Home Collections Reference Places Literature Community Tools Projects

Debate Manuals (Yig cha) in dGe lugs Monastic Collegesby Guy Newland

From Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, pp. 202-­216.

Reproduced with permission from the author under the THL Digital Text License.

Overview[page 202] Yig cha are the required textbooks in the curriculum of Tibetan Buddhist monastic colleges (grwa tshang). Theymay be called "debate manuals" because they are often structured around a series of debates which provide rich fodderfor the oral debates characteristic of Tibetan monastic education. The word yig cha literally means "record" or "notes."Debate manuals have value both as explicit doctrinal records of the evolution of Buddhist thought and as implicit socialrecords of attitudes among educated monks toward faith, reason, education, and tradition. The genre can be traced backalmost a millennium, with new works still appearing in this century.

Often composed by distinguished scholars at the invitation of their colleges, many debate manuals are actually Tibetansub-­sub-­commentaries pertaining to Indian Buddhist treatises (śāstras) such as Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika, Maitreya'sAbhisamayālaṃkāra, and Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra. Thus, while debate manuals are by definition pedagogicalworks, intended to inform and to stimulate debate, the most noteworthy examples of the genre also involve elements ofcreative exegesis, polemic, and/or philosophical synthesis. If we believe that earlier formulations of a religious view aresomehow more pure or more authentic—and therefore more worthy of academic concern—then we may dismiss debatemanuals, along with Tibetan doxography (grub mtha') and [page 203] "grounds and paths" (sa lam) literature, asderivative, synthetic, post-­classical scholasticism. However, if our interest is the life of Buddhist philosophy acrossgenerations of Tibetan scholars, and if we seek to know not just where tradition began but how it is remembered (and thusreshaped), then we must give debate manuals their due.

In the monastic colleges of the dGe lugs school debate manuals have been the primary focus of intellectual life for the lastfive or six centuries. This is certainly not to depreciate the enormous importance of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa(1357-­1419) as the preeminent scholar and revered founder of the order, nor to imply a lack of reverence for Śākyamuniand the authors of the Mahāyāna treatises. Tibetan scholars do rely upon debate manuals for exegetical guidance throughthe "great books" of their tradition. The present Dalai Lama has reminded monks that they should not neglect to studyTsong kha pa's own writings. Yet the issuance of such a reminder, unnecessary for the best scholars, is indicative of the

Table of ContentsOverview

Monastic Colleges

The dGe lugs Curriculum

Mādhyamika Debate Manuals

Excerpt from 'Jam dbyangsbzhad pa's dBu ma chen mo

Conclusion

References

Specify Format:

Section by Section

Encyclopedias

THL Home

THL Apps

THL Navigation

THL Information

THL Connections

Upcoming Events

Subscribe: THL Updates

Support: Donate to THL

THL Help

Studies in Genre

General Links

typical student's tendency to acquire Tsong kha pa's system in a secondhand way, relying heavily on the convenient and

precise formulations of the debate manuals. Insofar as the colleges traditionally regard their manuals as ideal

reformulations of the essential points of the treatises and commentaries, the focus on the manuals has tended to displace

scholastic attention to the "great books."1

Monastic debate manuals bridge both historical and stylistic gaps by explicating the content of classical treatises in

language patterned after and readily (re)assimilated to the scholastic oral debate tradition. Debate manuals, or substantial

portions from them, are memorized by students and serve as the basis for (1) commentary by the teacher during class,

and (2) debate among the students in the monastery courtyard after class. Thus, these manuals link the philosophy of the

classical treatises to the living philosophy of courtyard debate, creating a shared universe for discourse among teachers

and students of the same college. In Tibetan monastic debate, arguments must be framed as syllogisms (prayoga, sbyorba) or consequences (prasaṅga, thal 'gyur), and the respondent must either challenge the sign (liṅga, rtags) (i.e., the minorpremise), or the pervasion (vyāpti, khyab pa) (i.e., the major premise), or else accept the opponent's point. The same rulesstructure the debates in the manuals. Most manuals break down the [page 204] material into a series of topics, covering

each topic in a tripartite schema: (1) debates refuting opposing systems (dgag pa), (2) a presentation of the author's ownsystem (rang lugs bzhag pa) of definitions (mtshan nyid), etc., and (3) further debates dispelling objections (rtsod spong)posed by actual or hypothetical critics. This format allows authors to sharpen their arguments while creating text that their

debate-­trained readers find relatively easy to memorize for use in the courtyard. Conversely, debate manual authors must

have derived some of their written debates from oral debates current in their respective colleges and generations.

Monastic CollegesGoldstein (21) estimates that twenty-­six percent of traditional Tibet's male population were monks. Although Tibetans

generally regard monks as superior to laymen, this high percentage is one reason that the official charisma of the robes

was not potent enough to mark monks as an exclusive élite. In the dGe lugs, the dominant order of Tibetan Buddhism

since the seventeenth century, scholarly achievement has been one of the most important paths into the élite circles of

leadership. To understand this fact, we must reflect on the relationship between reason and liberation in Tsong kha pa's

philosophy.

Like other Buddhists, Tsong kha pa and his dGe lugs pa followers contend that liberation from beginningless cycles of

suffering is reached through non-­dualistic (advaya, gnyis med) and trans-­conceptual insight (nirvikalpajñāna, rtog med yeshes) into reality (dharmatā, chos nyid). However, for the dGe lugs pa this insight is not a spontaneous, naturally arising,objectless intuition. Rather it is something that must be gradually and systematically cultivated, and it has a specific,

rationally comprehensible object—emptiness (śūnyatā, stong pa nyid). Although emptiness is the very nature of the mind,realization (rtogs pa) of this natural emptiness is a hard-­won accomplishment. Realization of emptiness depends not onlyupon prior training in ethics, but upon conceptual mastery of what "emptiness" is and how logic can be used to approach it.

This philosophical stance reinforced the religious and political authority of those who controlled educational institutions

equipped to provide the requisite training in logic and philosophy.2 Traditionally, much of dGe lugs education was

controlled by [page 205] large monasteries near Lhasa, especially 'Bras spungs, Se ra and dGa' ldan.3 Each major

monastic university comprised a number of colleges, each college having its own support personnel, its own temples, its

own debate manuals, its own faculty, and its own abbot (mkhan po). Some colleges focused on tantric studies, whileothers existed only in theory or in vestigial forms;; the major colleges that concern us here are sGo mang and Blo gsal gling

at 'Bras spungs, sMad and Byes at Se ra, and Shar rtse and Byang rtse at dGa' ldan. While education was a major

function of these institutions, at any given time most of the monks at the monastic universities were not students. Goldstein

(24) reports, for example, that at the middle of this century the monks at the sMad college of Se ra monastery numbered

2,800;; of these only 800 were students. Few of these students could expect to complete the entire monastic curriculum;;

most would find other vocations within the monastery. Thus, degree-­holders were, and today remain, a small élite within

the monastic community.

An education at a big monastery is not presumed necessary for spiritual development, but there is an implication that study

at these monasteries represents a rare and invaluable spiritual opportunity for those who can withstand its rigors.

Advancement through the curriculum and academic hierarchy of these institutions is presumed to reflect the attainment of

(at least) the conceptual knowledge and analytical skills prerequisite to yogic realization. The colleges of 'Bras spungs, Sera and dGa' ldan monasteries give the title dge bshes to scholars passing exams at the end of twenty to twenty-­five yearsof study. The charismatic valence of this title is apparent when one considers that the Sanskrit equivalent of the title dgebshes—kalyāṇamitra, usually translated "spiritual friend"—is a standard epithet of a guru, i.e., a spiritual master.

Traditionally, considerable wealth and power accumulated in the hierarchies of these prestigious institutions;; they played

important religious, political, economic, and even military roles in the history of Tibet. Far-­flung networks of affiliated

monasteries not only provided a feeder system for promising students and appropriate sinecure for graduates, but also

offered channels for political intercourse. The abbots of the major colleges were among the most important figures in

Tibetan politics. Because the abbots were always selected from the ranks of the dge bshes, mastery of [page 206] themonastic syllabus—including expert knowledge of the debate manuals—was an important path "out of the ranks" into

charismatic office and political power. While incarnate lamas (sprul sku) achieved their status otherwise, they were at leastin principle expected to pass through the same educational system.

Intercollegiate solidarity within the large monasteries tends to be weak. Each functioning college has its own chapel ('dukhang), staff, and debate manuals. As Goldstein (26-­29) notes, when monks at Se ra Byes revolted against the centralgovernment in 1947, Se ra sMad did not help them;; when 'Bras spungs Blo gsal gling quarrelled with the Dalai Lama in

1921, 'Bras spungs sGo mang did not take their side. A monk's strongest loyalties are to his college and his regional

house (khang tshan), a sub-­collegiate unit with membership traditionally based on natal province. Some colleges havetraditional regional affiliations based on the provinces represented by their constituent houses;; thus, rivalries between

colleges within a monastery may have a regional flavor. Each college maintains the hagiographical tradition of its most

important author and, to a certain extent, takes his assertions as orthodoxy. Rivalries still rage between contiguous

colleges using different textbooks. At 'Bras spungs, doctrinal disputes between Blo gsal gling and sGo mang turn on

differences so thin that one hesitates to call them "philosophical." Yet analytical debate of such differences plays an

enormous role in the manuals and the lives of those who use them. In debate with other colleges (during the winter

session and at sMon lam) each monk is expected to uphold, insofar as possible, the assertions of his college's manuals.Outside the context of debate with other colleges, dGe lugs monks differ greatly in their attitudes toward "debate manual

orthodoxy." Many regard their teachers and manuals as sources of unassailable truth, using their definitions as absolute

reference points. On the other hand, there are always those who "consider the knowledge imparted to them as atool...accepted provisionally in order to advance" on a quest that is at once philosophical and spiritual (Dreyfus: 10-­12).

The dGe lugs CurriculumThe outline of the curriculum varies only slightly from college to college, and always includes five main phases (see alsoOnoda, in this volume):[page 207]

(1) study of logic, epistemology and psychology, based on Tibetan "Summarized Topics" (bsdus grwa) debatemanuals deriving their content from Dharmakīrti's Pramānavārttika and other sources (three to six years)

(2) study of the bodhisattva path and related topics in Prajñāpāramitā (phar phyin) literature, based mainly onMaitreya's Abhisamayālaṃkāra, its Indian and Tibetan commentaries, and the related debate manuals (five to sevenyears)

(3) study of Mādhyamika (dbu ma) philosophy, based mainly on Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra, Tsong kha pa'sdGongs pa rab gsal and Legs shes snying po, and the related debate manuals (four years\)

(4) study of Abhidharma, based especially on Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa (mNgon par mdzod) and itscommentaries (four years)

(5) study of monastic discipline (vinaya, 'dul ba), based especially on Guṇaprabha's Vinayasūtra and the associateddebate manuals (four years)

Geshe Sopa (41-­42) reports that the curriculum at the Byes college of Se ra includes three years for the first phase, fiveyears for the second, and four years for each of the other three phases. At the sGo mang college of 'Bras spungs, sixyears are dedicated to the first phase and six or seven years to the second phase (Hopkins: 15;; Klein: 220). Once a dayclasses meet with a teacher for about two hours of text-­study;; twice daily they meet in the courtyard for sessions of oraldebate among students. Five or six weeks out of every year are set aside for an inter-­monastic session of debate andstudy of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavarttika and related texts. Those who complete the five phases of the curriculum normallyspend additional years reviewing and sharpening their debate skills before undergoing examination for the dge bshesdegree at the Prayer Festival (sMon lam) celebrated during the first three weeks of the new year.

In this limited space we will mention some of the debate manuals used in the third (dbu ma) phase of this curriculum.

Mādhyamika Debate ManualsMany of the most important Mādhyamika debate manuals are sub-­commentaries on Tsong kha pa's dGongs pa rab gsal,his commentary [page 208] on Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra.4 These manuals also include relevant citations of sūtraand other Indian Mādhyamika texts, along with references to Tsong kha pa's Rigs pa'i rgya mtsho, Legs bshad snying po,Lam rim chen mo, and Lam rim 'bring, mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang po's sTong thun chen mo and rGyal tshab'ssPyod 'jug rnam bshad. The authors of extant debate manuals on Madhyamaka include: Śānti pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan(fifteenth century), who wrote for the 'Khyil gang College of bKra shis lhun po Monastery;; mKhas sgrub bsTan pa dar rgyas(1493-­1568) and Grags pa bshad sgrub (1675-­1748), authors for the sMad College of Se ra;; rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal

mtshan (1469-­1546), author for the Byes college of Se ra and the Byang rtse College of dGa' ldan;;5 sGom sde shar paNam mkha' rgyal mtshan (1532-­1592), a student of rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan and an author for the Byes College ofSe ra as well as the Byang rtse College of dGa' ldan;; Khyung phrug Byams pa bkra shis (sixteenth century), anotherstudent of rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan and an author for the Byang rtse College of dGa' ldan;; Paṇ chen bSod namsgrags pa (1478-­1554), author for the Blo gsal gling College of 'Bras spungs and the Shar rtse College of dGa' ldan;; and'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson 'grus (1648-­1721), author of the texts of the sGo mang College of 'Brasspungs as well as the bKra shis 'kyil Monastery, which he founded.6

Paṇ chen bSod nams grags pa, rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, and 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa are the best known andmost influential of the Mādhyamika debate manual authors. In their textbooks on Madhyamaka, these writers share twomain goals: (1) to provide a basis for instruction in the fundamentals of Madhyamaka philosophy, and (2) to confirm thefundamental coherence of Tsong kha pa's system by refuting contrary interpretations and rebutting critics. Born in thesame century during which Tsong kha pa and his immediate disciples died, and flourishing prior to the sect's attainment ofpolitical supremacy, rJe btsun pa and Paṇ chen see the founder and his early followers in the light of a charisma slightlyless magnificent than that appreciated by later generations. Paṇ chen, in particular, boldly overthrows the assertions ofmKhas grub and rGyal tshab when they conflict with his own conclusions (see BZSG: 61a and BJGL: 47a-­47b). The workof rJe btsun pa and Paṇ chen seems quite terse when compared to 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's elaborate grappling withmyriad doctrinal complications. 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's Mādhyamika manual is more [page 209] ambitious than others inits attempts (1) to demonstrate the fidelity of Tsong kha pa to his Indian sources and (2) to reconcile apparentcontradictions among Tsong kha pa, mKhas grub, and rGyal tshab. Thriving in the heyday of dGe lugs power, 'Jamdbyangs bzhad pa is also more deferential to Tsong kha pa's spiritual "sons" (sras)—mKhas grub and rGyal tshab. Whenhe cannot reconcile a literal (tshig zin) reading of mKhas grub or rGyal tshab with his own understanding of Tsong kha pa,he works to reconcile the intentions (dgongs pa) behind their words.7

Excerpt from 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's dBu ma chen moThe following brief excerpt from 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's Mādhyamika debate manual illustrates how instruction, polemic,and exegesis can be finely woven on the framework of the debate format. We find the author citing Candrakīrti'sPrasannapadā and Madhyamakāvatāra in order to rebut attacks by Tsong kha pa's Sa skya pa critic, sTag tshang lo tsāba Shes rab rin chen (b. 1405). 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa attempts to show that sTag tshang, in his critique of the dGe lugspresentation of valid cognition (tshad ma, pramāṇa) of conventional phenomena, adopts a position that Candrakīrtispecifically refutes. At the same time, 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa implicitly offers a solution to an exegetical problem in thePrasannapadā.

In his discussion of the term lokasaṃvṛti ('jig rten gyi kun rdzob;; worldly conventionality" or "worldly concealer"),Candrakīrti (PP: 493) first seems to say that the word loka ("world") does not imply a contrasting aloka ("non-­world"). YetCandrakīrti then appears to reverse himself, writing (PP: 493), "Yet, in one way there is such a non-­world. Those who haveerroneous vision because their senses have been impaired by opthalmia, blue eye-­film, jaundice, etc. are not worlds."Many scholars ignore or gloss over Candrakīrti's initial denial. 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa thinks he can explain the intent ofthe initial denial, but he embeds his answer in a refutation of sTag tshang. A key feature of sTag tshang's presentation ofconventionalities (saṃvṛti, kun rdzob) is the distinction between worldly conventionalities and yogic conventionalities

(GTKN: 266). By citing Candrakīrti's denial of non-­worldly conventionalities in refutation of sTag tshang, 'Jam dbyangs

bzhad pa suggests that Candrakīrti's initial denial is intended to rule out a special category [page 210] of non-­worldly, yogic

conventionalities.

'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa then uses a hypothetical objection as an opportunity to reconcile his reading of the Prasannapadāwith earlier comments on the Madhyamakāvatāra. Confident that in a few brief strokes he has unravelled a passage in thePrasannapadā, aligned it with the Madhyamakāvatāra, and refuted sTag tshang, 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa cannot resistconcluding on a self-­congratulatory note. He writes (BMC: 541-­542):

Incorrect Position held by sTag tshang the Translator: [Candrakīrti's] use of the word loka ["world"] inthe phrase lokasaṃvṛti ('jig rten gyi kun rdzob) precludes Superiors having in their continuumsconventional valid cognitions (tha snyad pa'i tshad ma) that perceive conventional truths (saṃvṛtisatya,kun rdzob bden pa).8

Correct Response: It follows that this is incorrect because [Candrakirti's] statement of loka [in"lokasaṃvṛti"] is descriptive;; it is not [made] for the sake of applying analyses such as [yours]. This isbecause Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā (493) says:

Is there also a saṃvṛti that is not worldly from which a worldly saṃvṛti could be thusdistinguished? This [word "worldly"] describes how things are. That analysis [which

assumes that since saṃvṛti is sometimes modified by "worldly," there must also bean unworldly saṃvṛti] does not apply here.

Incorrect Position with regard to this: It [absurdly] follows that worldly conventionalities (lokasaṃvṛti, 'jigrten gyi kun rdzob) are not divided into conventionalities that are real for the world ('jig rten gyi yang dagpa'i kun rdzob) and conventionalities that are unreal for the world ('jig rten gyi log pa'i kun rdzob)because [according to you] "world" (loka, 'jig rten) is stated [merely] for descriptive purposes [and not inorder to differentiate two types of conventionalities].

9 If you accept the consequence, it follows that your

explanation that in Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra (104) worldly conventionalities are of two types—those that are real from a worldly perspective and those that are unreal from a worldly perspective—is

incorrect.

Correct Response: The original reason [—that "world" is stated for descriptive purposes in the

Prasannapadā—] certainly does not entail the consequence [—that worldly conventionalities are not

divided into conventionalities that are real for the world and conventionalities that are unreal for the

world—] because, since the erroneous—i.e., false—consciousnesses of one whose sense powers have

been impaired by jaundice, etc., are not the world in relation to whose perspective something is posited

as [page 211] real, Candrakīrti says "worldly conventional truth" (lokasaṃvṛtisatya) in order to makethat point understood.

10 This is because Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā (493.2-­4) says:

Yet in one way there is [such a non-­world]. Those who have erroneous vision

because their senses have been impaired by opthalmia, blue eye-­film,11 jaundice,

etc. are not worlds. That which is a conventionality for them is not a worldly

conventional truth (lokasaṃvṛtisatya).12 Therefore, a worldly conventional truth is

distinguished from that.

Since it seems that even many former scholars did not explain13 this, I have written a little clearly.

ConclusionFrom a dGe lugs religious perspective, debate manuals engender analytical skills and lay the foundations of right view,

thus providing a solid conceptual basis from which yogic inquiry into the nature of reality can proceed. We may also

observe that (1) minor differences among the manuals are focal points for the intellectual expression of collegial solidarity

and intercollegiate tensions, while (2) their far broader commonalities in structure and content contribute to the

socialization of the monastic élite within a shared worldview.

ReferencesCandrakīrtiMAMadhyamakāvatāra. Tibetan translation: P no. 5261, vol. 98 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

PPMūlamadhyamakavṛttiprasannapadā. In Mūlamadhaymakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire

de Candrakīrti. Ed. by Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Bibliotheca Buddhica4. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970. Tibetan: P

no. 5260, vol. 98 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki);; and Jacques May, Prasannapadā Madhyamakavṛtti, douze

chapitres traduits du sanscrit et du tibétain. Paris: Adrien-­Maisonneuve, 1959.

DharmakīrtiPVPramāṇavārttikakārika. In Pramāṇavārttika of Acharya Dharmakīrti. Ed. by Swami Dwarikadas Shastri. Varanasi:

Bauddha Bharati, 1968. Tibetan: P no. 5709, vol. 130 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

Dreyfus, Georges B. J.1987Definition in Buddhism. M.A. thesis. Charlottesville: University of Virgina.[page 214]

Goldstein, Melvyn C.1989A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-­1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Grags pa bshad sgrubBMYGdBu ma la 'jug pa'i dgongs pa yang gsal sgron me shes bya ba'i tshig 'grel spyi don mtha dpyod zung 'brel du bshad

pa. New Delhi: Lha mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1972.

GuṇaprabhaVSVinayasūtra. Tibetan translation: P no. 5619, vol. 123 in The Tibetan Tripitaka (see Suzuki).

Hopkins, Jeffrey

n.d.Reflections on Reality: The Nature of Phenomena in the Mind-­Only School. Unpublished ms.

'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson 'grus

BMCdBu ma chen mo/ dBu ma 'jug pa'i mtha' dpyod lung rigs gter mdzod zab don kun gsal skal bzang 'jug ngogs. In hisCollected Works, vol. 9. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1972. Also, Buxaduor: Gomang, 1967.

Khyung phrug Byams pa bkra shis

BMKNdBu ma la 'jug pa'i rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi dka' ba'i gnas gsal bar byed pa legs bshad skal bzang mgulrgyan. New Delhi: Lha mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1974.

Klein, Anne

1986Knowledge and Liberation. Ithaca: Snow Lion.

Maitreya

AAAbhisamayālaṃkāra. In Abhisamayālaṃkāra-­Prajñāpāramitā-­Upadeśa-­śastra. Ed. by Th. Stcherbatsky and E.Obermiller. Bibliotheca Buddhica22. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970. Tibetan: P no. 5184, vol. 88 in The TibetanTripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

mKhas sgrub bsTan pa dar rgyas

BMLGbsTan bcos chen po dbu ma la 'jug pa'i spyi don rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi dgongs pa gsal bar byed pa'iblo gsal sgron me. New Delhi: Lha mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1972.

GRTPrNam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi mtha dpyod rigs pa'i rgya mtsho blo gsal gyi' jug sgo. New Delhi: Lha mkharyongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1972.

mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang po

TTCsTong thun chen mo/ Zab mo stong pa nyid rab tu gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos skal bzang mig 'byed. Dharamsala:Shes rig par khang, n.d.[page 215]

Newland, Guy

1984Compassion: A Tibetan Analysis. London: Wisdom.

1992The Two Truths. Ithaca: Snow Lion.

Paṇ chen bSod nams grags pa

BJGLdBu ma la 'jug pa'i brgal lan zab don yang gsal sgron me. In his Collected Works, vol. ja. Mundgod: DrebungLoseling Library Society, 1985.

BZSGdBu ma'i spyi don zab don gsal ba'i sgron me. In his Collected Works, vol. ja. Mundgod: Drebung Loseling LibrarySociety, 1985.

Perdue, Daniel1992Debate in Tibetan Buddhism. Ithaca: Snow Lion.

rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshanBMPDbsTan bcos dbu ma la 'jug pa'i rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi dka' gnad gsal bar byed pa'i spyi don legs bshad

skal bzang mgul rgyan. New Delhi: LHa mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1973.

Roerich, George N., trans.1979Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

sGom sde shar pa Nam mkha' rgyal mtshanTZKNThal bzlog gi dka' bai gnas gtan la 'bebs pa. New Delhi: LHa mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1973.

Sopa, Geshe Lhundup1983Lectures on Tibetan Religious Culture, vol. 1. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.

sTag tshang lo tsā ba shes rab rin chenGTKNGrub mtha' kun shes nas mtha' bral grub pa zhes bya ba'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa legs bshad kyi rgya mtsho.

Thimphu: Kun bdzang stobs rgyal, 1976.

Suzuki, D.T., ed.1956The Tibetan Tripiṭaka. Tokyo-­Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Foundation.

Śānti pa Blo gros rgyal mtshanGRKNrNam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal gyi dka' ba'i gnad gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos dbang gi rgyal po. New Delhi: Lha

mkhar yongs 'dzin bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1973.

Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags paGPRSdGongs pa rab gsal/ dBu ma la 'jug pa'i rgya cher bshad pa dgongs pa rab gsal. P no. 6143, vol. 154 in The Tibetan

Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).[page 216]

LRBLam rim 'bring/ Byang chub lam gyi rim pa chung ba. P no. 6002, vols. 152-­153 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

LRCLam rim chen mo/ sKyes pa gsum gyi rnyams su blang ba'i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa'i byang chub lam gyirim pa. P no. 6001, vol. 152 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

LSNPLegs bshad snying po/ Drang ba dang nges pa'i don rnam par phye ba'i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po. P no.6142, vol. 153 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

RPGTRigs pa'i rgya mtsho/ dBu ma rtsa ba'i tshig le'ur byas pa shes rab ces bya bai' rnam bshad rigs pa'i rgya mtsho. Pno. 6153, vol. 156 in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka (see Suzuki).

Notes[1] This situation is not peculiar to dGe lugs. In the colleges of the Sa skya school (and in the Sa skya College nowlocated in Rajpur, India) the primary focus is on the work of Go ram pa bSod nams seng ge (1429-­1489) rather than onthe work of Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (1182-­1251/2) and the other early luminaries of the order. The Saskya pa monks use the word yig cha to refer to the required texts by Go ram pa bSod nams seng ge.[2] The following paragraphs describe the general situation in the monastic universities, considering both the traditionalcontext (pre-­1959) and the contemporary context of the dGe lugs monasteries reestablished in exile near Mundgod andBylakuppe, India.[3] Tsong kha pa established dGa' ldan in 1409;; his student Byams chen chos rje founded 'Bras spungs in 1416 and Sera (spelled Se rwa by some authorities) in 1419. Each held several thousand monks. Other major dGe lugs monasticuniversities include bKra shis lhun po, bKra shis 'kyil, and sKu 'bum. [page 212] Established in 1445 in gZhis ga rtse bydGe 'dun grub pa (who was posthumously entitled "First Dalai Lama"), bKra shis lhun po became the seat of the Paṇchen Lama in the seventeenth century. bKra shis 'kyil was founded in eastern Tibet by the dGe lugs scholar 'Jamdbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson 'grus, and sKu 'bum was founded in the sixteenth century at Tsong kha pa'sbirthplace.[4] There is also a class of Mādhyamika debate manuals based on Tsong kha pa's Legs bshad snying po. Many of theauthors are the same as those mentioned in this paragraph.[5] An excerpt from rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan's debate manual on Madhyamaka is translated and explicated inNewland, 1984.[6] No longer extant are Mādhyamika debate manuals by Blo gros rin chen seng ge (fifteenth century) and Shes rabdbang po (fifteenth century?), both formerly used in the Byes College of Se ra. My translation of the satyadvaya sectionfrom 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's Mādhyamika debate manual is forthcoming from Snow Lion.[7] For examples, see BMC: 268b, 275b, and 290a. In the section dealing with the two truths, we find mKhas grub quotedeight times in eighty-­six sides. By comparison, Nāgārjuna is also cited eight times;; only Tsong kha pa, Candrakīrti, andsūtra are cited more often. rGyal tshab is cited four times.[8]

The Sa skya scholar sTag tshang lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen criticizes the dGe lugs position on conventional validcognition (tha snyad pa'i tshad ma). He writes (GTKN: 269):

[T]he presentation of valid cognition that is well known in the world ... [may be] asserted in a way thatindulges the perspective of the world. However, a so-­called "valid cognizer comprehendingconventionalities" is completely non-­existent [not only in terms of the thorough analysis intoemptiness but even] in terms of the normal analysis of our own system.

Thus, even Superiors in states subsequent to meditative equipoise (prṣṭhalabdhajñāna) cannot have valid knowledge ofconventional phenomena. Nevertheless, their "yogic" mode of apprehension is distinct from the non-­analyticalperspective of the world. sTag tshang (GTKN: 266) uses this distinction to make a twofold division of conventionalities:

In general, it is said that there are two types of conventionalities: worldly conventionalities and yogicconventionalities.…With regard to illustrations, coarse phenomena of a mistaken perspective thatdoes not investigate or analyze are worldly conventionalities. Subtle impermanence—an object foundby a conventional awareness with normal analysis—and the appearances in states subsequent tomeditative equipoise of Superiors…are yogic conventionalities.

[9] This incorrect position challenges a shift in 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa's manner of reading the word "world." When thephrase "of the world" ('jig rten gyi) is added to the phrase "real conventionality" (yang dag pa'i kun rdzob) or "unrealconventionality" (log pa'i kun rdzob), 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa understands [page 213] this to mean conventionalities thatare real or unreal for the worldly perspective. (If the qualification "for the worldly perspective" were not added, then onewould have to say that all conventionalities are unreal.) However, when the phrase "of the world" ('jig rten gyi) is addedto "conventionality" (kun rdzob), 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa does not take this to mean "conventionality in the perspective ofthe world." Such a reading might suggest a contrasting "conventionality in the perspective of yogis" as advocated bysTag tshang. Or else, it might suggest that worldly conventionalities are phenomena that worldly beings can recognizeas conventionalities.[10] Conventional truths (saṃvṛtisatya), literally, are "truths-­for-­a-­concealing ignorance," phenomena that aremisapprehended as truths by the subtlest ignorance—a conception of inherent existence—of even ordinary, healthypersons. A person with jaundice who sees a white piece of paper as yellow may have a coarse ignorant consciousnessthat believes that the paper is actually yellow, just as it appears. That misconception conceals the white color of thepaper. However, such a misconception is not the concealing ignorance in terms of which that paper is a concealer-­truthbecause it is not a conception of inherent existence.[11] "Blue eye-­film" (ling thog sngon po) does not appear in the Sanskrit.[12] Jacques May's Tibetan (432) reads: 'jig rten kun rdzob bden pa ma yin pas. La Vallée Poussin's Sanskrit (493) readsalokasaṃvṛti.[13] At 542, reading bshad for shod in accordance with the sGo mang edition, 300a.

Back To Top

THL Home About Us Participate! Donate Sponsors Index Subscribe Help Contact THL

THL Community License © 2015 www.thlib.org