PART I
THE TIBETAN HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
1. The Development of Various Traditions of Interpreting Buddha Nature
IN THE FIRST PART of my study, I will present the Tibetan historical background necessary for understanding Zhƶnu Palās enterprise of commenting on the RatnagotravibhÄga toward his specific ends. The first chapter of this part is dedicated to an analysis of the dramatic changes Indo-Tibetan Buddhism went through in the eleventh and twelfth centuries with particular emphasis on the analytical and meditation schools of interpreting the RatnagotravibhÄga. It is followed by a chapter on the stances of our selected masters from the fourteenth century and a comparison of their positions.
As we have already seen in the introduction, there were basically two main approaches to interpreting the RatnagotravibhÄga and its doctrine of buddha nature. The first is to follow the Laį¹
kÄvatÄrasÅ«tra and see in buddha nature (equated with ÄlayavijƱÄna) a term connoting emptiness. Following this line of thought, we can either take the RatnagotravibhÄga to be neyÄrtha, or, if we see in buddha nature a synonym of emptiness, even nÄ«tÄrtha. The second possibility is to take the RatnagotravibhÄga and the sÅ«tras upon which it comments more literally, as is done by the proponents of an āempti[ness] of otherā (Tib. gzhan stong). Further, a tradition espousing an analytical approach, in describing buddha nature as a nonaffirming negation, must be distinguished from a meditation school, which takes positive descriptions of the ultimate, such as buddha nature, to be experiential in content. It should be noted that the latter school may still accept buddha nature as a synonym of emptiness.
Ngog Loden Sherabās Analytical Interpretation of the RatnagotravibhÄga
Loden Sherab (1059ā1109) played a crucial role in the transmission of the RatnagotravibhÄga in Tibet. Not only were his translations of the RatnagotravibhÄga and its vyÄkhyÄ the ones included in the Tengyur, but he also composed a āsummarized meaningā or commentary of the RatnagotravibhÄga, in which he tries to bring the teaching of buddha nature into line with his Madhyamaka position. The latter is usually identified as being SvÄtantrika.109 Since this summary, which is of great significance for the understanding of Zhƶnu Palās mahÄmudrÄ interpretation of the RatnagotravibhÄga, has received little attention by Western scholars up till now,110 the main points of Loden Sherabās strategy will be presented in this section.
Some ten years ago, the text of the summarized meaning was reproduced from blockprints of the edition by GeshĆ© Sherab Gyatso (Dge bshes Shes rab rgya mtsho) (1884ā1968) and published with an extensive introduction by David Jackson (1993).111 Seyfort Ruegg, who must have had access to the blockprint in the possession of Dagpo RinpochĆ© (Dvags po Rin po che) in Paris, only briefly refers to Loden Sherabās commentary when discussing the ineffable and inconceivable nature of ultimate truth.112 Contrary to the Gelug position, Loden Sherab radically rejects the possibility that the ultimate can be grasped by conceptual thought:
This is because the ultimate [truth] is not an object amenable to speech; for the ultimate [truth] is not an object of thought, since conceptual thought is apparent [truth]. The intended meaning of not being able to be expressed by speech is here [because the ultimate is] not a basis for any verbal or conceptual ascertainment. This does not [mean] that [the ultimate] merely does not appear directly113 to the verbal consciousness. For if it were so, then it would follow that [objects] of apparent [truth], such as a vase, would also be such (i.e., not a basis for verbal ascertainment114).115
This position is in accordance with the interpretations of Sakya Paį¹įøita (Sa skya Paį¹įøita) (1182ā1251) but greatly at variance with the position maintained by Chapa Chƶkyi SengĆ© (Phya pa Chos kyi Seng ge) (1109ā69) and many later Gelug scholars.116 Loden Sherab differs from Sakya Paį¹įøita, however, in taking the RatnagotravibhÄga to be a commentary on the discourses with definitive meaning:
When the illustrious Maitreya clarified in an unmistaken way the intention of the discourses of the Sugata, he presented reality, which is the true meaning of MahÄyÄna, by composing the treatise of the MahÄyÄnottaratantra [RatnagotravibhÄga], which117 teaches the precious sÅ«tras of definitive meaning, [namely] the irreversible dharmacakra, the dharmadhÄtu as a single path;118 and which precisely teaches the meaning of all the very pure and certain discourses.119
It should be noted, however, that the remaining four Maitreya works, namely the AbhisamayÄlaį¹kÄra and the three YogÄcÄra works, are taken to be commentaries on sÅ«tras with provisional meaning.120
Zhƶnu Pal informs us in his Blue Annals that Loden Sherab equated buddha nature with the inconceivable ultimate, whereas Chapa took the latter (and thus buddha nature) to be a nonaffirming negation, bringing it within reach of logical analysis:
The great translator (i.e., Loden Sherab) and Master Tsangnagpa (Gtsang nag pa) take the so-called buddha nature to be the ultimate truth, but say, on the other hand: āDo not regard the ultimate truth as being an actual object corresponding to words and thoughts.ā They say that it is by no means a conceptualized object. Master Chapa for his part maintains that nonaffirming negation (which means that entities are empty of a true being) is the ultimate truth, and that it is a conceptualized object corresponding to words and thoughts.121
The way in which Loden Sherab equates buddha nature with the ultimate becomes clear in his commentary on the third vajra point of the Noble Saį¹
gha, where he explains the awareness of how reality is (yathÄvadbhÄvikatÄ) and the awareness of its extent (yÄvadbhÄvikatÄ) in the following way:
Awareness of the extent refers to the āvision that a perfect buddha is present in all [sentient beings].ā The awareness that the common defining characteristicsāthe very selflessness of phenomena and personsāare the nature of a tathÄgata, [namely] buddha nature, and that [this reality] completely pervades [its] support, [i.e.,] the entire element of sentient beings, is the [awareness of] the extent. Furthermore, the unmistaken awareness of mere selflessness, which exists in all sentient beings, is the awareness of how [reality] is. The apprehension that every support is pervaded by it is the awareness of its extent. Both are supramundane types of insight, [and so] ultimate objects, not a perceiving subject bound to the apparent [truth].122
This passage not only shows that awareness of emptiness is an ultimate object, but also that buddha nature is taken as the mere lack of a self in sentient beings. How buddha nature is defined becomes clearer in the commentary on the first and third reasons for the presence of a buddha nature in sentient beings, in RGV I.28:
Pure suchness is the kÄya of the perfect buddha. [Its] radiation (spharaį¹a) means being pervaded by it (the kÄya)āpervaded inasmuch as all sentient beings are fit to attain it (i.e., a kÄya of their own). In this respect, the tathÄgata [in the compound tathÄgata-nature123] is the real one, while sentient beingsā possession of his [i.e., the tathÄgataās] nature is nominal,124 because ābeing pervaded by itā has been metaphorically applied to the opportunity to attain it (i.e., such a kÄya)ā¦. With regard to the [reason] ābecause of the existence of a potential,ā tathÄgata is nominal, because the [tathÄgata-nature] is the cause for attaining suchness in the [resultant] state of purityā[is, in other words,] the seeds of knowledge and compassion, the mental imprints of virtue, and [thus only] the cause of a tathÄgata. The only real [in tathÄgata-nature here] is the ānatureā of sentient beings (and not that the latter consists of an actual tathÄgata).125
Buddha nature is thus not only taken as emptiness (namely the lack of self in sentient beings) but also as the seed or cause of buddhahood. We wonder, then, how Loden Sherab explains similes such as the huge silk cloth from the Avataį¹sakasÅ«tra,126 which illustrates the presence of immeasurable buddha qualities in sentient beings. Against the purport of the sÅ«tra, according to which each sentient being has its own buddha wisdom, Loden Sherab claims that this buddha wisdom is the one of the illustrious one himself:
As the picture on a silk cloth exists in an atom, just so the wisdom of the Buddha exists in the [mind]stream of sentient beings. If you ask what [this wisdom] is, [the answer is] the dharmadhÄtu. If you ask how this [can] be wisdom, [the answer is:] Since the illustrious one came to know that all phenomena lack defining characteristics thanks to the insight that encompasses [everything] in a single moment, this ...