical periodization scheme based on developments in Tibetan Buddhist epistemology, see van der Kuijp 1989. Loosely following van der Kuijp's proposed periodization, we can distinguish (1) the Ancient (rnying ma) period (8th-9th c.) corresponding to the Early Dissemination (snga dar) and Early Translation (snga gyur) period, which witnessed a massive program of translating Indian works into Tibetan and the growth of early Tibetan monastic communities under the sponsorship of the Tibetan Empire; (2) the Preclassical period (late 10th-12th c.) corresponding to the Late Dissemination (phyi dar) and New Translation (gsar gyur) periods following the collapse of the Tibetan Imperium (and ensuing Period of Fragmentation, ca. 910-1056), which witnessed a campaign of new reformed translations of Indian Buddhist texts and the ascendency of the so-called New (gsar ma) Tibetan Buddhist schools (and their scholastic traditions) that were henceforth distinguished from the Ancients (rnying ma); (3) the Classical period (13th-14th c.), which was characterized by the expansion of the major Tibetan Buddhist schools and the consolidation and systematization of their representative doctrines and practices; and (4) the Postclassical period (15th c. onward) characterized by the intensification of intersectarian dialogue and polemicism fueled by the increasingly fractious sectarian politics as Tibetan orders vied for patronage by foreign powers (Mongols and Chinese) and domestic aristocratic clans.
Higgins, David. "*Bodhigarbha: Preliminary Notes on an Early Dzokchen Family of Buddha-Nature Concepts." In The Other Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael R. Sheehy and Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 29–52. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2019.
Article
Buddha-Nature and the Logic of Pantheism
Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) is a central topic the in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought. As the pure nature of mind and reality, it conveys the nature of being and the relationship between the buddha(s) and sentient beings. Buddha-nature is that which allows for sentient beings to become buddhas. It is the living potential for awakening.
      In this chapter I will look into interpretations of buddha-nature starting with the Sublime Continuum (Uttaratantra, ca. fourth century), the first commentarial treatise focused on this subject. I will then present its role(s) in Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and in the interpretations of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka in particular. Next I will discuss the role of buddha-nature as a key element in the theory and practice of Buddhist tantra, which will lead into a discussion of this doctrine in light of pantheism ("all is God"). Thinking of buddha-nature in terms of pantheism can help bring to light significant dimensions of this strand of Buddhist thought. (Duckworth, introduction, 235)
Duckworth, Douglas S. "Buddha-Nature and the Logic of Pantheism." In The Buddhist World, edited by John Powers, 235–47. London: Routledge, 2016. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2016/01/logic-of-pantheism.pdf.
Article
Grounds of Buddha-Nature in Tibet
This paper discusses syntheses forged in Tibet among the doctrines of Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha). Buddha-nature is a distinctively Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, taking a place along side of the Yogācāra doctrine of the basic consciousness (ālayavijñāna) and the universal emptiness (śūnyatā) of Madhyamaka. As a fundamental ground of reality, buddha-nature comes to be identified with a positive side of emptiness (in the case of Madhyamaka) and is assimilated with the basic consciousness (in the case of Yogācāra) as well. As the intrinsic purity of mind, buddha-nature also plays a causal role as the potential for complete awakening.

Buddha-nature comes to shape a Madhyamaka interpretation of emptiness in a positive light in a way that parallels its place in a Yogācāra interpretation (as a positive foundation of mind and reality). Buddha-nature supplements a Yogācāra theory of mind and reality by offering a positive alternative to a theory of consciousness that otherwise functions simply as the distorted cognitive structure of suffering. It thus is not only the potential for an awakened mind, but the cognitive content of awakening, too.

In Tibet we see the interpretation of buddha-nature converge with Mahāyāna doctrines in structurally parallel ways. Paired with buddha-nature, the doctrine of emptiness in Madhyamaka pivots from a “self-empty” lack of intrinsic nature to an “other-empty,” pure ground that remains. In narratives of disclosure characteristic of the doctrine of buddha-nature, we also see parallel shifts in the foundations of Yogācāra, as grounds of distortion like the basic consciousness, the dependent nature, and self-awareness are reinscribed into a causal story that takes place within a pure, gnostic ground.
Duckworth, Douglas S. "Grounds of Buddha-Nature in Tibet." Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 21 (2017): 109–36. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2019/01/Duckworth_Buddha-Nature-in-Tibet.pdf.
Article
Introduction: The History of the Rang stong-Gzhan stong Distinction from Its Beginning through the Ris-med Movement
By the time Tibetans inherited Indian Buddhism, it had already witnessed two major doctrinal developments, namely, the notion elucidated in the "Discourses on the Perfection of Insight" (Prajñāpāramitāsūtras) that all factors of existence (dharmas) lack an own-being (emptiness), and the Yogācāra interpretation of this emptiness based on the imagined (parikalpita-), dependent (paratantra-) and perfect natures (pariniṣpannasvabhāva). Closely related to this threefold distinction was the Tathāgatagarbha restriction of emptiness to adventitious stains that cover an ultimate nature, that of buddha-qualities. Throughout Tibetan intellectual history it has been a controversial issue whether these teachings require a distinction between two modes of emptiness: being "empty of an own-being" (rang stong), and "empty of other" (gzhan stong). While a follower of the rang-stong view insists that everything (and that includes the Buddha and his qualities) shares the same mode of emptiness (i.e., the absence of an independent existence), some followers of gzhan stong claim that the ultimate nature of mind and its inherent buddha qualities do have an independent existence, since they are only empty of everything else ("the other") that does not belong to them. This must be distinguished from a more moderate form of gzhan stong, which admits the rang stong mode of emptiness for both the adventitious stains of relative truth as well as the ultimate nature of mind, but insists that for a practitioner with an immediate experience of the ultimate nature, it is essential to distinguish the latter from the adventitious states of mind that do not reflect how the nature of mind truly is. While forerunners of rang stong/gzhan stong distinctions can be already identified in a variety of Indian texts and early bKa'-gdams-pa manuscripts,[1] their most influential proponents doubtlessly were Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan (1292–1361) and Gser-mdog paṇ-chen Shākya mchog-ldan (1427–1507). At the other end of our time frame, new insights into the development of gzhan stong at the very end of the ris-med movement can now be gained from the collected works of Zhe-chen Mkhan-chen Gang-shar dbang-po (1925–1958/59?).
      The contributions to this volume were presented at the gzhan stong panel organized by Klaus-Dieter Mathes (University of Vienna) at the Twelfth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Vancouver, Canada, in August 2010. Its full name was "The History of the Rang stong/Gzhan stong Distinction from its Beginning through the Ris-med Movement." The contributors were, besides the organizer, Karl Brunnhölzl (Tsadra Foundation), Anne Burchardi (The University of Copenhagen and The Royal Library of Denmark), Douglas Duckworth (Temple University), David Higgins (University of Vienna), Yaroslav Komarovski (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), and Tsering Wangchuk (University of San Francisco). It is regretted that Karl Brunnhölzl and Douglas Duckworth were unable to include their work in the present publication. (Mathes, introduction, 4–5)

Notes:
  1. See Brunnhölzl’s Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas," and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong; and Mathes’s "Tāranātha's ‘Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning’—Comparing the Views of the Two gŹan stoṅ Masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan," and "The gzhan stong Model of Reality. Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation."
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Introduction: The History of the Rang stong/Gzhan stong Distinction from Its Beginning through the Ris-med Movement." Journal of Buddhist Philosophy 2, no. 1 (2016): 4–8.
Article
Non-representational Language in Mipam's Re-presentation of Other-emptiness
Buddhist traditions understand emptiness in various ways, and two streams of interpretation, “self-emptiness” (rang stong) and “other-emptiness” (gzhan stong), have emerged in Tibet that help bring into focus the extent to which interpretations diverge.1 In contrast to self-emptiness, other-emptiness does not refer to a phenomenon’s lack of its own essence;it refers to the ultimate reality’s lack of all that it is not. Rather than claiming the universality of self-emptiness (emptiness as lack of own essence), proponents of other-emptiness assert another way to understand emptiness with regard to the ultimate (emptiness as ultimate ground). These two interpretations of emptiness—as ground and as groundless abyss—reveal a rift at the foundation of Buddhist metaphysics.

      This essay probes the discourses of other-emptiness in the Jonang (jo nang) and Nyingma (rnying ma) traditions. After briefly introducing other-emptiness in the Jonang tradition, the locus classicus for other-emptiness in Tibet, I will contrast the way Mipam (‘ju mi pham rgya mtsho) (1846–1912) positions the discourse of other-emptiness in his interpretative system. I will then demonstrate how Mipam’s portrayal of other-emptiness highlights the way he uses a perspectival means to incorporate a diversity of seemingly contradictory claims that he uses to support his view of ultimate reality as indeterminate. I will argue that an implication of his view is a

non-representational account of language about the ultimate. (Duckworth, introduction, 920)
Duckworth, Douglas S. "Non-representational Language in Mipam's Re-presentation of Other-emptiness." Philosophy East and West 64, no. 4 (2014): 920–32. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2013/07/NonRepresentational_duckworth.pdf.
Article
On the Ratnagotravibhāga
The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China, the Awakening of Faith was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.
Gardner, Alex. "On the Ratnagotravibhāga." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, September 12, 2018. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/On_the_Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga.
Article
Onto-theology and Emptiness: The Nature of Buddha-Nature
In this article, I chart a trajectory from deconstruction to embodiment in the intellectual history of Buddhist traditions in Tibet. I focus on embodiment as a participatory approach to radically deconstructed and unthematized meaning, in contrast to an interpretation of truth as purely an analytic category or an approach to meaning that deals with values, such as emptiness, as simply truth claims or representations. I show how certain Buddhists in Tibet have represented the meaning of emptiness as a uniquely participatory encounter in such a way that its meaning is necessarily embodied. To speak of it otherwise, I argue, is to misrepresent its meaning fundamentally. An important way that the embodiment of emptiness is formulated is through the discourses of buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha). I show how Tibetan interpretations of Buddha-nature reflect postmodern concerns about metaphysics and onto-theology.
Duckworth, Douglas S. "Onto-theology and Emptiness: The Nature of Buddha-Nature." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 82, no. 4 (2014): 1070–90. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2013/07/Duckworth_Ontotheology.pdf.
Article
Other-Emptiness in the Jonang School: The Theo-logic of Buddhist Dualism
In this essay I aim to clarify the meaning of other-emptiness in the Jonang (jo nang) tradition of Buddhism of Tibet. It focuses on the writings of Dölpopa (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan) (1292–1361), the renowned forefather of this tradition. Dölpopa famously differentiated two types of emptiness, or two ways of being empty—self-emptiness (rang stong) and other-emptiness (gzhan stong)—and proclaimed the superiority of the latter. (Duckworth, introduction, 485)
Duckworth, Douglas S. "Other-Emptiness in the Jonang School: The Theo-logic of Buddhist Dualism." Philosophy East and West 65, no. 2 (2015): 485–97. https://sites.temple.edu/duckworth/files/2013/07/duckworth_other-emptiness-and-theo-logic.pdf.
Article
The Canonization of Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Siddhānta in Tibetan Buddhism
José Ignacio Cabezón, in "The Canonization of Philosophy", explores the rhetoric used by Tibetan scholiasts—especially dGe lugs pas—to establish philosophical canonicity. He argues that the construction of hierarchically ordered tenet (siddhānta/grub mtha') systems is precisely an attempt to provide a philosophical canon, and that this can be seen most clearly in the way that the constructors of such systems deal with controverted questions. The question of whether living beings possess an intrinsically pure Buddha Nature is, for Cabezón's scholiasts, just such a question. For some Jo nang pas this could be asserted as philosophically normative, whereas for most dGe lugs pas, if such a claim was made at all it was made only as a preliminary assertion, always of questionable adequacy. Cabezón explores in some detail the interesting case of the eighth Karma pa, Mi bskyod rdo rje, who appears to affirm the normative status of Buddha Nature claims, but who, in so doing, labels them 'Great Madhyamaka' (dBu ma chen po)—a rhetorical move in which a philosophical perspective clearly non-Madhyamaka is called such in an attempt to give it weight and authority. For the Madhyamaka theorists, of course, both in India and Tibet, Buddha Nature thinking could not occupy the highest rung of the philosophical ladder. The apparently substantivist claims of Buddha Nature theorists—that there is an eternal, changeless, radiantly pure Buddha Nature—ran counter to the radically non-substantivist dialectical method of the Prāsaṅgikas, and Cabezón's study shows that, as a result of the dominance of the Prāsaṅgika in Tibet, Buddha Nature theory always remained marginal there and gained whatever position it had only by arrogating to itself the rhetoric of Madhyamaka. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to Buddha Nature, 3)
Cabezón, José Ignacio. "The Canonization of Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Siddhānta in Tibetan Buddhism." In Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota, edited by Paul J. Griffiths and John P. Keenan, 7–26. Tokyo: Buddhist Books International, 1990.
Article
The rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha Theory
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS[1]

The theory of “Buddha Nature” or tathāgatagarbha (henceforth TG)[2] formed an important school of thought in Mahāyāna Buddhism and continues to enjoy popularity in some circles even today, although it has been dismissed by some scholars as non-Buddhist.[3] It has drawn the attention of several scholars. On the Tibetan front, David Seyfort Ruegg has through a series of publications greatly contributed to the understanding of the TG theory, particularly that of the dGe-lugs-pa tradition. A number of studies devoted to the TG theory from the perspective of the exponents of the gźan stoṅ (“extrinsic emptiness”)[4] theory have also appeared in recent years.[5] However, much remains to be explored in the works of various Tibetan authors of different traditions and periods.

One important Tibetan interpretation of TG that has been ignored so far is that of the rÑiṅ-ma school. The little attention it has received is in the context of studies pertaining to the Tibetan Madhyamaka and rDzogs-chen doctrines.[6] Can one, however, speak of a single rÑiṅ-ma interpretation of TG without the risk of oversimplification? Admittedly, not all rÑiṅ-ma scholars interpreted TG in the same way. They may differ in their erudition, style of interpretation and emphasis according to the particular time and place in which they lived. Even one and the same scholar may interpret it differently in different works, or even in different passages of the same work. Nevertheless, despite the differences in details within the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism, each of them, including the rÑiṅ-ma school, has, in my opinion, its own few archetypical intellectual figures who shape, lead and represent their respective traditions, and whose positions agree at least in substance if not always in every detail. And thus later rÑiṅ-ma-pas consider Roṅzom-pa (eleventh century), Kloṅ-chen-pa (1308-1363) and Mi-pham (1846-1912) as their three archetypical intellectual models, and their interpretations of a given doctrine as the “official” rÑiṅ-ma position.[7]

Before examining their views, I would like to briefly discuss how some of the leading rÑiṅ-ma scholars – whose interpretations of the TG doctrine are considered authoritative for the rÑiṅ-ma school – are portrayed in some secondary literature. Of the major rÑiṅ-ma scholars, Roṅ-zom-pa has been presented as clearly preferring Yogācāra–Madhyamaka by Georges Dreyfus,[8] apparently following John Pettit who merely states that Roṅ-zom-pa in his Grub mtha’i brjed byaṅ suggests that the Yogācāra–Madhyamaka is “more important” (don che ba).[9] What the closing phrase of the pertinent statement by Roṅ-zom-pa actually says is: “The treatise [or position] of Yogācāra–Madhyamaka appears (snaṅ) to be more significant.”[10] The statement gives Roṅ-zompa’s personal opinion about the then prevalent two Madhyamaka systems (i.e., Sautrāntika–Madhyamaka and Yogācāra–Madhyamaka) and not his doctrinal affiliation.[11] Kloṅ-chen-pa and Mi-pham have been portrayed as exponents of the gźan stoṅ theory. For example, according to Samten Karmay, Kloṅ-chen-pa’s stance on the TG theory is identical to that of Dol-po-pa’s.[12] Similarly, David Germano (apparently following S.K. Hookham) describes Kloṅ-chen-pa’s comments regarding the doctrine of emptiness and TG as “fairly typical” of the gźan stoṅ concepts in Tibet.[13] These scholars’ impressions are not altogether unjustified because Kloṅ-chen-pa’s evaluation of TG prima facie looks so positive that one might assume it to be identical with that of Dol-popa’s. Even amongst the traditional Tibetan scholars there were figures like Koṅ-sprul who preferred to place Kloṅ-chen-pa and Karma-pa Raṅ-byuṅ-rdo-rje (1284-1339) in the group of gźan stoṅ exponents.[14} This doctrinal agenda is still continued by living Tibetan exponents of the gźan stoṅ doctrine. A few modern scholars have designated Mi-pham as an exponent of the gźan stoṅ theory as well. However, a closer look reveals that in most cases, it is the terminology that has led to this determination; that is, the term gźan stoṅ has not necessarily been used by these scholars in a strict technical sense. One author who seems to consciously seek to prove Mi-pham a gźan stoṅ exponent is Paul Williams.[15] Leading rÑiṅ-ma teachers of more recent times have also been presented as proponents of the gźan stoṅ theory. Cyrus Stearns’ The Buddha from Dolpo, which greatly contributes to the understanding of Dol-po-pa’s life and thoughts, tends to oversimplify the rÑiṅ-ma explanation of the TG theory. For instance, Stearns, relying on verbal communication with sDe-gźung Rin-po-che (1906-1987), maintains that rÑiṅ-ma teachers such as bDud-’joms Rin-po-che (1904-1987) and Dilmgo mKhyen-brtse (1910-1991) were proponents of the gźan stoṅ doctrine.[16] I am not aware of any textual evidence that would suggest that these teachers were proponents of the gźan stoṅ doctrine, at least not in Dol-po-pa’s sense. Both bDud-’joms Rin-po-che and Dil-mgo mKhyenbrtse, in fact, speak about the oneness of emptiness and appearance or the compatibility of the Middle and Last Cycles of Buddha’s teachings.[17]

One notices a general tendency among modern scholars to associate, in addition to the above-mentioned rÑiṅ-ma teachers, rÑiṅ-ma doctrines with gźan stoṅ teachings.[18] These scholars can be grouped into three: (a) those who are obviously predisposed to the gźan stoṅ theory, (b) those who are opposed to the gźan stoṅ doctrine and (c) those who are too generous with the use of the term gźan stoṅ.[19] One of the reasons why the rÑiṅ-ma position on TG has remained somewhat elusive appears to be the complexity of the matter itself which forbids a simplistic expression of it in terms of raṅ stoṅ or gźan stoṅ. In the following passages, I shall present (a) the early Tibetan background of the TG theory, (b) a brief historical sketch and (c) a general profile of the rÑiṅ-ma interpretation of the TG doctrine, and (d) finally my assessment of the rÑiṅ-ma stance on the TG theory in India and Tibet,19 and thereby demonstrate how complex and distinctive the rÑiṅ-ma interpretation of TG actually is. Nonetheless, although I shall strive to describe their interpretation accurately, some of my observations will remain tentative. It is, however, not my intention to discuss here whether the rÑiṅ-ma interpretation is in keeping with the TG theory as originally conceived in India.

Read More Online...

Notes
  1. This article is a revised and enlarged version of the paper presented at the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (6th-12th September 2003) held in Oxford. I owe my gratitude to a number of individuals who contributed in different ways to bringing this article to its present form. I am grateful to my wife Orna Almogi (University of Hamburg) for painstakingly going through this article at its various stages of writing. I also owe my thanks to Prof. Lambert Schmithausen (University of Hamburg), Prof. Karin Preisendanz (University of Vienna) and Dr. Anne MacDonald (University of Vienna) for their valuable suggestions. I would also like to thank Prof. David Jackson (University of Hamburg) for going through an earlier version of this article. My thanks also go to Kazuo Kano (University of Hamburg) for his proof-reading of the final version.I am, of course, solely responsible for the content of the article.
  2. See Michael Zimmermann’s recent study of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the earliest exposition on Buddha Nature in India, where he presents a detailed discussion of the term tathāgatagarbha (Zimmermann 2002: 39-50). Note that I use Tathāgatagarbhasūtra as a proper noun referring to this particular sūtra and TG sūtra as a common noun referring to a sūtra which deals primarily with the tathāgatagarbha doctrine.
  3. Some modern Japanese scholars have openly dismissed the TG theory as non-Buddhist, an issue which lies outside my present topic. For some details, see Zimmermann 2002: 82-84.
  4. A tradition may for polemical reasons label a rival tradition as a proponent of gźan stoṅ (“extrinsic emptiness”) or raṅ stoṅ (“intrinsic emptiness”). However, as suggested in Kapstein 2000: 121, it would be, from a methodological point of view, sensible to refrain from using labels such as gźan stoṅ and raṅ stoṅ unless a given tradition prefers to use one of these terms to describe its own conception of emptiness. Furthermore, since we tend to be too generous with the use of the terms raṅ stoṅ and gźan stoṅ, I would like to make clear from the very outset how rÑiṅma scholars understand these terms. For them, a given “x” (no matter what) is said to be raṅ stoṅ if it cannot withstand (bzod pa) the logical analysis of Madhyamaka reasoning. A given “x” that can withstand such a scrutiny, which is for them an impossibility, would imply its “true or hypostatic existence” (bden par grub pa). Please note that my translation of the technical term bden par grub pa or bden grub is based on Seyfort Ruegg 1989: 37 where it is explained as “a permanent substantial entity established ‘in truth’, i.e., hypostatically (bden par grub pa).” See also Seyfort Ruegg 2000: 320 and Seyfort Ruegg 2002: 296, Indices, s.v. bden grub. Hence, if the logical analysis of Madhyamaka reasoning is applied, for example, on a cow or TG, neither of them will be able to withstand the force of logical analysis. A single case of “hypostatic existence” would be sufficient to cause the collapse of the entire Madhyamaka system. Thus, from the perspective of such a scrutiny, a given “x” is always raṅ stoṅ. Further, if a given “x” is empty of a numerically different given “y,” then “x” is said to be gźan stoṅ. In this sense, a given “x” is always empty of “y” and hence always gźan stoṅ. For example, a cow is always empty of a bull and so is TG empty of adventitious impure phenomena of saṃsāra. Thus, from this viewpoint, a given “x” can be both raṅ stoṅ and gźan stoṅ. On the other hand, for Dol-po-pa Śes-rab-rgyal-mtshan (1292-1361), the initiator of the gźan stoṅ theory, whether or not “x” is raṅ stoṅ or gźan stoṅ would depend on whether “x” is a conventional phenomenon or absolute reality. If “x” is a conventional phenomenon, it is raṅ stoṅ, and if it is absolute reality, it is gźan stoṅ. Hence, Dol-po-pa uses the expressions kun rdzob raṅ stoṅ or kun rdzob stoṅ ñid and don dam gźan stoṅ or don dam stoṅ ñid (Ri chos, p. 305.8) and states that the banal (tha śal) emptiness (i.e., itaretaraśūnyatā) belittled in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra is neither of the two (ibid., p. 154.15-155.15). In principle, Dol-po-pa could have described this itaretaraśūnyatā (“emptiness of reciprocity”) as kun rdzob gźan stoṅ in opposition to what he called kun rdzob raṅ stoṅ and don dam gźan stoṅ but has apparently, for strategic reasons, refrained from doing so. Designating itaretaraśūnyatā as kun rdzob gźan stoṅ would have been self-defeating because then he would have been forced to concede that there is at least one kind of gźan stoṅ which is unacceptable even by his own standard. Thus, he could consolidate his gźan stoṅ theory by insisting that only the absolute can be gźan stoṅ and only gźan stoṅ can be absolute (ibid., p. 308.12-15).
  5. See, e.g., Seyfort Ruegg 1963; Broido 1989; Hookham 1991 and 1992; Stearns 1999; Mathes 1998, 2000 and 2002. Note, however, that one may have to be careful not to anachronistically presuppose that one homogenous gźan stoṅ theory existed at every place and time in Tibet (e.g., see the Si tu’i raṅ rnam, p. 266.7-267.2; Smith 2001: 265). In fact, the comparing and contrasting of the various gźan stoṅ interpretations would shed important light on the history of the concept and might contribute to a better understanding of the evolution, continuation and reception of such concepts.
  6. Kloṅ-chen-pa’s discussion of TG occurring in the seventh chapter of his Tshig don mdzod is assessed in Germano 1992: 77-82. John Pettit published a translation of Mi-pham’s Ṅes śes sgron me and its commentary by ’Khro-chu ’Jam-dpal-rdo-rje (Pettit 1999a) and also included a translation of Mi-pham’s gŹan stoṅ seṅ ge’i ṅa ro, p. 359-378.4. See “The Lion’s Roar Proclaiming Extrinsic Emptiness,” in Pettit 1999a: 415-427. The recent doctoral dissertation by Karma Phuntsho also discusses Mi-pham’s stance on the TG theory (Phuntsho 2003).
  7. One might ask just how authoritative and representative Roṅ-zom-pa, Kloṅchen-pa and Mi-pham were and are for the rÑiṅ-ma school. Mi-pham himself considered Roṅ-zom-pa and Kloṅ-chen-pa as the most authoritative interpreters of the rÑiṅ-ma doctrine and he saw himself as the follower of the two. See the Dam chos dogs sel, p. 378.5-379.2, the dBu ma rgyan ’grel, p. 42.5, the Ṅes śes sgron me, p. 121.1-2. See also the colophon to his Roṅ zom bla rnal, p. 61.6: mtshuṅs med ma hā paṇḍi ta chen po’i rjes su ’jug par khas ’che ba mi pham rnam par rgyal bas zla tshe bzaṅ po la bris pa dge’o /. The fact that Mi-pham is responsible for the latest systematisation of the rÑiṅ-ma doctrine and that he did so primarily by relying on Roṅ-zom-pa and Kloṅ-chen-pa, is, in my view, sufficient for considering the three as representative and authoritative, as they are indeed perceived by the rÑiṅ-ma tradition today. See also Smith 2001: 16.
  8. See Dreyfus 2003: 331.
  9. Pettit 1999a: 90-91, 485, n. 315.
  10. lTa ba’i brjed byaṅ, p. 11.11-14: dbu ma rnam gñis kun rdzob kyi tshul mi mthun pa la / luṅ daṅ rigs pa gaṅ che ba ni rgyud daṅ mdo sde spyi’i gźuṅ daṅ / rigs pa spyi’i tshul daṅ / dbu ma’i mkhan po gźuṅ phyi mo mdzad pa’i slob dpon klu sgrub daṅ / ārya de ba’i gźuṅ ltar na yaṅ / rnal ’byor spyod pa’i dbu ma’i gźuṅ don che bar snaṅ ṅo /.
  11. If one wishes to speak about Roṅ-zom-pa’s doctrinal affiliation, then one can safely state that he was, in the first place, affiliated with rDzogs-chen doctrines, and that his method of establishing emptiness is closer to that of the Prāsaṅgika– Madhyamaka than to any other Buddhist system, regardless of whether or how much access he had to Prāsaṅgika texts. This becomes particularly evident in his Theg chen tshul ’jug and was also the impression of some traditional Tibetan scholars such as Mi-pham (see, for example, the Ṅes śes sgron me, p. 75.3-4, the dBu ma rgyan ’grel, p. 309.6-310.1 and the Dam chos dogs sel, p. 378.6) and Blobzaṅ-mdo-sṅags Chos-kyi-rgya-mtsho (1903-1957), a dGe-lugs-cum-rÑiṅ-ma scholar from Khams, who even went on to prove that Roṅ-zom-pa’s view is a Prāsaṅgika view (see the lTa ba’i dris lan, p. 70-71). Whether the Prāsaṅgika–Madhyamaka view was in some form present during the early propagation of Buddhism in Tibet may depend, among other things, on whether Śāntideva was indeed a Prāsaṅgika–Mādhyamika as the Tibetan tradition has perceived him to be.
  12. See Karmay 1988: 184-185; cf. Kapstein 1992: 23, n. 1.
  13. See Germano 1992: 78. See also Hookham 1991: 136, 150.
  14. Śes bya rgya mtsho, p. 567.8-10; Smith 2001: 338, n. 888.
  15. See Williams 1998 (particularly, p. 199-216). For reviews of Williams 1998, see Kapstein 2000, Tatz 2001: 78-79. A few words should be said here regarding Paul Williams’ study of “auto-perception” (raṅ rig: svasaṃvedana/svasaṃvitti) and his attempt to connect it with the controversial issue of gźan stoṅ. To agree with Mi-pham’s understanding or interpretation of “auto-perception” is one thing and to understand his position accurately is yet another matter. In my view, Williams seems to have missed the point regarding the controversial issue of “auto perception,” particularly in regard to Mi-pham’s stance on this issue. If he had studied Mi-pham’s interpretation of “means of valid cognition” (pramāṇa), he would have seen why the theory of “auto-perception” was crucial for Mi-pham. According to him, the whole theoretical structure of perception and inference developed by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti would collapse without the theory of “auto-perception.” Mi-pham insists that as long as one accepts conventional valid cognition (tha sñad tshad ma), one must accept “auto-perception,” at least on the conventional level, just as one accepts “perception of others” (gźan rig). Thus, without a clear concept of Mi-pham’s background and his view on pramāṇa, any study of Mi-pham’s view on “auto-perception” is destined to be less than successful. A proper assessment of Mi-pham’s understanding of Madhyamaka would have revealed that for Mi-pham, there is no phenomenon that can withstand (bzod) the Madhyamaka logical analysis, and this includes “auto-perception.” The Prāsaṅgika–Mādhyamikas (such as Candrakīrti and Śāntideva) do refute the Yogācāra notion of “auto-perception” but, for Mi-pham, this is done so in the context of establishing absolute reality or “that which is free from manifoldness” (niṣprapañca). However, even Prāsaṅgika–Mādhyamikas should, according to Mi-pham, have no problem in accepting “autoperception” on the conventional level, just as they have no problem accepting “perception of others.” For Mi-pham, anything that can be attested by means of conventional valid cognition is acceptable on the conventional level. If a thing is impossible even on the conventional level, then it should be something like a “permanent sound” (sgra rtag pa) or a “rabbit’s horn” (ri boṅ gi rwa). But, for him, neither is “auto-perception” like a “permanent sound” nor did Candrakīrti and Śāntideva consider it to be so. However, Tsoṅ-kha-pa believed that Candrakīrti and Śāntideva held “auto-perception” to be impossible even on the conventional level. This is the point of departure of the actual issue and the controversy took place within the contextual framework of Pramāṇa and Madhyamaka, which were seen by Mi-pham as complementing and strengthening rather than as excluding or nullifying each other. Hence, bringing in rDzogs-chen and gźan stoṅ issues in this context is unwarranted. If Williams had studied rDzogs-chen or the rÑiṅ-ma interpretation of TG, he would have realised that for the rÑiṅ-ma-pas (including Mi-pham), there is a strict distinction between mind (sems) and gnosis (ye śes). The expression so sor raṅ gis rig par bya ba (pratyātmavedanīya) which actually means “accessible to personal experience only” or “to be known directly and introspectively,” an idea also acceptable to Candrakīrti or Śāntideva, has also been taken out of context by Williams. Unless we understand the methods of interpretation systematized by Mi-pham, we will never fully comprehend the way he conceives Pramāṇa, Madhyamaka, TG and rDzogs-chen or his conception of their intricate relationship with one another. And unless we have a clear picture of how Mi-pham understood raṅ rig in these systems, we shall only have a fragmentary and distorted idea of Mi-pham’s stance on raṅ rig.
  16. See Stearns 1999: 215, n. 137-138.
  17. bDud-’joms Rin-po-che explicitly states: “Thus, by clinging to and postulating one of the positions of appearance and emptiness, one would not be able to avert the erroneous (lit. “bad”) views that hold on to the extremes. Therefore, it is necessary to properly establish the sphere of reality (dharmadhātu), the union of appearance and emptiness [or] the ultimate [and] actual absolute truth, as the equality of [saṃsāric] existence and [nirvāṇic] calmness” (bsTan pa’i rnam gźag, fol. 109b2-4: des na snaṅ stoṅ gaṅ ruṅ re’i phyogs su źen ciṅ bzuṅ bas ni mthar ’dzin gyi lta ba ṅan pa bzlog mi nus pas / chos dbyiṅs snaṅ stoṅ zuṅ ’jug mthar thug rnam graṅs ma yin pa’i don dam srid źi mñam ñid du legs par gtan la ’bebs dgos śiṅ /). Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse likewise considers the Middle and Last Cycles as complementary, for he explains absolute reality as “the ultimate of what is to be established in a way that the purports of the Middle and the Last Promulgations become entwined as one and is the finale of the ocean-like systems of sūtra and tantra” (bDud rtsi’i snaṅ ba, fol. 71a6: ’khor lo bar mtha’ dgoṅs pa gcig dril gyis gtan la dbab bya mthar thug pa mdo sṅags grub mtha’ rgya mtsho’i skyel so yin la). See also the Zil gnon dgoṅs gsal (fol. 178a6-b2) where Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse speaks about the union (zuṅ ’jug) of the “primordial purity” (ka dag), which is equated with “freedom from the eight extremes of manifoldness” (spros pa’i mtha’ brgyad las ’das pa), and the “immanently present” (lhun grub) Buddha bodies (sku) and gnosis (ye śes) constituting the TG, and his ’Jam dpal dgoṅs rgyan (fol. 239a2-b5), where TG (among several other terms) is indicated as a synonym of the emptiness of the Middle Promulgation. See also his rDo rje mdud grol (fol. 136a5-b4 & 150a3-4) where he explains the view of Prāsaṅgika–Madhyamaka in the same way Mi-pham does.
  18. According to Karmay, who relied on the Italian edition (1973) of The Religions of Tibet, Tucci maintains that the doctrines of rDzogs-chen and of the Jonaṅ-pas were developed from the Hva-śaṅ’s doctrine of TG (see Karmay 1988: 87). This claim, however, does not appear in the later English translation of the book. S.K. Hookham describes rDzogs-chen as typically gźan stoṅ-type teachings and claims that giving it a raṅ stoṅ gloss is the attempt of the present Dalai Lama “to abate the long standing hostility” towards rDzogs-chen and to protect it “from the ravages of the ‘exclusive Rangtongpa’” (Hookham 1991: 16; see also Hookham 1992: 151-152, n. 4). For reviews of Hookham 1991, see Ehrhard 1993 and Griffiths 1993. See also Seyfort Ruegg 2000: 87.
  19. See, for example, Smith 2001: 231, where it is stated that “Mi pham’s open advocacy of the Gzhan stong was another red cape, and the bulls were not slow to charge,” and ibid., p. 327, n. 788 where both the sToṅ thun seṅ ge’i ṅa ro (p. 563-606.5) and the gŹan stoṅ seṅ ge’i ṅa ro (p. 359-378.4) are said to be works on the gźan stoṅ theory. It is of course true that Mi-pham wrote on the gźan stoṅ theory and even defended it and can be thus called a “gźan stoṅ sympathiser.” He, however, did not consider himself a gźan stoṅ pa (Dam chos dogs sel, p. 378.5-379.1: ñams mtshar tsam du bris pa yin na yaṅ / raṅ bzos bde gśegs dam chos bslad mi ruṅ / ’chal ṅag soṅ na rgyal ba rnams la bśags / raṅ bzos bśad na ci yaṅ zad mtha’ med / bdag la gźan stoṅ sgrub pa’i khur kyaṅ med / roṅ kloṅ rnam gñis klu sgrub gźuṅ daṅ mthun / dman pa bdag kyaṅ rtse gcig der ’dun kyaṅ / ma bris dbaṅ med pha rol tshig gis bskul /). Surprisingly, although the Ṅes śes sgron me is the locus classicus for the rÑiṅ-ma position regarding the issue of raṅ stoṅ and gźan stoṅ, John Pettit, in his study of this work, seems to be uncertain about Mi-pham’s position (Pettit 1999a: 114-124). However, cf. Pettit 1999b.
Wangchuk, Dorji. "The rÑiṅ-ma Interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha Theory." Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 48 (2004): 171–213.

Interviews

Interview
Buddha-Nature Theories from Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Tibet
Professor Klaus-Dieter Mathes, one of the world's most learned and published specialists on the topic of buddha-nature in Tibetan Buddhism, speaks with Lopen Karma Phuntsho about the various interpretations of tathāgatagarbha teachings in Tibet, including those of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, Longchenpa, Gö Lotsawa, Dölpopa, Butön, and Tsongkhapa.
      Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes is the Head of the Department of South Asian, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna, Austria. Dr. Mathes has published widely on Mahāmudrā, Tibetan Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and the interpretations of Buddha-nature in Tibet. Many of his books can be found on this website, including the recent The Other Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet and A Direct Path to the Buddha Within. Klaus-Dieter also hosted the Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia Symposium in 2019. From 1980-1984 he lived in the Himalayas and studied Buddhism, later obtaining a master's degree in Tibetology from the University of Bonn and then a doctorate from Marburg in 1994 with a study of the Yogācāra text Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (published in 1996 in the series Indica et Tibetica). He served as the director of the Nepal Research Centre and the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project in Kathmandu from 1993 to 2001.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Buddha-Nature Theories from Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Tibet." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, May 29, 2021. Video, 1:16:01. https://www.youtu.be/zidB8HqzC5k.
Interview
Buddha-Nature and the Great Perfection in the 11-14th Centuries by David Germano
Karma Phuntsho and David Germano discuss buddha-nature in Dzogchen, early Nyingma tantras, termas, Nyingtik Teachings, and touch on the commentarial writings of Longchenpa and others.

David Germano is the Executive Director of the Contemplative Sciences Center at the University of Virginia. He has taught and researched Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Virginia since 1992. He is currently focused on the exploration of contemplative ideas, values, and practices involving humanistic and scientific methodologies, as well as new applications in diverse fields; he also holds a faculty appointment in the School of Nursing. He has been a leader in the field of Tibetan Buddhist studies for many years and has long immersed himself in Dzogchen teachings and texts.
Germano, David. "Buddha-Nature and the Great Perfection in the 11-14th Centuries." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 1:31:23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5avSvomtFM.

Multimedia

Video
Buddha-Nature: Theoretical Understanding and Practical Application by Karma Phuntsho
Phuntsho, Karma. "Buddha-Nature: Theoretical Understanding and Practical Application." Recorded at Dharma Gate Buddhist College in Budapest, Hungary, Sep 22, 2022. Video, 1:52:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wUSjjvsdFg.
Phuntsho, Karma. "Buddha-Nature: Theoretical Understanding and Practical Application." Recorded at Dharma Gate Buddhist College in Budapest, Hungary, Sep 22, 2022. Video, 1:52:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wUSjjvsdFg.
Video
David Germano: On Buddha-Nature in Tibet in the Early Translation Period
Germano, David. "On Buddha-Nature in Tibet in the Early Translation Period." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 3:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNGs82a3NgM.
Germano, David. "On Buddha-Nature in Tibet in the Early Translation Period." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 3:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNGs82a3NgM.
Video
David Germano: On How the Dzogchen Nyingtik Tradition Approaches Buddha-Nature
Germano, David. "On How the Dzogchen Nyingtik Tradition Approaches Buddha-Nature." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 12:31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROcTCKss8W8.
Germano, David. "On How the Dzogchen Nyingtik Tradition Approaches Buddha-Nature." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 12:31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROcTCKss8W8.
Video
David Germano: On the Evolution of Dzogchen Practices from the 11th to the 14th Century
Germano, David. "On the Evolution of Dzogchen Practices from the 11th to the 14th Century." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 9:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGRnJURqN3U.
Germano, David. "On the Evolution of Dzogchen Practices from the 11th to the 14th Century." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, Aug 27, 2022. Video, 9:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGRnJURqN3U.
Video
Donald S. Lopez, Jr. - Keynote of the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
In his keynote lecture to the Vienna Tathāgatagarbha Symposium, Donald Lopez provides an overview of the history and influence of tathāgatagarbha doctrine as well as its various interpretations across the Mahāyāna world.
Lopez, Donald S., Jr. “Tathāgatagarbha: A Brief History.” Keynote lecture at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 40:17. https://youtu.be/0SSSdNNbeu8.
Video
Dorji Wangchuk at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Dorji Wangchuk discusses critiques of Buddha-nature theory as non-Buddhist and as opposed to the Buddha's teaching on dependent arising. In particular, he looks at how Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo interprets the tathāgatagarbha theory in relation to the pratītyasamutpāda theory.
Wangchuk, Dorji. "Rong-zom-pa on the Tathāgatagarbha and Pratītyasamutpāda Theories." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 45:33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0slogomESI8.
Video
Dorji Wangchuk: The Textual Sources and Advocates of Buddha-Nature Theory in the Early Transmission Period
Wangchuk, Dorji. "The Textual Sources and Advocates of Buddha-Nature Theory in the Early Transmission Period." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, July 31, 2021. Video, 3:56. https://youtu.be/hOM2RwrLroI.
Wangchuk, Dorji. "The Textual Sources and Advocates of Buddha-Nature Theory in the Early Transmission Period." Conversations on Buddha-Nature with Lopen Dr. Karma Phuntsho. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, July 31, 2021. Video, 3:56. https://youtu.be/hOM2RwrLroI.
Video
Karl Brunnhölzl: On How the Buddha-Nature Teachings Were Transmitted in the Kagyu Tradition
Brunnhölzl, Karl. "On How the Buddha-Nature Teachings Were Transmitted in the Kagyu Tradition." Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, February 26, 2022. Video, 5:04. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr8JyaBxqKw.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. "On How the Buddha-Nature Teachings Were Transmitted in the Kagyu Tradition." Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department, February 26, 2022. Video, 5:04. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr8JyaBxqKw.
Video
Katrin Querl at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Katrin Querl presents an overview of Jikten Gonpo's position on Buddha-nature as outlined in the textual corpus known as the Single Intention (Dgongs gcig) and in two of this work's earliest commentaries.
Querl, Katrin. "Preliminary Notes on the Notion of Buddha Nature in the Single Intention." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 43:53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp3GJz3-5DY.
Video
Khenpo Ngawang Jorden at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Khenpo Ngawang Jorden discusses Gorampa’s interpretation of the concept of buddha-nature presented in his Supplement to the Three Vows. In particular his presentation is focused on Gorampa's refutation of the Jonang view of buddha-nature, as represented by the writings of Dolpopa and his zhentong philosophy.
Jorden, Khenpo Ngawang. "Revisiting Gorampa on Buddha Nature." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 45:05. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmhgtw5HwCE.
Video
Klaus-Dieter Mathes: Tibetan Traditions of Buddha-Nature in the Light of Its Complex Indian Background
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Tibetan Traditions of Buddha-Nature in the Light of Its Complex Indian Background." Old Topic, New Insights: Buddha-Nature at the Crossroads between Doctrine and Practice. The 16th IATS Conference, Prague, July 3–9, 2022. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department. Video, 20:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT6-yMGKrdA.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Tibetan Traditions of Buddha-Nature in the Light of Its Complex Indian Background." Old Topic, New Insights: Buddha-Nature at the Crossroads between Doctrine and Practice. The 16th IATS Conference, Prague, July 3–9, 2022. Produced by the Tsadra Foundation Research Department. Video, 20:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT6-yMGKrdA.
Video
Michael Sheehy at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Michael Sheehy explores the “images of emptiness” or expressions of emptiness in the Kālacakra Tantra. He discusses how these were interpreted by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292-1361) and his immediate disciples to be direct expressions of tathāgatagarbha.
Sheehy, Michael. "Tantric Zhentong Visions of Tathāgatagarbha in Tibetan Kālacakra Yoga Manuals." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 46:01. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7z5pR1EGA.
Video
On Various Texts That Teach about Buddha-Nature by Ringu Tulku
Ringu Tulku discusses the various texts that teach about buddha-nature beyond the Uttaratantraśāstra. He points to Nāgārjuna's praises, sūtras that are considered to be part of the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Tāranātha's Jonang teachings, and works by Śākya Chokden, Longchenpa, and Mipam Rinpoche.
Ringu Tulku. “On Various Texts That Teach about Buddha-Nature.” Interview by Marcus Perman. Produced by Tsadra Foundation Research Department, October 10, 2019. Video, 5:24. https://youtu.be/jjrS-TWoHJ8.
Video
On the Future of Buddha-Nature Studies by Karl Brunnhölzl
Karl Brunnhölzl lays out the areas that are yet to be explored within buddha-nature studies. Among the areas he suggests are ripe for exploration are Longchenpa's writings on buddha-nature, the many types of shentong views that exist, as well as the views of various Sakya authors.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. “On the Future of Buddha-Nature Studies.” Interview by Marcus Perman. Tsadra Foundation Research Department, December 3, 2018. Video, 1:33. https://youtu.be/ex_6hi_58YY.
Video
On the Origins and Authorship of the Uttaratantrashastra by Karl Brunnhölzl
Karl Brunnhölzl responds to a question regarding the origins and authorship of the Uttaratantrashastra. He describes how there is evidence that the Uttaratantra and its commentary was considered to be a singular text in India. However, the issue of when it arrived in Tibet and who brought it there is still a matter for further research.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. “On the Origins and Authorship of the Uttaratantrashastra.” Interview by Marcus Perman. Tsadra Foundation Research Department, December 3, 2018. Video, 4:31. https://youtu.be/uzRwoCR-85Y.
Retrieved from "https://buddhanature-new.tsadra.org/index.php?title=Topics/History_of_buddha-nature_in_Tibet&oldid=30858"
Buddha-Nature
A Tsadra Foundation Initiative
A multimedia resource hub for scripture, scholarship,
and teachings on tathāgatagarbha.
Sign up for the Buddha-Nature mailing list:

Tsadra Foundation
Translation & Transmission Conference
DharmaCloud Tibetan eBooks
Buddha-Nature
Śāntideva's Life and Works
Rinchen Terdzö Chenmo
Damngak Rinpoche Dzö
Khyentse Lineage
Dharma Dictionary

བོད་སྐད་
About
Site Guide
Read
Watch
Glossary
Login

Project Description

The purpose of the buddha-nature website is to provide a resource hub for trustworthy information for learning about and teaching the concept of buddha-nature, its associated texts, teachings, lineages, and relevant Buddhist ideas. Unique content will be shared here, but the site will primarily act as a broker for other projects and authors that have already created quality materials, which we will curate for a wide range of audiences.

About us ...
© Tsadra Foundation. Please feel free to use this website and its content in accordance with fair use policies for teaching, scholarship, education, and research.