Are there Geluk Zhentongpas?: Two Reproductions

Published by Michael Sheehy on 06 Mar 2009

By Michael Sheehy

Are there Geluk gzhan stong pas? This is a question that I’ve been asking for some time. Fortunately, a set of rare texts that were recently recovered may shed some light on this. Made available in late 2007, there are four published books by two authors of the Geluk tradition that deserve particular attention. These manuscripts were collected from library archives in Tibet and reproduced via computer input as part of the longer Mes po’i shul bzhag series published by China’s Tibetology Publishing House (Beijing, 2007). This set of works includes the three volume Collected Works of Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po (1383-1450), and one volume from the writings of Kun mkhyen Blo gros rin chen Seng+ge (15th cent.).

What makes these works so interesting, and merits them scholarly attention, is that they present us with writings from two major Geluk authors from the formative period of the tradition who were both considered radical, if not heretical, for the philosophical views that they articulated. Their writings were banned from being read within Geluk educational institutions or studied as part of the standardized curriculum, and editions were sealed away for centuries. After only a cursory read over these four volumes, I’d like to highlight a few aspects of these reproductions with the hope of pointing to possible avenues for future scholarship in the areas of early Geluk and Jonang intellectual history, the polemics and politics of gzhan stong / rang stong, and the legacies of these two formidable authors.

Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po was a student of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419) and his two primary disciples, Mkhas grub rje Dge legs dpal bzang (1385-1438) and Rgyal tshab rje Dar ma rin chen (1364-1432). This Gung ru is not to be conflated with the Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po (1497-1548) who was the eighteenth abbatial throne-holder at Dga’ ldan Monastery from 1546 until the year of his death. His Collected Works, the Gung ru Rgyal mtshan bzang po’i Gsung ‘bum (vols. 36-38) includes a fascinating piece in volume one titled, Byams pa’i dgongs rgyan on the intent of the five treatises of Maitreya that draws largely from the Abhisamay?la?k?ra and Uttaratantra??stra (vol. 36); the second volume includes his abbreviated commentary on N?g?rjuna’s M?lamadhyamakak?rik?, his commentary on Candrak?rti’s Madhyamakavat?ra and a synthetic work titled, Legs bshad bla ma’i man ngag bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun or the “ambrosial instructions” from his teacher that explains select Madhyamaka philosophical themes (vol. 37); the third volume includes a commentary on ?ryadeva’s Madhyamaka text the Catu??ataka??strak?rik?, a work titled, Dbu ma’i stong thun on philosophical systems (grub mtha’), and his commentary on the Abhisamay?la?k?ra (vol. 38). Though these collected works are a major compilation of Gung ru’s writings, and are certainly representative of his thought, it is worth noting that his commentary on the Uttaratantra??stra along with his explanation of view (lta khrid) remain undiscovered.

The Byams pa’i dgongs rgyan covers a range of topics related to the middle and final turnings including the nature of the triple gem, the path of meditation, and interpretations of definitive and provisional meaning. A particularly interesting section of this text is his discussion of the host of antidotes (gnyen po’i tshogs) where Gung ru employs the peculiar technical terms “internal emptiness” (nang stong pa nyid) and “external emptiness” (phyi stong pa nyid), then intrinsically essential emptiness (rang gi ngo bo stong pa nyid) and extrinsically essential emptiness (gzhan gyi ngo bo stong pa nyid), in discussing the sphere of gnosis (ye shes) (233-235). Both his Legs bshad bla ma’i man ngag and Dbu ma’i stong thun present typical models of Madhyamaka, dividing the philosophical tradition into the Pr?sa?gika and Sv?tantrika systems, as opposed to making the Gzhan stong Madhyamaka distinction. Three chapters that are especially interesting in his Legs bshad bla ma’i man ngag are (cha.1) on refuting the object of negation (dgag bya) where he again makes explicit reference to the technical terms gzhan stong and rang stong, (cha.2) on the nature of the two truths, and (cha.3) on crucial points of discourse where he discusses the ?layavijñ?na.

Our other author, Kun mkhyen Blo gros rin chen Seng+ge studied under both Tsong kha pa and his disciple Mkhas grub rje, and was a close disciple of ‘Jam dbyangs chos rje Bkra shis dpal ldan (1379-1449), another one of Tsong kha pa’s major disciples. He was also a disciple of the First Dalai Lama Dge ‘dun grub pa (1391-1474) who established Bkra shis lhun po Monastery. He undertook his monastic and academic studies at both ‘Bras spungs and Se ra Monastery, and his works were part of the scholastic curriculum (yig cha) at Se ra Monastery until Se ra Rje btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1469-1544/46) displaced the curriculum sometime after the year 1511. Several of his works remain uncovered including a main work on Madhyamaka, the Dbu ma’i rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal.

The single volume of his writings that has survived was reproduced as Kun mkhyen blo gros rin chen seng+ge’i gsung rtsom (vol. 39), and it is his sub-commentary on Tsong kha pa’s famous commentary on the Madhyamakavat?ra titled, Rnam bshad dgongs pa rab gsal along with a condensed version of the text and a short supplement that addresses topics of importance found within the main body of the work. Being a commentary on Candrak?rti’s root text, his writings are primarily concerned with major themes of Mah?y?na thought and practice, especially the establishment of ??nyat? and the generation of bodhicitta in relation to the ten bh?mi. At first glance, knowing the Madhyamakavat?ra to be a classic manifesto on rang stong, enunciated by Tsong kha pa’s commentary, it does not appear as though Rin chen Seng+ge’s commentary has exceptional philosophical import nor that it is particularly polemical. However, as we comb through the text, it becomes apparent that there are points where the author veers into territory where most Geluk exegetes would not venture.

One of the first clues that the author is at least well versed in the writings of Dol po pa (1292-1361), and perhaps even his contemporary gzhan stong pa Sh?kya Mchog ldan (1428-1507), is found in the infamous chapter six where he describes the term “mi rtog pa’i ye shes” or “non-conceptual gnosis” in a way that resembles exact wording used by Dol po pa. He phrases non-conceptual gnosis as being neither substantial (dngos po) nor insubstantial (dngos po med pa) while distinct from an essence (ngo bo nyid) that pervades the sphere of activity of nondual gnosis (107). Similar descriptions are found throughout the Jonang gzhan stong literature, the most often cited verses from Dol po pa’s Bka’ bsdus bzhi pa (‘Dzam thang, 6, 174).

After a deliberation over relative and ultimate, Rin chen Seng+ge begins to discuss the nature and realization of emptiness. He makes contrast with what is not empty (stong pa ma yin); explaining that what is not intrinsically empty (rang stong ma yin) is extrinsically empty (gzhan gyi stong pa) and is regarded as unattainable nirv??a (153). The text comes to the classical argument about the illusory nature of reality as compared to dreamtime, and our author steers the discussion into a presentation on emptiness within Madhyamaka and Cittam?tra. Making it clear that a major point in the presentation of emptiness is the basis for negation (dgag gzhi), he states that one of the dangers in mis-understanding emptiness is the trap of nihilistic emptiness (chad stong), again making reference to gzhan stong as an antidote while carefully reminding his audience of his own tradition (206-207). Later in this work, Rin chen Seng+ge writes a condensed section on the two kinds of emptiness, and although he makes reference to rang stong throughout, he is concerned with deciphering “internal emptiness” (nang stong pa nyid) from “external emptiness” (phyi stong pa nyid) (394-408).

Though the labeling of views associated with these two authors will have to wait until these four volumes are more thoroughly studied, now that these rare works are available, it’s possible to gain a better sense of the tensions at play within fifteenth century Geluk exegetics. However much these authors remain far departures from the mainstream gzhan stong philosophical thinking that we find in the writings of Dol po pa, T?ran?tha and later Jonangpa scholars, and however much they were anomalies within their own tradition, a superficial reading suggests that these two Gelukpas were wrestling with concerns regarding their own doctrinal proclivities at a crucial time in the formation of their tradition. Such issues may have related to the usage of positivistic rhetoric, gzhan stong vocabulary, and their doxographic identity.

Among many, one question that these writings raise is, “To what extent were these two contemporary authors in conversation or exchanging ideas?” It is particularly curious that they both discuss the terms “internal emptiness” and “external emptiness” at some length, terms derived from the set of twenty types of emptiness found in the Abhisamay?la?k?ra. A closer look may reveal how much these terms were an attempt to re-articulate or flush-out preset technical jargon that was circulating in the inner circles of Tibetan philosophical discourse. Surely the works of Rin chen Seng+ge’s teacher, the controversial ‘Jam dbyangs chos rje would give us telling insights into influences on these figures, though his works remain in the dark. As research is furthered, my hope is that similar texts from this period will gradually come to light so that we can at once begin to make a better assessment about the history and polemics of gzhan stong, and so that the fantastic diversity of Tibetan scholarship can continue to dismantle hardened stereotypes.

This also appears on the Jonangpa.com blog.

No Comments Yet New Publications

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.