The name ‘Hwashang’ has not always been equated with nihilistic wrong view in Tibetan Buddhism. The way Tibetan scholars and masters have taken Hwashang up into their historical narratives and philosophical systems after Hwashang’s... more
The name ‘Hwashang’ has not always been equated with nihilistic wrong view in Tibetan Buddhism. The way Tibetan scholars and masters have taken Hwashang up into their historical narratives and philosophical systems after Hwashang’s lineage was destroyed corresponds to the over- all philosophical and the corresponding historical stance these masters offered to their audiences whereby responding to their polemical and historical context. In the early days, before the formation of a functionally orthodox (Gelukpa) position on ‘Hwashang’ as a nihilistic wrong view which holds that one should abandon all thoughts, the Nyingma masters Nub Sangye Yeshe (gNubs Sangs rgyas Ye shes, 8-9th century) and Longchen Rabjam (kLong chen Rab byams, 1308– 1364) dis- played appreciation of ‘the master Hwashang’ whose teachings on non-conceptuality as a means to attain enlightenment resonated with theirs. However, those whose systems rejected such practice of non-conceptuality, such as Sakya Paṇḍita (Sa skya Pan di ta Kun dga’i rGyal mtshan, 1182–1251) and Tsongkhapa (rJe Tsong kha pa, 1357–1419), depicted ‘Hwashang’ negatively and rejected his teachings altogether, thereby using the historical narratives which after the ‘dark age’ had been altered to become pro-Indian. With the ascendency of the orthodox position on Hwashang, Jigme Lingpa (’Jigs med gLing pa, 1730-1798) alternatively displayed respect for ‘the master Hwashang’, but rejected the teachings he was said to have propounded. Mipham (’Jam mgon ‘Ju Mi pham rGya mtsho, 1846–1912) thereafter typically finds common ground between the negative orthodox presentation and the older more positive Nyingma presentations. While Pettit claims Mipham uses a caricature of the “Hashang system” and Phuntsho hypothesizes that Mipham interpreted Hwashang, this thesis will show how he moreover creates a new Hwashang — a ‘Hwashang makeover’ — by appearing to take on the Gelukpa’s presentation of Hwashang’s system by describing it as nihilistic, while allowing for the importance of non-conceptuality on the path as the Nyingmapa's propounded.
This paper discusses a nineteenth-century tradition stemming from eastern Tibet that the late Tibetologist Gene Smith called the “Gemang (dge mang) movement.” In contrast to an allegedly “non-sectarian movement” (ris med) that is... more
This paper discusses a nineteenth-century tradition stemming from eastern Tibet that the late Tibetologist Gene Smith called the “Gemang (dge mang) movement.” In contrast to an allegedly “non-sectarian movement” (ris med) that is antagonistic toward the Geluk (dge lugs) tradition or incompatible with it, the Gemang movement is marked by an integration of Geluk and Nyingma (rnying ma) traditions of scholarship and practice in a way that they are configured to be mutually illuminating. I aim to shed light on this Gemang movement, which is marked by the hybridity of Geluk and Nyingma, and contrast it with new iterations of sectarian identity built around the doctrine of “other-emptiness” (gzhan stong) that directly challenge and exclude the Geluk school. The Gemang movement is characterized by a rise in Nyingma monastic scholarship fused with an ethos of the Great Perfection (rdzogs chen). The Gemang movement can be seen to stem from the activity of Gyelsé Shenpen Tayé (1800-1855?), who established the first Nyingma monastic college of Śrī Siṃha at Dzokchen Monastery. Paltrül Rinpoché (1808-1887) and his disciples took up this vision for Buddhist scholarship and practice at the Gemang retreat affiliated with Dzokchen Monastery in Dzachuka (rdza chu kha). This paper will discuss the traditions around Dzokchen Monastery that exemplify this hybrid, inclusive vision.
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... 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).
