This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the... more This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the early decades of the twentieth century. This was an era of flourishing scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools in Eastern Tibet, especially the rNying-ma and Sa-skya. It was also a period when a supposed non-sectarian (ris med) movement occurred. These two developments—in education and intersectarian relations—are at the heart of this inquiry.
Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.
This selection features profound, provocative, and at times humorous texts from leading figures a... more This selection features profound, provocative, and at times humorous texts from leading figures associated with the Rimé tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The emphasis of these works is on the esoteric path of Dzogchen, or the Great Perfection, through which the nature of reality is pointed out directly, just as it is.
Throughout the book the translator provides clear, succinct introductions to the individual translations, expertly setting the scene and guiding the reader through a world of intellectual renaissance, intersectarian debate, and the imparting of cherished insights. Through this, one truth above all becomes apparent: that genuine wisdom means transcending the limited confines of the ordinary mind.
Nonsectarianism (ris med) in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Eastern Tibet: Religious Diffusion and Cross-fertilization beyond the Reach of the Central Tibetan Government, 2021
Mdo sngags Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a scholar from Mgo log in Eastern Tibet who propos... more Mdo sngags Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a scholar from Mgo log in Eastern Tibet who proposed a synthesis of Dge lugs and Rnying ma philosophy and practice. This chapter examines that synthesis by focusing on his Gsang sngags gsar rnying gi lta ba gcig tu sgrub pa dag snang nor bu'i me long, which claims that Dge lugs doctrine is compatible with early Rnying ma sources, especially writings by Klong chen rab 'byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088), and Phyag rdzogs gdams pa'i skor gyi brjed tho, which recommends the gradualism of lam rim while also recognising the importance of Rdzogs chen and Mahāmudrā. Such syncretism involves a notable elision of 'Ju Mi pham’s (1846–1912) transformation of Rnying ma scholasticism and represents an unusual form of nonsectarianism (ris med) quite unlike that which was advocated by Kong sprul (1813–1899) and Mkhyen brtse'i dbang po (1820–1892).
The Sūtra Teaching the Four Factors (Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra) Toh 249
Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo s... more The Sūtra Teaching the Four Factors (Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra) Toh 249 Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo sde, za), folios 59.a–59.b.
As its names suggests, the Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra is an explanation of four dharmas, here meaning factors or qualities. These factors relate to the practice of confession (even though no equivalent of that word occurs in the sūtra itself) and the purification of misdeeds or negative, harmful actions (pāpa). The four are: 1) the action (or correct approach) of repentance or self-reproach (vidūṣaṇāsamudācāra; rnam par sun ’byin pa kun tu spyod pa), which involves feeling remorse for past negative actions; 2) antidotal or remedial action (pratipakṣasamudācāra; gnyen po kun tu spyod pa), which means cultivating virtuous actions as an antidote to misdeeds; 3) the power of restraint (pratyāpattibala; sor chud par byed pa’i stobs), which means vowing not to repeat a negative action; and 4) the power of support (āśrayabala; rten gyi stobs), which means taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha, and never forsaking bodhicitta. Through employing these four factors, the sūtra says, any negative act, no matter how grave, can be “overcome” in the sense that its karmic consequences can be transformed. This idea became a crucial one for Mahāyāna ethics, both in theory and in practice.
This article is based on a talk at a seminar called Critical Thinking in Buddhist Studies, held a... more This article is based on a talk at a seminar called Critical Thinking in Buddhist Studies, held at SOAS, London, in May 2012. It examines commentarial schools (bshad grwa) within the non-Gelug traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, especially their normative curriculum of ‘thirteen great texts’ promoted—though not necessarily first conceived—by Khenpo Zhenpen Nangwa (1871–1927). Focused on Indian śāstra, this ideal curriculum omits Tibetan works, tantras and texts on logic and epistemology (pramāṇa), and represents the main body of an exoteric curriculum that could be preceded by basic introductory topics and augmented by advanced esoteric study. Recent adaptations of this curriculum by some of the most important non-Gelug institutions in exile depart from Zhenpen Nangwa's non-sectarian ideal in order to accommodate the texts, topics and interpretations favoured by the tradition to which the institution belongs. The article concludes by asking whether further changes to traditional curricula and pedagogy are likely, following the introduction of new qualifications adopted from the Indian university system and developments such as the creation of commentarial schools for international students.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed attempts – apparently connected with the Ris med... more The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed attempts – apparently connected with the Ris med Movement – to strengthen the scholastic traditions of non-dGe lugs schools in Eastern Tibet. These efforts included the establishment of scriptural colleges (bshad grwa) throughout the region, and the printing and dissemination of works by the Sa skya scholar, Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429–1489) and the Nyingma polymath, ’Ju Mi pham (1846–1912). The texts of these two influential philosophers, complete with their criticisms of mainstream dGe lugs pa thought, came to represent the orthodox viewpoint for followers of their respective traditions within newly founded colleges. These developments were not without controversy, however, and inspired much debate and polemical exchange. In commenting upon this period and its key figures, some modern scholars have questioned how the strengthening and promotion of individual philosophical traditions could be regarded as non-sectarian. Yet, in spite of this, there is no question that ’Ju Mi pham and the publishers of Go rams pa’s writings continue to be associated with the Ris med ideal.
In this paper I explore the views of two writers who took a different approach to inter-sectarian (and intra-sectarian) discourse during this same period of Tibetan history and who both lived in the mGo log region of Eastern Tibet. These authors aimed less at differentiating and strengthening rival doctrines, and more at highlighting their underlying unity or compatibility.
The Third rDo grub chen, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma (1865–1926), is known for his comparative writings on elements of gSar ma and rNying ma tantra, in the course of which he repeatedly asserts the correspondence of the subtle mind of clear light (’od gsal; prabhāsvara) described in Highest Yoga Tantra and the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs chen. Unlike Mi pham and his followers, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma claimed that the principal difference between rDzogs chen and gSar ma tantra lies in the methods they employ, rather than their respective views. And although encouraged by Mi pham to promote the rNying ma school, he neither made use of Mi pham’s distinctive terminology nor echoed his key assertions. While ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma maintains the superiority of Atiyoga and thus proposes an inclusivist, hierarchical model of the various vehicles, his rDzogs chen writings are notable for their emphasis on commonality as well as difference.
mDo sngags chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a dGe lugs pa lama from dPal sNyan mo Monastery in mGo log, who drew inspiration from ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma and his immediate disciples. In his writings he explicitly sought to heal sectarian division by uniting rNying ma views on rDzogs chen – especially those expressed in the works of Klong chen rab ’byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088) – with the view of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). These syncretistic appeals to unity are in marked contrast not only to the distinguishing approach taken by the likes of ’Ju Mi pham and Bod pa sprul sku bsTan pa’i nyi ma (1898–1959), but also to the more exclusivist tendencies prevalent within the dGe lugs pa school – as witnessed, for example, in the letters of Pha bong kha pa bDe chen snying po (1878–1941).
Through this brief examination, I suggest that the approach of strengthening scholastic traditions and highlighting their uniqueness may have actually served to increase intersectarian rivalry and conflict. Although the more ecumenical approaches discussed here had only limited influence, they represent significant ideological opposition to dominant trends, especially as rival claimants to the loaded term “non-sectarian” (ris med). And while Tibetan Buddhism has tended in recent years towards sectarian differentiation, with religious leaders concentrating their efforts on preserving and re-establishing their own traditions in exile, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has often attempted to highlight the underlying unity of the major schools—and, in so doing, has drawn upon the very authors and writings discussed in this paper.
This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the... more This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the early decades of the twentieth century. This was an era of flourishing scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools in Eastern Tibet, especially the rNying-ma and Sa-skya. It was also a period when a supposed non-sectarian (ris med) movement occurred. These two developments—in education and intersectarian relations—are at the heart of this inquiry.
Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.
This selection features profound, provocative, and at times humorous texts from leading figures a... more This selection features profound, provocative, and at times humorous texts from leading figures associated with the Rimé tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The emphasis of these works is on the esoteric path of Dzogchen, or the Great Perfection, through which the nature of reality is pointed out directly, just as it is.
Throughout the book the translator provides clear, succinct introductions to the individual translations, expertly setting the scene and guiding the reader through a world of intellectual renaissance, intersectarian debate, and the imparting of cherished insights. Through this, one truth above all becomes apparent: that genuine wisdom means transcending the limited confines of the ordinary mind.
Nonsectarianism (ris med) in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Eastern Tibet: Religious Diffusion and Cross-fertilization beyond the Reach of the Central Tibetan Government, 2021
Mdo sngags Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a scholar from Mgo log in Eastern Tibet who propos... more Mdo sngags Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a scholar from Mgo log in Eastern Tibet who proposed a synthesis of Dge lugs and Rnying ma philosophy and practice. This chapter examines that synthesis by focusing on his Gsang sngags gsar rnying gi lta ba gcig tu sgrub pa dag snang nor bu'i me long, which claims that Dge lugs doctrine is compatible with early Rnying ma sources, especially writings by Klong chen rab 'byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088), and Phyag rdzogs gdams pa'i skor gyi brjed tho, which recommends the gradualism of lam rim while also recognising the importance of Rdzogs chen and Mahāmudrā. Such syncretism involves a notable elision of 'Ju Mi pham’s (1846–1912) transformation of Rnying ma scholasticism and represents an unusual form of nonsectarianism (ris med) quite unlike that which was advocated by Kong sprul (1813–1899) and Mkhyen brtse'i dbang po (1820–1892).
The Sūtra Teaching the Four Factors (Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra) Toh 249
Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo s... more The Sūtra Teaching the Four Factors (Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra) Toh 249 Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo sde, za), folios 59.a–59.b.
As its names suggests, the Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra is an explanation of four dharmas, here meaning factors or qualities. These factors relate to the practice of confession (even though no equivalent of that word occurs in the sūtra itself) and the purification of misdeeds or negative, harmful actions (pāpa). The four are: 1) the action (or correct approach) of repentance or self-reproach (vidūṣaṇāsamudācāra; rnam par sun ’byin pa kun tu spyod pa), which involves feeling remorse for past negative actions; 2) antidotal or remedial action (pratipakṣasamudācāra; gnyen po kun tu spyod pa), which means cultivating virtuous actions as an antidote to misdeeds; 3) the power of restraint (pratyāpattibala; sor chud par byed pa’i stobs), which means vowing not to repeat a negative action; and 4) the power of support (āśrayabala; rten gyi stobs), which means taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha, and never forsaking bodhicitta. Through employing these four factors, the sūtra says, any negative act, no matter how grave, can be “overcome” in the sense that its karmic consequences can be transformed. This idea became a crucial one for Mahāyāna ethics, both in theory and in practice.
This article is based on a talk at a seminar called Critical Thinking in Buddhist Studies, held a... more This article is based on a talk at a seminar called Critical Thinking in Buddhist Studies, held at SOAS, London, in May 2012. It examines commentarial schools (bshad grwa) within the non-Gelug traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, especially their normative curriculum of ‘thirteen great texts’ promoted—though not necessarily first conceived—by Khenpo Zhenpen Nangwa (1871–1927). Focused on Indian śāstra, this ideal curriculum omits Tibetan works, tantras and texts on logic and epistemology (pramāṇa), and represents the main body of an exoteric curriculum that could be preceded by basic introductory topics and augmented by advanced esoteric study. Recent adaptations of this curriculum by some of the most important non-Gelug institutions in exile depart from Zhenpen Nangwa's non-sectarian ideal in order to accommodate the texts, topics and interpretations favoured by the tradition to which the institution belongs. The article concludes by asking whether further changes to traditional curricula and pedagogy are likely, following the introduction of new qualifications adopted from the Indian university system and developments such as the creation of commentarial schools for international students.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed attempts – apparently connected with the Ris med... more The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed attempts – apparently connected with the Ris med Movement – to strengthen the scholastic traditions of non-dGe lugs schools in Eastern Tibet. These efforts included the establishment of scriptural colleges (bshad grwa) throughout the region, and the printing and dissemination of works by the Sa skya scholar, Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429–1489) and the Nyingma polymath, ’Ju Mi pham (1846–1912). The texts of these two influential philosophers, complete with their criticisms of mainstream dGe lugs pa thought, came to represent the orthodox viewpoint for followers of their respective traditions within newly founded colleges. These developments were not without controversy, however, and inspired much debate and polemical exchange. In commenting upon this period and its key figures, some modern scholars have questioned how the strengthening and promotion of individual philosophical traditions could be regarded as non-sectarian. Yet, in spite of this, there is no question that ’Ju Mi pham and the publishers of Go rams pa’s writings continue to be associated with the Ris med ideal.
In this paper I explore the views of two writers who took a different approach to inter-sectarian (and intra-sectarian) discourse during this same period of Tibetan history and who both lived in the mGo log region of Eastern Tibet. These authors aimed less at differentiating and strengthening rival doctrines, and more at highlighting their underlying unity or compatibility.
The Third rDo grub chen, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma (1865–1926), is known for his comparative writings on elements of gSar ma and rNying ma tantra, in the course of which he repeatedly asserts the correspondence of the subtle mind of clear light (’od gsal; prabhāsvara) described in Highest Yoga Tantra and the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs chen. Unlike Mi pham and his followers, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma claimed that the principal difference between rDzogs chen and gSar ma tantra lies in the methods they employ, rather than their respective views. And although encouraged by Mi pham to promote the rNying ma school, he neither made use of Mi pham’s distinctive terminology nor echoed his key assertions. While ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma maintains the superiority of Atiyoga and thus proposes an inclusivist, hierarchical model of the various vehicles, his rDzogs chen writings are notable for their emphasis on commonality as well as difference.
mDo sngags chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a dGe lugs pa lama from dPal sNyan mo Monastery in mGo log, who drew inspiration from ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma and his immediate disciples. In his writings he explicitly sought to heal sectarian division by uniting rNying ma views on rDzogs chen – especially those expressed in the works of Klong chen rab ’byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088) – with the view of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). These syncretistic appeals to unity are in marked contrast not only to the distinguishing approach taken by the likes of ’Ju Mi pham and Bod pa sprul sku bsTan pa’i nyi ma (1898–1959), but also to the more exclusivist tendencies prevalent within the dGe lugs pa school – as witnessed, for example, in the letters of Pha bong kha pa bDe chen snying po (1878–1941).
Through this brief examination, I suggest that the approach of strengthening scholastic traditions and highlighting their uniqueness may have actually served to increase intersectarian rivalry and conflict. Although the more ecumenical approaches discussed here had only limited influence, they represent significant ideological opposition to dominant trends, especially as rival claimants to the loaded term “non-sectarian” (ris med). And while Tibetan Buddhism has tended in recent years towards sectarian differentiation, with religious leaders concentrating their efforts on preserving and re-establishing their own traditions in exile, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has often attempted to highlight the underlying unity of the major schools—and, in so doing, has drawn upon the very authors and writings discussed in this paper.
Uploads
Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.
Throughout the book the translator provides clear, succinct introductions to the individual translations, expertly setting the scene and guiding the reader through a world of intellectual renaissance, intersectarian debate, and the imparting of cherished insights. Through this, one truth above all becomes apparent: that genuine wisdom means transcending the limited confines of the ordinary mind.
Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo sde, za), folios 59.a–59.b.
As its names suggests, the Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra is an explanation of four dharmas, here meaning factors or qualities. These factors relate to the practice of confession (even though no equivalent of that word occurs in the sūtra itself) and the purification of misdeeds or negative, harmful actions (pāpa). The four are: 1) the action (or correct approach) of repentance or self-reproach (vidūṣaṇāsamudācāra; rnam par sun ’byin pa kun tu spyod pa), which involves feeling remorse for past negative actions; 2) antidotal or remedial action (pratipakṣasamudācāra; gnyen po kun tu spyod pa), which means cultivating virtuous actions as an antidote to misdeeds; 3) the power of restraint (pratyāpattibala; sor chud par byed pa’i stobs), which means vowing not to repeat a negative action; and 4) the power of support (āśrayabala; rten gyi stobs), which means taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha, and never forsaking bodhicitta. Through employing these four factors, the sūtra says, any negative act, no matter how grave, can be “overcome” in the sense that its karmic consequences can be transformed. This idea became a crucial one for Mahāyāna ethics, both in theory and in practice.
In this paper I explore the views of two writers who took a different approach to inter-sectarian (and intra-sectarian) discourse during this same period of Tibetan history and who both lived in the mGo log region of Eastern Tibet. These authors aimed less at differentiating and strengthening rival doctrines, and more at highlighting their underlying unity or compatibility.
The Third rDo grub chen, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma (1865–1926), is known for his comparative writings on elements of gSar ma and rNying ma tantra, in the course of which he repeatedly asserts the correspondence of the subtle mind of clear light (’od gsal; prabhāsvara) described in Highest Yoga Tantra and the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs chen. Unlike Mi pham and his followers, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma claimed that the principal difference between rDzogs chen and gSar ma tantra lies in the methods they employ, rather than their respective views. And although encouraged by Mi pham to promote the rNying ma school, he neither made use of Mi pham’s distinctive terminology nor echoed his key assertions. While ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma maintains the superiority of Atiyoga and thus proposes an inclusivist, hierarchical model of the various vehicles, his rDzogs chen writings are notable for their emphasis on commonality as well as difference.
mDo sngags chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a dGe lugs pa lama from dPal sNyan mo Monastery in mGo log, who drew inspiration from ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma and his immediate disciples. In his writings he explicitly sought to heal sectarian division by uniting rNying ma views on rDzogs chen – especially those expressed in the works of Klong chen rab ’byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088) – with the view of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). These syncretistic appeals to unity are in marked contrast not only to the distinguishing approach taken by the likes of ’Ju Mi pham and Bod pa sprul sku bsTan pa’i nyi ma (1898–1959), but also to the more exclusivist tendencies prevalent within the dGe lugs pa school – as witnessed, for example, in the letters of Pha bong kha pa bDe chen snying po (1878–1941).
Through this brief examination, I suggest that the approach of strengthening scholastic traditions and highlighting their uniqueness may have actually served to increase intersectarian rivalry and conflict. Although the more ecumenical approaches discussed here had only limited influence, they represent significant ideological opposition to dominant trends, especially as rival claimants to the loaded term “non-sectarian” (ris med). And while Tibetan Buddhism has tended in recent years towards sectarian differentiation, with religious leaders concentrating their efforts on preserving and re-establishing their own traditions in exile, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has often attempted to highlight the underlying unity of the major schools—and, in so doing, has drawn upon the very authors and writings discussed in this paper.
Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.
Throughout the book the translator provides clear, succinct introductions to the individual translations, expertly setting the scene and guiding the reader through a world of intellectual renaissance, intersectarian debate, and the imparting of cherished insights. Through this, one truth above all becomes apparent: that genuine wisdom means transcending the limited confines of the ordinary mind.
Degé Kangyur, vol.66 (mdo sde, za), folios 59.a–59.b.
As its names suggests, the Caturdharmanirdeśasūtra is an explanation of four dharmas, here meaning factors or qualities. These factors relate to the practice of confession (even though no equivalent of that word occurs in the sūtra itself) and the purification of misdeeds or negative, harmful actions (pāpa). The four are: 1) the action (or correct approach) of repentance or self-reproach (vidūṣaṇāsamudācāra; rnam par sun ’byin pa kun tu spyod pa), which involves feeling remorse for past negative actions; 2) antidotal or remedial action (pratipakṣasamudācāra; gnyen po kun tu spyod pa), which means cultivating virtuous actions as an antidote to misdeeds; 3) the power of restraint (pratyāpattibala; sor chud par byed pa’i stobs), which means vowing not to repeat a negative action; and 4) the power of support (āśrayabala; rten gyi stobs), which means taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha, and never forsaking bodhicitta. Through employing these four factors, the sūtra says, any negative act, no matter how grave, can be “overcome” in the sense that its karmic consequences can be transformed. This idea became a crucial one for Mahāyāna ethics, both in theory and in practice.
In this paper I explore the views of two writers who took a different approach to inter-sectarian (and intra-sectarian) discourse during this same period of Tibetan history and who both lived in the mGo log region of Eastern Tibet. These authors aimed less at differentiating and strengthening rival doctrines, and more at highlighting their underlying unity or compatibility.
The Third rDo grub chen, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma (1865–1926), is known for his comparative writings on elements of gSar ma and rNying ma tantra, in the course of which he repeatedly asserts the correspondence of the subtle mind of clear light (’od gsal; prabhāsvara) described in Highest Yoga Tantra and the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs chen. Unlike Mi pham and his followers, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma claimed that the principal difference between rDzogs chen and gSar ma tantra lies in the methods they employ, rather than their respective views. And although encouraged by Mi pham to promote the rNying ma school, he neither made use of Mi pham’s distinctive terminology nor echoed his key assertions. While ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma maintains the superiority of Atiyoga and thus proposes an inclusivist, hierarchical model of the various vehicles, his rDzogs chen writings are notable for their emphasis on commonality as well as difference.
mDo sngags chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a dGe lugs pa lama from dPal sNyan mo Monastery in mGo log, who drew inspiration from ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma and his immediate disciples. In his writings he explicitly sought to heal sectarian division by uniting rNying ma views on rDzogs chen – especially those expressed in the works of Klong chen rab ’byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088) – with the view of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). These syncretistic appeals to unity are in marked contrast not only to the distinguishing approach taken by the likes of ’Ju Mi pham and Bod pa sprul sku bsTan pa’i nyi ma (1898–1959), but also to the more exclusivist tendencies prevalent within the dGe lugs pa school – as witnessed, for example, in the letters of Pha bong kha pa bDe chen snying po (1878–1941).
Through this brief examination, I suggest that the approach of strengthening scholastic traditions and highlighting their uniqueness may have actually served to increase intersectarian rivalry and conflict. Although the more ecumenical approaches discussed here had only limited influence, they represent significant ideological opposition to dominant trends, especially as rival claimants to the loaded term “non-sectarian” (ris med). And while Tibetan Buddhism has tended in recent years towards sectarian differentiation, with religious leaders concentrating their efforts on preserving and re-establishing their own traditions in exile, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has often attempted to highlight the underlying unity of the major schools—and, in so doing, has drawn upon the very authors and writings discussed in this paper.