3m7r

7/27/2019 3M7R

1/9

Chapter 8

Def i ni ng and Redef i ni ngSval aksana: Dharmaki rt i ' sConcept and i ts Ti betanModi f i cat i on

CHZUKO YOSHM ZU

Recent contr i but i ons to the Ti betan devel opment of Buddhi stphi l osophi cal system have attr acted considerabl e attenti on, notonl y because of thei r s igni f i cant resul ts but al sobecause of thei rmethodol ogi cal consci ousness that any i ntell ectual tradi ti on mustbe examned i n l i ght of i ts hi stor i cal and cul tural ci rcumtances.Conti nui ty and di sconti nui ty of thought as wel l as the character-i s t i cs of Ti betan i nt erpr etat i ons f i r s t become cl ear t hr ough athorough invest igat ion of both Indian and Tibetan t radi t ions,and yet t he si gni f i cance of i ndi vi dual t hought i s f i nal l y t o beconsi dered i n i t s contemporar y context . I n t hi s r espect , t hel atest studi es of the Ti betan devel opment of Dharmaki rt i ' s (7c.)epi stemol ogy were most successful i n i ndi cati ng the consistencyand i nconsistency of Ti betan i nterpretati ons w th Dharmaki rti ' sor i gi nal i deas.1Speci al attent i on has been pai d to the or i gi nal i tyof dGe lugs pa thinkers. They indeed made several theoret i calmodi fi cati ons to, rei nterpretati ons and reeval uati ons of I ndi anori gi nal thought, especiall yw th regard tol ogi coepi stemol ogi cal

7/27/2019 3M7R

2/9

118 THREE MOUNTAI NS AND SEVEN RI VERS

i s sues i n both major f i el ds of Buddhi s t phi l osophy, vi z . , t heMadhyamaka systemand that of Dharmaki rt i .2 In order togai n acl ear pi c t ur e of t he dGe lugs pa posi t i on on these Buddhi s tphi l osophi cal system, we have attempted toreveal what mghtactual l y under l i e thei r probl emati c commtments to tradi t i onalteachi ngs, i .e.,t or eveal i tshistori cal background, probabl e tex-tual sources, possi bl e msi nterpretat i ons and wrong transms-s ions of text, as wel l as part i cul ar ai m and moti vat i ons they mayhave had in mnd.The present paper t oo i s an at t empt t o cl ar i f y t he way dGe

l ugs pa schol ars redefi ned the concept sval aksana (rang mshan)and to speci f y the reasons for this redef i ni t i on on the basis ofthe wri t i ngs by the three mai n fi guresf rom the ear l i er per i od ofthe school , i .e . ,Tsong kha pa Bi o bzang grags pa (1357-1419),rGyal tshab Dar ma r in chen (1364-1432) and mKhas grub dGelegs dpal bzang po (1385- 1438) . 3 I al s o wsh to consi der t hequest ion of how Dharmakl rt i and these Ti betan thi nkers under-stood the meaning of the indiv idual i ty and real i tyof exis tentsunder the concept of svalaksana, since def i ning svalaksana isnone other than def i ning what an indiv idual and real ent i ty i s .Through the fol l ow ngdiscussi on,one w l l seet hat both Dharmakirt iand the dGe lugs pa thinkers def i ne svalaksana not in i sola t ionfrom but i n compl ete accordance w th, thei r respect i ve consid-erat i ons of rel at i ng phi l osophi cal i ssues. As for the dGe l ugs pa,however , i t can be sai d that t hey aimed to comprehend suchfundamental concepts as sval aksana from a w der perspect i ve,namely they t r ied to formula te a version of indiv idual i ty andreal i tywhi ch hol ds true not onl y for the Sautrant i ka tradi t i onofDharmaki rt i but for Buddhi st phi l osophi cal system i n general ,i ncl udi ng Madhyamaka. I would l i ke t o focus on thi s poi nt i nthe l ast part of the paper.1. Dharmakl rti on sval aksanaLi t t ie needs to be said about the considerable signi f i cance ofthe term sval aksa?iawhi ch l i teral l ymeans ' own characteri stic' ,and coni es down to term for ' parti cul ar'or ' i ndi vi dual ' .Sval aksanai s character i zed by D gnaga (6c.) as the obj ect of di rect percep-t ion(pratyaksa) , i . e. , the object of a cogni t i on which is f ree ofconceptual constructi on (kal pandpodha). A Dharmakirt i added tot hi s epi s temol ogi cal not i on a cl ear ont ol ogi cal gr ound by

DEFI N NG AND REDEFI N NG SVALAKS, . 19

i denti fy ing it w th that which has causal eff icacy(arthakri ydsdmarthya,ar t hakr i ydsakt i . don byed nus pa) , t hat i s , an abi l i t y t o pr oduce anef f ect . He expl i c i tl y def i nes t hi s al one ( eva) as ul t i mat el y exi s-t ent ( par amdr t hasat ) or as a r eal ent i t y ( vast u) , i n cont r ast t o t he' uni versal ' or ' common characteristi c' (sdmdnya or sdmdnyal aksana).The l at ter , i n cont rast t o sval aksana, r ef er s t o t he obj ect of con-cept i on or of wor ds t hat l acks causal ef f i cacy and hence i s con-si der ed t o be mer el y convent i onal and unr eal . 5 We may be abl et o gi ve t he br oad out l i nes of t he devel opment of t he i dea f romD gnaga t o Dhar makl rt i , or f rom t he epi st emol ogi cal t o t heont ol ogi cal char act er i zat i on of sval aksana, as f ol l ows: The f actt hat a t hi ng i s act ual l y per cei ved by someone, somet i me andsomewher e i ndi cat es t hat t hi s t hi ng exi st s at t hat moment att hat pl ace, unl ess t hi s per cept i on i s pr oven t o be f al s e by some-one el se. Si nce t hi s t hi ng causes a di r ect per cept i on of i t s ownimage, i t i s adm t ted t o be causal l y ef f i c aci ous. Fur t hermor e, t hi sthi ng must be al l owed t o be real , f or unreal thi ngs such as ahor n of a r abbi t or . an abst ract concept l i ke ' et er ni t y' cannotcause any di rect per cept i on. I n ot her wor ds, t he ari si ng of adi r ect per cept i on shoul d pr oper l y pr esuppose t he pr esence ofsomet hi ng r eal as i t s obj ect . Hence t he obj ect of di r ect per cep-t i on pr oves t o be exi st ent i n r eal i t y. I n t hi s way, a sval aksana t obe cogni zed by a di rect percept i on can be i dent i fi ed as a realenti ty:

The t erm sval aksana, as opposed t o sdmdnyal aksana or common character i s t i c, entai l s f r om the begi nni ng that the phenomenon i s i ndi vi dual , uni que and di st i nct . D gnaga' s descr i pt i onof sval aksana as t he obj ect of di r ect per cept i on may wel l r ef l ectt he i dea t hat sval aksana i s a subst ant i al l y i ndi vi dual t hi ng, si ncei t i s t he f unct i on of per cept i on t o make subst ant i al di st i nct i onsamong i t s obj ect s. To thi s extent , one coul d al so say that sval aksanai s a spado t empor al l y i ndi vi dual and uni que occur rence, whi chnecessar i l y occupi es a cer tai n l ocat i on i n space and t i me, i ncont r ast t o a mer el y imagi ned obj ect . The mor e st r i ct s pat i ot emporal qual i f i cat ion of svalaksana can be der ived from Dharmakl r t i 'sdef i ni t i on of a real exi st ent as havi ng causal ef f icacy, i f t hi squal i f i cat ion i s l i nked to the theory of momentar iness (ksanikatva) ,vi z . , that whatever i s exi s tent in real i ty i s exclusively momentary.6I t i s t heor et i cal l y consi s tent t o i nt er pr et sval aksana as a uni queand si ngl e phenomenon t hat occur s and di s appear s ever y si ngl e

7/27/2019 3M7R

3/9

120 THREE MOUNTAINS AND SEVEN RIVERSmoment , si nce sval aksana i s a r eal exi st ent t o be def i ned as t hatwhi ch has causal ef f i cacy, al t hough such a moment ar y t hi ng i sf ar beyond t he r ange of per cept ual obj ect .

Besi des sval aksana bei ng di s ti ngui s hed. t he one f r om t he ot heri n vi r t ue of t hei r di st i nct subst ances, we can al so under st andf rom t he l i t er al sense of t he wor d t hat sval aksanas ar e known t obe uni que because of t hei r char act er i st i cs ( l aksana) . Al t hough i ti s beyond t he f unct i on of percept i on t o speci f y t he f eat ures ofan ent i t y as, f or i nst ance, bei ng a pot , bei ng gol d, bei ng r ound,and so on, t hese ki nds of uni que f eat ur es of one sval aksana canbe per cei ved t hr ough i t s i mage as a whol e and hel p t o di f f er en-t i at e thi s sval aksana f r om other sval aksanas . Theoret i cal l y speak-i ng, such a di s ti nct i on of sval aksana by i t s nat ur e t oo i s gr oundedi n i t s causal ef f i cacy, because, accor di ng t o Dhar makl r ti , t hedi f f er ence of nat ur e consi s ts i n t he di f f er ence of causal ef f i c acy7i n t he f ol l ow ng manner: a sval aksana i s known as i ndi vi dualand uni que by i t s essent i al nat ur e ( svabhdva) , si nce t he essen-t i al nat ur e of a r eal ent i ty i s det er mned by a par ti cul ar abi l i t y ofi t s cause t o produce t hi s ent i ty, and t hi s ent i ty i n t ur n ari sesbei ng endowed w t h a par ti cul ar abi l i t y t hat i s i t s essent i al na-tur e,8 Thus consi dered, i t may be proper to say that Dharmaki r t i ' si dent i f i cat i on of sval aksana as t hat whi ch has causal ef f i cacypr ovi des a cl ear t heor et i cal gr ound f or bot h t he r eal i t y and t hei ndi vi dual i ty of the ent i ty t hat i s def i ned by D gnaga as theobject of di rect percept ion.2. The dGe l ugs pa on rang mshanThe dGe l ugs pa thi nkers f ormul ated the def i ni t i on of rangm shan accor di ng t o t hei r own i nt er pr et at i on of i ndi vi dual s andr eal ent i t i es. Let us l ook at t he f ol l owng def i ni t i on, whi ch mKhasgrub proposes for r ang msl i an, st i l lcl a imng i t t o r ef l ect a Saut r ant i kaposi ti on:

"I n t hei r own syst em [ of t he Saut rant i ka] , t he def i ni t i on ofr ang m shan i s t he t hi ng ( dngos po) whi ch consi st s ( gnas) , notbei ng concept ual l y i mposed, but f rom i ts own si de [ i . e. ,int r ins i cal l y] , in i ts essent ia l nature ( rang bzhi r i ) uncommon[w t h ot her t hi ngs] . " 9

Nei t her t he obj ect of per cept i on nor causal ef f icacy i s men-

DEFI N NG AND REDEFI N NG SVALAKSANA 121

t i oned here as the defi ni ens or the defi ni ng character i st ic . Nori s i t possibl e to interpret the phrase 'consis t ing in i t s essent ia lnature ' as impl y i ng ' c onsi s t i ng i n i t s own causal ef f i cacy' andthe phrase ' not bei ng conceptual l y i mposed' as i mpl yi ng ' bei ngdi rectly percei ved' , once one takes account of the vi ews pecul i art o t he dGe l ugs pa w t h r egar d t o r ang mshan and spyi .One shoul d f i r st r ecal l t he dGe l ugs pa posi t i on t hat r ang

mshan is ident ical wth a real exis tent which has causal ef f i cacy(don byednus pa), but not onl y rang mshan i s counted as real , nori s i t determned for t he obj ect of di r ect per cept i on al one, f orthey mai ntai n that there exi st real uni versal s (sdmdnya, spyi ) , 10and that a rang mshan appears in a conceptual cogni t i on. Eveni t i s not cont radi ct or y t hat one and t he same t hi ng i s r angmshan as wel l as universal ( spyi ) in i t s di f ferent aspects . Theyare not opposing not ions but are rela t ive.A pot , for instance, i sa par t i cul ar ( r ang mshan) i n r el at i on to i t s pr oper t y of bei ngimpermanent ( ani t ya, m r t agpa) , but at t he same t ime i t i s auni versal as wel l i n rel at i on to i ts i ndi vi duat i ons, s ince the prop-ert y of bei ng a pot i s common t o al l ki nds of pot s such asgolden pots, si l ver pots, copper pots, and the l i ke. " Under thiscondi t i on, the di chotomy between rang mshan and spyi accord-i ng t owhet her i t i s r eal or unr eal , or whet her i t i s cogni z ed bydi r ect per cept i on or conceptual cogni t i on i s on no accountconduci ve to cl ar i f yi ng the dGe lugs pa idea of i ndi v i dual i t yari d real i ty.Nor can causal ef f i cacy def i ne t he r eal i t y of r ang mshan.

Al though the dGe lugs pas accept the concepts ' that which hascausal ef f i cacy' , ' t hat whi ch i s ul t i matel y exi s t ent ' and ' r angm shan as synonym i n accor dance w t h t he st at ement ofPramdnavdr t i i ka I I I 3, they expl i ci t l y note that nei ther causaleff i cacynor rang mshan i s taught by Dharmaki rt i as a defi ni ensor a def i ni ng character i s ti c of ul t i mate real i t y, but j ust as ani nst ance of t hose whi ch ar e t o be def i ned as such (mshangzhi ). ]2That i s to say, whatever i s ' that whi ch has causal eff i cacy1or ' r ang mshan' i s a r eal ent i t y, but i t i s not j ust t hi s al one thati s ul t i matel y real , s ince there are uni versal s that exi st i n real i ty.Yet t he dGe l ugs pas mai nt ai n t hat t he i ndi vi dual i t y of r angmshan i n t he sense of ' consi s ti ng i n i t s essent i al nat ur e1 i sgr ounded in r eal i t y, as suggested i n the afor eci t ed mKhasgrub' s def i ni t i on of r ang mshan, f or t he not i on of ' not bei ng

7/27/2019 3M7R

4/9


conceptual l y imposed but f r om i t s own si de' i s adopted as thedef i ning character i s t i c of ul t i mate real i ty (don dam bden pa,parmdrtkasatya) by Tsong kha pa:

"The defi ni t i on of ul t i mate real i tyi s that whi ch i s not merel yconceptual l y i mposed {rtog pas btags pa), but establ i shedfrom the side of the object i t sel f (yul ranggi ngos nas) . " ] *

A rang mshan i s a real exi stent i nsofar as i t meets thi scondi t i on.In the same way, the rang mshan is establ i shed as an indiv idualinsofar as i t i s int r insical l yabiding in i t s essent ia l nature. Theessenti al nature i s , however, not necessar i l y confi ned to causaleff i cacy, s ince mKhas grub propounds the aforeci ted defi ni t i onof rang mshan, after havi ng deni ed causal eff i cacy together w ththe spaciotemporal uni queness as bei ng the.defi ni ng character-i s t icsof rang mshan, by sayi ng:

"Such def i ni t i ons of r ang mshan on whi ch other s i nsi s t asthat whi ch exi sts,w thout shar i ng (ma ' drespar) pl ace, t i meand essenti al nature (yul dus rang bzhi n) [w th other thi ngs]and that whi ch i s causal l y eff i cacious are unacceptabl e. "14

Nei ther substanti al i ndi vi dual i ty nor causal eff i cacyi s the defi ni ensof rang mshan ei ther.15The uncommonness of essenti al naturei s r ej ect ed her e j ust because, i n my conj ect ur e, i t l acks t hequal i fi cati on of bei ng i ntri nsic (i .e.,rang ngos nas mhun mong mayin pa' i rang bzhin du gnas pa) in cont rast to mKhas grub's owndef i ni t i on, f or , as w l l be di s cussed bel ow the non- i nt r i nsi c orconventi onal uncommonness of essenti al nature i s al soacceptedby those who refuse the real exis tence of rang mshan. Accord-i ngl y, f or t he dGe l ugs pas, r ang mshan i s an ent i ty t hat i si ndi vi dual and unique i n r eal i t y s ol el y because of t he i nt r i nsi cabi di ng i n i ts essenti al nature.What then i s t he essent i al natur e that determnes a thi ng asan indiv idual or rang mshan? Let us cons ider this quest ion wth

the example of ' gol den pot ' ( gser bum, whi ch the dGe lugs pasuse f or r ang m shan when expl ai ni ng t he t heor y t hat a r angmshan appears to a conceptual cogni ti on.16Si nce we have closel yanal yzed thi s probl emati c presentati on i n our previ ous studi es,17I would just l i ke to reconsider what i t means to say that 'goldenpot ' i s an example of rang mshan.

DEFIN NG AND REDEFIN NG SVALAKSANA 123

Fi r s t, one should note that such an example of sval aksanawould not be acceptable to Dharmakl r t i . Even not appeal i ng tothe theory of momentar iness, the word 'golden pot ' (gser bumcannot di rectly refer to any substanti al l yi ndi vi dual enti ty, whi chi s t he obj ect of di r ect per cept i on, but accordi ng to the apohat heor y i t sol el y r ef er s t o t he uni ver sal . For t he dGe l ugs pathi nker s, however , ' gol den pot ' i s an example of a par t i cul ar( r ang mshan) , and ' pot ' i s a uni ver sal ( spyi ) . I n Ti bet an, t hi sexampl e i s al ways s impl y gi ven as ' gser bum i .e. , ' gol den pot' ,which is not accompani ed by a demonst rat ive pronoun, nor byan i ndefi ni te art i cl e,nor by a suff i xdes ignat i ng the pl ural . Thati s , nei ther ' th i sor that golden pot ' (gser bum di / de) , nor ' somegolden pot ' (gser bum zhig) , nor 'golden pots' (gser bum rnam/dag) i s speci f i cal l yi ntended. Si nce the Ti betan l anguage has nodef i ni t e ar t i cl es and onl y r ar el y use t he i ndef i ni t e zhi g, t heexpressi on ' gserbum signi f i esei ther a gol den pot or the gol denpot i n the sense of a gener i c si ngul ar ( vi z . , a gol den pot or t hegol den pot i n gener al ) , whi ch i s t o be cogni z ed as such by i t sproper t ies of being a pot and being gold. These proper t ies are,on one hand, essenti al character i st icsof a gol den pot, whereby agol den pot i s di s ti ngui s hed f r om ot her t hi ngs such as si l verpots , copper pots , gl asses,tabl es,and so on. On the other hand,they are al so common properti es to al l gol den pots, vi z.,18-caratgol den pot s, gol d- pl at ed golden pot s, smal l gol den pot s, bi ggol den pot s, and so on. That i s t o say, any i ndi vi duat i on ordi ff erent i at i on among i ndi vi dual gol den pots i s not, and cannotbe, i ndi c ated by the expressi on ' gser bum The fact t hat t hi sexampl e i s neverthel ess repeatedl y appl i ed to rang mshan meansthat i t completel y meet s the condi t i ons of r ang mshan for t hedGe lugs pa. That i s t o say, a gol den pot consi s t s i n the essen-t i al nat ur e of bei ng a pot and bei ng gol d f rom i t s own si dei ndependent of any conceptual const r uct i on. To sum up, t heessent i al nat ur e i n per spect i ve of t he dGe l ugs pa does notactual l ydi ff er from common propert i es , whi ch are i denti cal w threal uni versal s to be signi f i ed by gener i c concepts .

Despi te the fact that thei r understandi ng of rang mshan obvi -ously devia tes f rom that of Dharmakl r t i , the dGe lugs pa schol -ars seem to have formula ted such an idea of essent ia l nature onthe basis of Dharmaki rt i ' s own words i n Pramdnavdrtt i ka I 40. I ti s even not f ar f r om t he t r ut h t o specul at e t hat mKhas gr ub' s

7/27/2019 3M7R

5/9

124 THREE MO

defi ni t i on ci ted previ ous ly i s a modun.aUun cii uj aunavunanu i40. Let us compare them wth each other :

Pramanavdrtt i ka I 40) "Si nce al l thi ngs (sarvabhava) by na-ture consist i n thei r respective essenti al nature (svabhdva),they are di st ingui shed from thei r homogeneous and hetero-geneous [things]."18(mKhas grub's def i ni t i on) "The def i ni t ion of rang mshani s the thi ng (dngos po) whi ch consists (gnas), not bei ng con-

ceptual l y i mposed, but from i tsown side [ i .e . ,i ntr i ns ical l y] ,in i t s essent ia l nature ( rang hzhi r i )uncommon [wth otherthings]. "

The sim l ar i t y i n expressi on i s evi dent . Taki ng the subj ect ofPramanavdrtt i ka I 40, ' al l thi ngs ' (sarvabhava), to be i denti calw th sval aksanas i n the sense of real exi stents ,19the dGe l ugs painterpreters understand this verse to be intended to teach themode of exi stence of real ent i t i es(dngos po' i gnas l ugs). ' 20n thi sregard, i t seem reasonable to assume that they took this verseto descri be the essenti al characteri sti c of sval aksana and adaptedi t t o t hei r own def i ni t i on of r ang mshan. To concl ude t hi ssect ion, I would l i ke to propose the fol l owng tentat ivei l lust ra-t ion of Pramanavdr t t ika I 40 w th the example of 'golden pot ' inaccordance w th the dGe l ugs pa i nterpretat i on: "The sval aksanasuch as a golden pot consi s t s i n i t s essent i al natur e of bei ng apot , bei ng gold, bei ng impermanent , and so on. Therefor e i t i sdi f ferent f rom such homogeneous thi ngs as a si l verpot as wel las from such heterogeneous thi ngs as a tabl e, space, etc."21Sowould the verse be elucidated by the dGe lugs pas.3. Reasons for redefi ni ng sval aksanaFrom the theoret ical point of view the dGe lugs pa interpreta-t i on of sval aksana apparentl y goes beyond the range of soundi nterpretat i on. I t i s not exaggerated to regard i t as a systemati crevi s ion of the Sautrant i ka doctr i ne. Thi s revi s ion i s , however,cer tain ly an outcome of var ious external and internal factors.Such a r eal i st i c posi t i on as t he dGe l ugs pa t hi nker s have i sactual l y considered to have or iginated wth some Indian schol -ars and have been carr i ed over by Ti betan gSang phu tradi t i on.22The l ack of semanti c i nterest may al sobe descr i bed as a general -

kND REDEFI N NG SVAI AKSANA 125tendency of t hi s Ti betan schol ast i c t r adi t i on. O cour se oneshoul d al soclar i fy ,i n addi t i on to thi shi stor i cal background, thetheoreti cal grounds for the dGe l ugs pas' redefi ni ti on of sval aksana.We w l l devot e t he l ast sect i on of t he pr esent paper t o t hi si nqui ry.

mKhas grub expl ai ns the reason for hi s r ej ect i on of causaleff i cacyas a defi ni ng character i st ic of real ent i tyas fol l ows:

"The dBu ma thai ' gyur ba (i . e. ,the Prasari gi ka-Madhyamka)maintai ns that r ang mshan i s t he main [ subj ect ] t o be ne-gated {dgag bya) through the l ogi cal reason (rtags) to i nves-t i gate the ul t i mate [real i ty] .Accordi ngl y, he mai ntai ns thatt he ul t i mate real i t y consi s t s i n the negat i on of t hat ver yconcept (don Idog) of rang mshan asserted by substant i al i s ts(dngos sma ba), Hence, whatever i sassertedby the substanti al i stsas the very concept of rang mshan is [none other than] thatwhich the dBu ma thai 'gyur ba asser ts to be unestabl i shedas a [ r eal ] basi s ( gzhi ma grub) even accordi ng to verbalconvent ions ( tha snyad du yang) , for such [ things ] as thatwhi ch [exi s t s] not shar i ng (ma 'dr espa) pl ace, t ime andessent ia l nature [wth other things] , and that which is caus-al l y,eff i cacious are, on the contrary, accepted by the dBu mathai ' gyur ba too [accordi ng toverbal conventi ons]. There-fore, these [ things] are the instances of that which is to bedefi ned [as rang mshan} (mshan gzhi ) but are not the defi ni ensof r ang mshan her e i n t he case ( skabs ' di r ) [ i n whi ch t heSautr anti ka tenet i s treated]. "23

I nsof ar as r ang m shan i s a r eal ent i t y, t he ' concept of r angmshan1 or the defi ni ng characteri stic thereof must, on one hand,correspond to the condi t i on of real exi stent, the establ i shmentof whi ch the Prasangi ka-Madhyamka refutes even conventi on-al l y.I n other words, t he concept of r ang mshan i s , f or t he dGelugs pas, f rom the beginning determned as the object of refuta-t i on (dgag bya) f r om the Madhyamaka point of vi ew si nce thecore of the Madhyamaka ontology consis ts in negat ing such asubstant ia l or real exis tent . On the other hand, the 'concept ofrang mshan' or the defi ni ng character i st ic thereof may not cor-respond to that whi ch the Prasangika-Madhyamka accepts onthe convent ional level , for , supposing that such a thing be thedef i ning character i s t i c of rang mshan, i t would fol l ow that the

7/27/2019 3M7R

6/9


r ang mshan i t sel f must be convent i onal l y accept ed by t heMadhyamka too, whi ch, however , cont r adi c t s hi s posi t i on i nwhich the real exis tence of rang mshan is not acknowedged,nei ther ul t i mately nor convent i onal l y. Moreover , i t i s al so animpor t ant t hesi s f or t he dGe lugs pas that , i n t he Prasar i gi ka-Madhyamaka system al l causal rel ati ons as wel l as causal eff i cacyare conventi onal l y establ i shed. Hence the dGe l ugs pas excludecausal eff i cacy from the defi ni ng character i st icsof rang mshanand ul t i mate real i ty. - 4In rela t ion to these Madhyamaka posi t i ons, the dGe lugs pas

eval uate the ontplogi cal vi ews of other school s, vi z.,Sarvasti vada,Sautranti ka and Yogacara, as bei ng substanti al i st,for the reasonthat the la t ter asser t such substant ia l or real ent i t i es as beingvastu (dngos po) or sval aksana {rang mshan), because they are' not merel y conceptual l y i mposed but establ i shed from the sideof the objects themelves' ( r togpas btagspa tsam ma yin par yuirang gi ngos nas grub pa) ,2bIn this manner , in order not only toi ncl ude uni ver sal s i n the domain of r eal exi s t ent s, but al s o t ohold the consis tency wth the Madhyamaka ontology, the dGel ugs pas redefi ne even the most i mport ant concept of Dharmaklrt i ' str adi ti on.

What the dGe lugs pa schola rs thereby f i nal l yaimed at i s , i nmy opi ni on, a systemati zati on of the Buddhi st phi l osophi cal teach-i ngs of the four mai n tradi ti ons,i .e.,the Sarvasti vada, Sautranti ka,Yogacara, and Madhyamaka. For the dGe l ugs pas, the quest ionof what i s a real ent i ty or what i s the real i tyshould be answerednot w t hi n t he nar row scope of one t r adi t i on, but i n a r ange ofknow edge that extends over the enti re hi stori cal devel opmentof Buddhi s t phi l osophy. I n ot her wor ds, t he dGe l ugs pas i n-tended to connect the di ff erent system, whi ch had devel opedseparatel y i n di ff erent per i ods i n Indi a, by rei nterpret i ng themsystemati cal l y from one common perspective. What they actual l ydid, however , i s to reeval uate the teachi ngs of other schools inl i ght of the Prasangi ka-Madhyamaka of Candraki rt i (7c) , whi chthey est imated as the hi ghest among Buddhis t phi l osophi calsystem.Thi s kind of att empt to systemati zevari ous phi l osophi cal thoughts

i n l i ght of the Prasangi ka-Madhyamaka doctr i ne, i ndeed, can beseen i n several di scussi ons i n the dGe l ues pa exegeses. -1' 'n i ts


hi s tor i cal aspect , i t i s t o be consi der ed as a r esul t of t he f actthat Candraki rt i ' s system had won a certai n popul ar i ty amongTibetan Buddhi s t s by the per i od of Tsong kha pa. At t he samet ime, however , thi s at tempt in turn resul ted in accele rat ing thereeval uat i on of Buddhi st phi l osophi cal tradi t i ons i n the eyes ofTibetan thinkers. Fi rmy bound to t radi t i on, but also creat ive,Ti betans i ntensivel y engaged themel ves i n the devel opment ofBuddhi st phi l osophy. I t i s a remarkabl e phenomenon i n Ti betani ntell ectual hi story that they redi scovered and reinterpreted manyBuddhi st phi l osophi cal concepts . Redefi ni ng sval aksana i s oneof Ti betan chal l enges to the tradi ti onal systemof I ndi an Buddhi stphi l osophy. In this regard, i t remains a fascinat ing task for us todi scover and anal yze thei r phi l osophi cal commtments and thei runder ly ing mot ives. In this fashion, we can bet ter establ i sh thesigni f i cance of the Tibetan developments in the his tory of thetransmssion of Buddhi st thought.

NOTES

1. Cf . e. g. , Geor ges Dr eyf us, " Uni ver sal s i n I ndo- Ti bet an Buddhi sm"i n Sh. I har a and Z. Yamaguchi ( eds. ) , Ti bet an St udi es, Pr oceedi ngs ofthe5 th Semnar of the Internat ional Assoc iat ion f or Tibetan Studies, Nar i t a1989, Nar i t asan Shinshoj i , 1992, vol . 1, pp. 29-46; I d . ( ed. in col l aborat ionw t h Sh. Onoda) , A Recent Redi s cover y: Rgyal - t shab' s R gs gt er mambshad, a Facsim l e Reproduct ion of Rare B ockpr int Edi t i on, Kyoto, 1994;Id., Recogni zing Real it y,Dharmaki rti ' s Phi l osophy and i tsTibetan Interpretations,A bany, 1997; Tom Ti l l emans, "On t he So- cal l ed D f f icul t Poi nt oft he Apoha Theor y, " As i at i s che St udi en/ Et udes As i at i ques 49- 4, 1995,pp. 853- 889; Chi z uko Yoshim zu, " Tsor i kha pa on don byed nuspa" i nE. Steinkell ner et ai.( eds.), Tibetan Studi es,Proceedi ngs of the7thInternationalSemnar of t he I nt er nat i onal As soci a ti o n or Ti bet an St udi e s Gr az 1995,W en, 1997, Vol . 2, pp. 1103- 1120; I d. , " Gel ukuha ni yor u Kyor yobuGakuset su R k ai ( 1) N t ai set su" ( The dGe l ugs pas' I nt er pr et at i onof the Saut rant i ka System (1) : The Theory of the Two Ki nds ofReal i t y) , J ou rnal of Nar i t asan Ins t i t ute f or Buddhi s t Studies 21, 1998, pp.51- 76; I d. , "Pramanavar tt i ka I 40 no kai shaku ni t sui t e" {On t heI nt er pr et at i on of Pr amanavar tt i ka I 40) , I BK 47- 2, 1999, pp. ( 97) -( 101) ; I d. , " Dr sya and vi kal pya or snang ba and bt ags pa Associ at ed i na Concept ual Cogni t i on, " i n Sh. Kat sur a ( ed. ) , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 3r dI nt er nat i onalDharmakt r t i Conf er ence. H r oshima 1997, Wen, 1999, pp.459- 474; and I d. , "Gel uku- ha ni yor u Kyor yobu gakuset su r i kai ( 2)Fuhen j i t s uzai r on" ( The dGe l ugs pas ' I nt er pr et at i on of t he Saut r ant i ka

7/27/2019 3M7R

7/9

128 THREE MOUNTAINS AND SEVEN RIVERSSyst em ( 2) The Theor y of Real Uni ver sal s) , Bukkyo bunka kenkyur onsyu ( St udi es of Buddhi s t Cul t ur e) 4, 2000, pp. 3- 32.

2. As f or the dGe l ugs pa i nt erpret at i on of Candraki rt i ' s negat i veposi t i on on t he l ogi c al met hod t o i nvest i gat e r eal i t y, cf . e. g. , Shi r oMat sumot o, "Tsong kha pa no j i r i t su r onshd hi han" ( bTsong khapa' s Cr i t i ci sm of t he I ndependent Ar gument ) , i n Z. Yamaguchi ( ed. ) ,Chi bet t o no bukkyo t o shakai {Buddhi sm and Soci et y i n Ti bet ) , Tokyo,1986, pp. 475- 508; Davi d Seyf or t Ruegg, Thr ee St udi es i n t he H st or y ojI ndi an and Ti bet an Madhyamaka Phi l o sophy, Par t 1, Wen, 2000; KodoYot suya, The Cr i t i que of Svat anl r a Reasoni ng by Candr akl r t i and Tsong-khapa, St ut t gar t, 1999; Chi z uko Yoshim zu, D e Er kennt ni s l ehr e desPr ds ahgi k a-Madhyamaka nach dem Tshi g gsal s ton t hun gyi t shad ma' irnam bsad des ' J am dbyans bi ad pa' i rdo rj e, Wen, 1996; and I d. ,"Tsong kha pa' s Reevaluat ion of Candraki r t i ' s Cr i t i c i sm of AutonomousI nf er ence, " i n G Dr eyf us and S. McC i nt ock ( eds. ) , The Svat dnt ri ka-Prdsangika Dst inct ion, What D f f er ence does a Df f er ence Make? WsdomPubl i cat ion 2002, pp. 257-288.

3. Thi s paper was pr esent ed at t he Uni ver si t y of Lausanne on t he 26t hof Mar ch, 2002, and or i gi nal l y w i t ten on t he basi s of my pr evi oust wo J apanese ar t i cl es, i . e. , " Gel ukuha ni yor u Kyor yobu Gakuset suR kai ( 1) " and "( 2) " as wel l as a German paper , "Das I ndi vi duel l eund das W rkl i c he bei den dGe l ugs pa: Gr undbegr i f f e buddhi s t i scherPhi l osophi c i n t i bet i scher Modi f i z i er ung" , r ead at t he Uni ver si t y ofMuni ch on t he 22nd of November 2001. For t hi s r evi sed versi on, Iwoul d l i k e t o t hank Pr of . Tom Ti l l emans f or hi s val uabl e suggest i onsr egar di ng bot h cont ent s and Engl i s h expr es si o ns .

4. Pr amdnasamuccayavr t t i ad Pr amdnasamuccaya I 2 (Masaaki Hat t or i ,D gndga, On Percept ion. Cambr i dge, 1986, p. 79 n. 1. 14) : na hisvasdmdnyalaksandbhydm anyat prameyam ast i . svalaksanavi sayam hipratyaksam sdmdnyalaksanavisayam anumdnam it i prat i pddayisydmah;Pr amdnasamuccaya I 3c ( Hat t or i , op. ci t . , p. 82 n. 1. 25) : pr at yaksamkal pandpodham

5. Pr avi dnavdr t ti kal 166abc and i t s Svavr l t i ( i n The Pr amdnavdr t ti kam ofDharmakl r t i , t heF i r s t Chapter i v i t h theAulocommentar y, Text and Cr i t i calNotes ed. by R. Gnol i , Rome 1960): sa pdramdr l hi ko bhdvo yaevdr thakr i ydksamah. i dam eva hi vast vavast uyor l aksanam yadarthakriydyogyatd Jyogyatd ca.; Pramdnavdrtti ka II I 3 (i n "Pramanavartti ka-kar i ka, Sanskr i t and Ti bet an, " ed. by Yusho M yasaka, Ada I ndol ogi ca2, pp. 1- 206) : ar t hakr i yds amar t ham yal t ad at r a par amdr t hasat / anyatsamvr t i sat proktam tesvasdmdnyalaksane / /

6. Cf ; & %-Pramdnavdrtt i ka I 269ab: sattdvidtrdnubandhitvdn ndsasydnit yatddhvaneh; Heiubindu ( in Dharmaki r t i s Helubinduh, Tei l J : Tibet i scher Textund r ekons l r ui er t er Sans kr i t - Text ed. by E. St ei nkel l ner , Wen 1967) 4* ,6f . : yat sat tat ksanikam eva, aksanikatve ' r thakr i ydvi r odhdt tat laksanam


vastutvamhi yate.Regarding the theoreti call i nk between i mpermanenceand real existencein theproofs of momentariness, cf.e.g.E. Steinkell ner,"D e Entw cklung des Ksanikatvanumana bei Dharmaklrt i " , WZKSO12/ 13 ( 1968- 69) , 1968, pp. 361- 377; Chi z uko Yoshimzu, " TheDevelopment of sattvdnumdna from the Refutati on of a PermanentExistent in the Sautranti ka Tradit i on", WZKS 43, 1999, pp.231-354;and Id., "Kqjo na mono wa naze munoryoku kaSetsunametu ronshono r i r on teki hai kei (Why i s a Permanent Thi ng Inef f i caci ous?The Theoreti cal Background of ksani katvanumana)' " , I BK48-1, 1999,pp. (196)-( 200).

7. One may take Pramdnavdr t t i ka I 40 ( ci t ed i n n.18 bei ow tos tate theuniqueness of svalaksana in thi ssense, as the dGe lugs pas do, i f onesupposes that the subject of thi s verse (sawabhdva) refers solely tosval aksana.

8. Cf. E. Steinkel lner, "Wrkl i chkeit und Begri f f bei Dharmaklrt i ," WZKS15, 1971, pp.179-211, p. l 83f . , 188f . and Yoshimzu, "Kqjo na monowa naze munoryoku ka" , p. (197) f .

9. Yi d kyi mun sel ( i n mKhas gr ub r j e' s gSung ' bum Tha, l Ha sa Zholversion) 21b2f. (tr . Dreyfus, Recognizi ng Real i ty,p. 117): rang lugs la /r ang mshan gyi mshan nyi d r l ogpas btagspa mn par r ang ngos nasthun mong ma yi n pa' i r ang bzhi n du gnaspa' i dngos po'o / / A sim l a rdescr i pt i on occur s i n rGyal t shab' s Thar l am gsal byed ( i n rGyaltshab r je 'sgSung'bum Cha, lHa sa Zhol vers ion) 45b3f. wt h regardto the subj ect ( i . e . , s awabhdva) of Pr amdnavdr t t i ka I 40 ( see n.18bel ow , wher e r Gyal t shab i dent i f i es as r ang mshan as ' t he t hi ngwhi ch consi s t s, not bei ng conceptual l y imposed but f r om i t s owns ide, in i tsessent ia l nature uncommon [wth other things] ' ( r togpasbtagspa tsam mn par rang bzhin gyisgzhan dang ma ' drespar rang gingo bola gnas pa, cf.Yoshi mzu, "Gel uku-ha ni yoru Kyoryobu gakusetsur i kai ( 2) , p. 23) .

10. The dGe l ugs pas di f f er ent i at e spyi ( sdmdnya) f r om spyi mshan(sdmdnyalaksana). The l atter signi fi es sol ely unreal , uncondi ti onedand imagined object l i ke space (nam mkha' , dkdsa) . Cf . Ti l l emans,op.cit . , p.865f. , Dreyfus, Recognizi ng Real i ty,p.181, and Yoshi mzu," Tsor i kha pa on don byednus pa" , p. 1114 n. 39.

11. As f or t he r el at i on between r ang mshan and spyi f or t he dGe l ugspas, cf . e.g. Yi d kyi mun sel 33a4 ( t r . Dreyfus, Recogni z i ng Real i t y,p.181 and Yoshimzu, "Geluku-ha ni yoru Kyoryobu gakusetsu r ikai(2), p.15n.19): rang mshanyin kyang rang gi gsal ba l a r j essu ' grobyedpa' i spyi yin par m ' gal zhing/ Cf . al so Dreyfus , Recogniz ing Real i ty,p. l 73ff . and note .16 below

12. Regar di ng t he synonym of r ang mshan, see t he expl anat i ons bydGe lugs pas citedin Yoshimzu "Gelukuha ni yoru Kyoryobu GakusetsuR kai -( 1)", pp.58 and 63 n. 9. As for thei r commtments toPramdnavdrtt i ka

7/27/2019 3M7R

8/9


I I I 3, see Thar l am gsal byed 210b6f . , mNgon sum l e' u t i k( i n TheCol l ectedWorks ofTsongkha pa 22 of bKra shis l hun po vers ion ed. byNgawang Gelek Demo, New Delh i 1978) 17a5f. , Yid kyi mun sel44b1 ff .(ci ted and translatedin Yoshi mzu, op.cit , p.65 n.14). Concerningthe probl emat i c Ti betan t r ansl a ti on of ar thakr i ydsamar tham inPramdnavdrtt i ka I I I 3 asdon dam don byednuspa and i tsinterpretations,c f . e.g. mNgon sum le'u t ik 166bl - 4, Thar lam gsal byed 211a3ff . andthe references c i tedi n Yoshimzu, op.c i t , p.61 n.8. rGyal tshab statesthe opin ion in his Thar lamgsal byed 211a3ff . (c i ted and trans latedin Yoshimzu op.c i t , p.62) that the qual i f i cat ion of ' being ul t i mate'is made to causal eff i cacyin Pramdnavdrtt i ka I II 3in order to el i mnatethe ' false'concepti on that the causal eff icacyi s solelyconventi onal l y( kun rdzob t sam du) accepted. Thi s ' f al se' concept i on mos t l i kel ybel ongs to the Madhyamkas, as w l lbe discussed later.In thi sregard,i t is i nteresting to remark that Se ra Chos kyi rgyal mshan propoundsthe defi nit i on of ult imate real i tyast hat which ult imately has causalef f i c acy ( do?i dam par don byed nus pa' i chos) i n hi s Gr ub mha ( i nTextbooks of Se ra Monastery ed. by Tshulkhr im Kelsang & ShunzoOnoda, Bib l ia Tibet i caser ies,Kyoto 1985) 4b3 (c i ted in Yoshimzu,op.cit . , p.64 n.U).

13. Tshad ma' i br jedbyang ( in The Col l ectedWorks of Tsong kha pa 22 ofbKra shi s l hun po ver si on ed. by Ngawang Gel ek Demo, New Del hi1978) 34alf .: don dam bden pa' i mshan nyid rtogpas Mags pa tsammayi n par yul r ang gi ngos nas gr ub pa / Cf . al so mNgon sum l e' u t i k17a6f. : don dam bden pa' i mshan nyid r togpas btags pa la ma Itosparrang gi ngos bos dpyad bzod du grub pa / Paral l el def i ni t i ons by otherdGe l ugs pas are ci t ed i n Yoshimzu, op. c i t . , pp.53 and 64 n. l l . ThedGe lugs pas presumably def i ne the two kinds of real i tyon the bas i sof Dharmaki r t i 's own words in Pramdnavdr t t i ka I 68-91, especia l l y68-70, asI have previ ously discussed in Yoshi mzu, op.cit . , pp.52-57and "Drsya and vikal pya", p.460 n.5.

14. Yi d kyi mun sel 21a5f . : gzhan dag yul dus r ang bzhi n ma ' 'dres par gnaspa dang / don byed nus pa sogsrang mshan gyi mshan nyid du 'dod pam ' t haddo/ / One shoul d not e t he f act t hat t he sim l ar def i ni t i onsof r ang mshan appear i n t he sDe bdun ' j ug sgb Yi d kyi mun sel ( i nThe Col l ectedWorks of Tsong kha pa 27 of bKra shis lhun po vers ioned. by Ngawang Gel eg De mo, New Del hi 1977) 3b6, whi ch i s aglossary of term, concepts and thei r def i ni t i ons ascr ibed to Tsongkha pa, but probably descended from Phya pa' s t radi t i on of gSangphu monastery. Yet i t seem more plaus ible to assume that mKhasgrub denies the tradit ional l yacknow edged defi nit i ons, which Tsongkha pa and he hi m el f have l ear ned f r om t hei r t eacher s, r at hert han t o j ump t o t he concl usi on t hat mKhas gr ub t her eby r ej ect sTsong kha pa' s vi ew because, as w l l be seen bel ow mKhas gr ub


gi ves hi s own def i ni t i on w t h a cl ear consci ousness of t he t heor et i calconsi st ency w t h Tsong kha pa' s f undament al ont ol ogy as wel l as hi sunder st andi ng of causal ef f i cacy. Thus consi der ed, t he f act t hatthe ol d t ype of def i ni t i on of rang mshan i s f ound i n t he sDe bdun' j ugsgo m ght suppor t t he or i gi nal i t y of mKhas gr ub' s def i ni t i on, asI have suggest ed i n Yoshimzu, "Gel uku- ha ni yor u Kyor yobu gakuset sur i kai ( 2) " , p . 24f .

15. The subst ant i al di s ti nct i on accor di ng t o pl ace and t i me ment i onedhere by mKhas grub i s, however , on no account concerned w thmoment ar y exi st ent s, si nce he hi m el f descr i bes t he di f f er ence ofpl ace and t i me as a r ough i ncompat i bi l i t y of l ocat i on such as eastand west and morni ng and af ternoon. See Yi d kyi mun sel 33al f f. :snga dr o' i ha ba phyi dr o med pa dus ma ' dr es pa' i don yi n gyi / . . . sharl a r egpa' i r dzas des nub l a ma r eg pa I ta bu / yul ma ' dr es pa' i don yi ngyi / . . . khr a bo l a yod pa ' i r ang bzhi n de ser skya l a med pa sogs / r angbzhi n ma ' dres pa' i don yi n gyi / Cf . al so a paral l el expl anat i on i nr Gyal t shab' s Thar l am gsal byed 451a- 4 and t he di s cuss i on i n Dr eyf us ,Recogni zi ng Real i t y, p. H7f f. Mor eover, i t must be not ed t hat t hemoment ar i ness i t sel f i s di f f er ent l y under st ood by t he dGe l ugs pasas havi ng a cer tai n dur at i on. Cf . e. g. Yi d kyi mun sel 34a2, 34b5f f .( ci t ed i n Ti l l emans, 17 op. ci t , p. 884, Yoshi m zu, op. ci t . , p. 17 n. 23)and t he di s cus si o n i n Dr eyf us, op. ci t . , pp. 109- 114.

16. Thi s expl anat i on occur s f or t he f i rst t i me i n Tshad ma' i br j ed byang19a3f . : r togpa l ayul j i l i ar snang t hi ng' j ug pa' i t shul ni / gser bum bumpar ' dzi n pa' i r tog pa l a gser bum yang bum par snang zhi ng rang gidngos kyi gzung bya de' ang bum par snang l a snang ba' i ngo na de gnyi sgci g t u ' d res nas snang zhi ng snang ngor so s or dbyer med pas snang bt agsgci g t u bs respa zhes bya s te snang ba r ang mshan dang bt ags pa sgr a donno / / Cf . al so Yi d kyi mun sel 35a3f f. , I Cang skya' s Grub mha' ( inmDo sde pa Chapt er of Peki ng ver si on, Buddhi s t Phi l o sophi c al Sys temed. by Lokesh Chandr a, Sat a- Pi t aka- Ser i es 233, New Del hi 1977) 74bl f f . ,and Thar l am gsal byed 59b5- 60a3. Thi s passage i ndeed has r ai seddi s cussi ons among schol ar s because of i t s r emar kabl e asser ti on t hata r ang mshan appear s t o a concept ual cogni t i on. For t he det ai l s,see t he r ef er ences ci t ed bel ow i n n. 17.

17. As f or t he cl ose anal ysi s of t hi s passage, cf . Ti l l emans, op. ci t . , p. 866,Dr eyf us, Recogni z i ng Real i t y , p. 323, Yoshimzu, "Dr sya and vi k al pya, "p. 466 and "Gel uku- ha ni yor u Kyor yobu gakuset su r i kai ( 2) ", p. l l f .

18. Pramdnavdrtti ka I 40: sarve bhdvdh svabhdvena svasvabhavavyavasthil eh/svabhavaparabhdvdbhyam yasmdd vydvrtt i bhdginah/ /

19. See Yi d kyi mun sel 41b6f and Thar l am gsal byed 45b3f . ( ci ted i nYoshim zu, op. ci t . , p. 22f . ) . I t i s Sar i kar anandana who i nt er pr et ed'a l l t hings ' t o r ef er to both indiv idual s and univer sal s {Pramdnavdr t t i kaD152b6) . However , thi s does not necessar i l y suggest that

7/27/2019 3M7R

9/9


Sar i kar anandana asser t s the exi s t ence of . r eal uni ver sal s , for , t omy know edge, he expr esses nowher e such a r eal i s ti c vi ew Heincludes universal s into ' al l things ' presumably in a hypothet i calsense i n accor dance w t h Dharmakl r t i ' s post ul at i on ' s at i vet i nPr amdnavdr l t i kasvavr t t i 25, 12. For thi s i s sue, cf . Yoshimzu," Pr amanavar t ti ka I 40 no kai s haku ni t sui t e" , p. ( 101) n. 10 and"Drsya and vikalpya", p. 463 n.19.

20. See e.g. , Thar l lam gsal byed 46b 1. Pramanavar t t i ka I 40 int roducestogether w th 41abc (t asmddyal o yal o' rt hdndmvydvrt ti s annibandhandh/jdtibheddh prakalpyante) the idea that such concepts of properti es as' being impermanent ' (ani tyalva) and ' being produced' (kr takatva)ar e formul a ted on the bas i s of t he essent i a l nature {svabhdva) ofthi ngs, al though the real existence of uni versals, which are identi calwth or di f f er ent f r om par t i cul ar s, i s unacceptabl e . Dharmakl r t i i st hereby demonst r at i ng that an i nfer ence based on the essent i alproperty as al ogical reason {svabhdvahetu) i s val i d for establ ishingthe real i t y of ent i t i es such as thei r bei ng impermanent . I n fact , heopens wth thi sverse the long discussion of the apoha theory. rGyaltshab, however, interprets thi s apoha section of Pramanavartt i ka I ascont r i but i ng to the establ i shment of the two ki nds of r eal i t y( seeYoshi m zu, op. ci t . , pp. 460- 463, 470 Appendi x 2) . As r egar dsPramanavar t t i ka I 40 in commentar ia l t radi t i on, c f . al so Dreyfus ,Recognizi ngReal i ty,p.118, Yoshi mzu, "Pramanavartti ka I 40 no kai shakuni t sui t e" and "Dr sya and vi kal pya, " p. 463 n. 19. For the dGe l ugspas, t he quest i on of how one can est abl i s h r eal i t y by means ofi nf er ences, i f t he meani ng of wor ds i s mer e el imnat i on of ot her s(anydpoha) , over laps wth the quest ion of how the Madhyamka canprove the non-substanti al i t y and empti ness by means of empty words( cf . Yoshimzu, op. c i t . , p. 462 and "Gel uku-ha ni yoru Kyoryobugakusetsu r ikai (2) , p. 28) .

21. I t i s i nter est i ng to note that both rGyal t shab and mKhas grub of fera sim l areluci dati onin thei rrespecti vecommentari es on Pramdnavdrt ti kaI 40, as I have poi nt ed out i n Yoshimzu, " Pr amanavar t ti ka I 40 nokaishaku ni tsui te" ,p. (101) n.10 and "Geluku-ha ni yoru Kyoryobugakusetsu r ikai (2)" , p. 22f .

22. Cf. Dreyfus, Recognizi ng Real i t y,pp.193-200 and the references citedi n Yoshimzu, "Dr syaand vi kal pya" p. 459 n. l .

23. Yid kyi mun sel2Ia6-21b2 (citedand translatedin Yoshi mzu, "Gel uku-ha ni yoru Kyoryobu gakuset su r i kai ( 2) , " p. 19) : dbu ma thai 'gyurba / rang mshan don dam dpyod pa' i r tags kyi dgag bya' i gtsobor ' dodpas / dngos sma ba 'dod pa' i r ang mshan gyi don Idog de bkagpa dondam bden par 'dod pa yin l a / de' i phyi r dngos sma bas rang mshan gyidon Idog tugang 'dod pa de / dbu ma thai 'gyur ba tha snyad du yanggzhi ma grub par 'dod pa yi n l a / yul dus r ang bzhi n ma 'd respa dang


don byed nus pa sogs dbu ma t hai *gyur ba yang khas l en pa' i phyi r r o/ /des na de dagskabs ' di r r ang m shan gyi m shan gzhi yi n gyi m shan nyi dmn no / /

24. Cf . t he di scussi ons and t ext ual sour ces ci t ed i n Yoshi m zu, " On r ahgi mshan nyid kyi s grub pa 111, " J ournal of Nai i l asan Ins t i t ute f o r Buddhi s tSt udi es 16, 1993, pp. l 29, 132f and i bi d. , 17, 1994, p. 327, n. 67.

25. Thi s ki nd of real ent i ty can be proper l y i dent i fi ed w t h ' t hat whi chi s i nt r ins i cal l y es tabl i shed' {r anggi mshan nyid kyi s grub pa) in oppos i t i ont o t he unr eal , mer e concept ual exi st ent ( bl ags yod) or t hat whi ch i spost ul at ed by names and si gns {mng dang br das r nam par gzhagpa) .The expr essi ons ' r ang gi ngos nas gr ub pa and Wang gi ngo bos gr ubpa' , whi ch t hey use i n t hei r def i ni t i ons of r ang m shan and ul t i mat er eal i t y, ar e no doubt synonym of t he f or mer , i . e. , ' rang gi m shannyi d kyi s gr ub pa A s o t he expr essi on ' r tog pas bt ags pa' means t hesame as t he ' bt agsyod' . Cf . Helmut Tauscher , D e Lehr e. von den zweiW rkl i c hkei t en i n Ts on khapas Madhyamaka-Wer ken, Wen, 1995, p. 124n. 262 and Yoshim zu, " Tsong kha pa' s Reeval uat i on, " Appendi x.

26. Cf . e. g. , t he synt hesi s of t he Madhyamaka ont ol ogi cal doct ri ne ofnon-substant i al i ty and the logicoepistemological system of DharmakTrt i ' st radi t i on by dGe l ugs pa schol ars, whi ch i s t he obj ect of st udi essuch as Yoshimzu, De Erkenntni s tehre des Prdsangika-Madhyamaka andSeyf or t Ruegg, Thr ee St udi es i n t he H st ory of I ndi an and Ti bet anMadhyamaka Phi l osophy.

3m7r

Documents