Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Interpreting the tantras A Tibetan debate on the numbers of adepts admissible to tantric consecration

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
P001 1 01.jpg




Jan-Ulrich Sobisch

It is a commonplace to call Tibetan Buddhism (a form of) “tantric Buddhism” and to view it as a continuation (in some way) of Indian tantric Buddhism. Yet it becomes increasingly clear these days that Tibetan tantric Buddhism was not a slavish copy of Indian tantric Buddhism. Many experts will agree that Tibetan tantric masters developed their own particular styles, to say the least. The Tibetan “hand-writing” is above all conspicuous in these masters’ attempts to systematize the tantric teachings of India, which on occasion have toned down some of the more eccentric aspects and promoted some minor cults to mainstream, but overall have caused what once might have appeared as a conglomerate of cults to be more coherent and, in fact, more uniform. At the same time, each Tibetan tradition will claim, following its most prominent masters, that they preserve faithfully the Indian Buddhist tradition, “without decrease and increase and without insertions and deletions” (’phri snan dang lhag chad med par).1 As historians, we deal not only with “a (single) Tibetan approach” to Indo-Buddhist tantrism, but also with how the Tibetan traditions debated their own diverse ways to go about the matter. Inevitably, we also have to consider the way we ourselves deal with this complex of problems. I have discussed elsewhere the ap


See for example, for the claim of Sa-skya Pa!"ita (1182–1251, henceforth Sa-pa!) to continue the authentic Indian tradition of scholarship, Gold 2007, and the present author’s review of it (Sobsich 2009), where some of the tensions between the Sa-skya-pas and bKa’-brgyud-pas approaches are brie y discussed together with the academic approach to such problems.


proaches in particular that the Sa-skya-pa and the ’Bri-gung bKa’brgyud-pa traditions took to the coexistence of tantric vows with the pr(timok+a and bodhisattva vows in a single mental continuum, and to the tantric practice of mah(mudr(.2 With the present paper and a planned series of future articles I would like to deepen this line of investigation, focusing on a variety of aspects of Sa-skyapa and the ’Bri-gung bKa’-brgyud-pa approaches to Indian tantric Buddhism, searching for contested areas and trying to describe and analyze the di# erent views and resulting programs, and the transformations that Indian tantric Buddhism has undergone on its way to becoming the tantric traditions of Tibet. It is quite obvious that much promising material can be found in those works of Tibetan Buddhism where the authors identify and attack the position of opponents and establish their own views. Among such works, two stand out with their commentaries as the most outspoken ones in these respects, namely Sa-pa!’s sDom gsum rab dbye, which is by now well known to interested audiences in the West,3 and the as yet much lesser known dGongs gcig of the ’Bri-gung-pa sKyobpa ’Jig-rten-mgon-po (1143–1217), a chief disciple of sGam-po-pa’s (1079–1153) master disciple Phag-mo-gru-pa (1110–1170).4 The problem that I would like to discuss in the present paper may seem to be a tri e one, yet I believe that by investigating the di# erent procedures of the parties involved in the debate, we may be able to glean some particulars of what may be a Sa-skya-pa and a ’Bri-gung-pa approach – not, however, in the sense of a uniform method that serves as a singular key to the understanding of a tradition, but rather as parts of thought patterns that are characteristic for them. We can certainly also not expect total uniformity within these two traditions. In fact by contrasting Sa-pa!’s approach with that of gSer-mdog Pa!-chen Sh$kya mChog-ldan (1428–1507),

Cf. Sobisch 2002 and Sobisch, forthcoming. 3 This Tibetan classic was translated by Rhoton (2002). 4 For a few remarks on the dGongs gcig see Martin 1997, van der Kuijp 1987, Liu 2002, and chapter 14 of Sobisch 2002. The dGongs gcig is now in the focus of a research project by Khenpo Rangdrol and myself, see http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/.

we already realize some of the tensions that exist within the Saskya tradition. The subject of the debate under investigation, i.e. the number of adepts to be admitted to tantric consecration (Skr. abhi+eka, Tib. dbang bskur), is mentioned by Rig-’dzin Chos-kyigrags-pa (1595–1659) in his commentary of the second topic of the  fth chapter of the dGongs gcig.5 This particular passage starts with a quotation from the sDom gsum rab dbye of Sa-skya Pa!"ita, chapter three, verses 21c–25b (in Rhoton’s edition of the text), where Sa-pa! says: When they perform tantric consecration they bestow it on an unspeci ed number of [of adepts]. This was prohibited by Vajradhara. With regard to the tantric consecration of the cary( tantras an unspeci ed number of disciples was taught. [But] there exists [the teaching] of a speci ed number with regard to the speci cally selected disciples [of] the remaining [[[tantras]]]. The following is taught in the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra: ‘The skilled [[[master]]] admits odd numbers of disciples such as one, three,  ve, seven [and so forth] up to twenty- ve. It is not auspicious to admit a larger number of disciples [for tantric consecration].’ sngags kyi dbang skur byed pa na%// grangs nges med par dbang skur byed%// ’di ni rdo rje ’chang gis bkag%// spyod pa’i rgyud kyi dbang bskur la%// slob ma grangs nges med par gsungs%// lhag ma dmigs bsal mdzad pa yi%// slob ma la ni grangs nges yod%// ’di ni gsang ba spyi rgyud las%// mkhas pas slob ma gcig gam gsum%// lnga’am yang na bdun dag gam%// ni shu rtsaa ni lnga yi bar%//

5 ’Bri-gung Dharma K&rti, dGongs gcig ’grel ba nyi ma’i snang ba, Maryland: Drikung Kagyu Meditation Center, pp. 246–48; and The Collected Works (gSung ’bum) of Kun-mkhyen Rig-pa-’dzin-pa Chen-po Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute 1999, vol. 3, pp. 207.

zung du ma gyur slob ma gzungb%// de basc lhag pa’i slob ma nid%// yongs su gzunge bar mi shis so%// Variant readings in P (Peking Tripitaka): a dag, b bzung, c las, d dag, e bzung First of all, neither the sDom gsum rab dbye nor the commentaries by Go-rams-pa (1429–1489)6 and Sh$kya mChog-ldan7 identify Sapa!’s opponents in this instance. There are, however, some indications that the practice that is criticized by him was widespread not only among bKa’-brgyud-pa and rNying-ma-pa lamas, but probably also among the Sa-skya-pas themselves. In this passage, Sapa! makes three claims: 1. In the cary( tantras it is (under certain preconditions) permitted to bestow tantric consecration to an unspeci ed number of disciples. 2. In the tantras of all other tantra classes, lower and higher than cary(, this is prohibited. 3. The reason is that in the non-cary( tantras one has to follow the S(m(n ya vidhi guhya tantra (a kriy( tantra),8 which states that tantric consecration should only be bestowed on odd numbers of disciples such as  ve or seven and so forth, and that the maximum number of disciples is twenty- ve.


6 Go-rams-pa bSod-nams-seng-ge authored six commentaries of the sDom gsum rab dbye, which are identi ed and brie y described in Sobisch 2002: 28–30. For the present article I have used his sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgongs pa gsal ba, Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa-skya-pa Sect of the Tibetan Buddhism, vol. 14/4, pp. 119–199 (short: sDom gsum rnam bshad). This work was written in 1463 at ’Bras-yul rDzong-dkar sKyed-mo-tshal. It is a detailed exposition that follows Sa-pa!’s sDom gsum rab dbye verse by verse. For a detailed outline of its subject-headings (sa bcad), see Appendix B of Sobisch 2002. 7 For some details on Sh$kya mChog-ldan’s replies to (his own) 108 questions on the sDom gsum rab dbye, see below. 8 dKyil ’khor thams cad kyi spyi’i cho ga gsang ba’i rgyud (Sarvama,-a las(m(nyavidhiguhyatantra), P 9/429, 42-5-4%/ 52-5-5.

As is well known, the cary( tantra class is, according to the most wide-spread classi cation system of the later translation period, the second lowest of the four tantra classes.9 Why is the practice of bestowing tantric consecration on any possible number of disciples permitted in the cary( tantras? In his sDom gsum rnam bshad (fol. 90r), the commentator Go-rams-pa bSod-nams Seng-ge quotes from the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra (P vol. 5, no. 126, 245-1-1):10 More [[[Wikipedia:adepts|adepts]]] than one, two, four [etc.] are possible, since11 one does not need to investigate [them], admit [all disciples]! And (fol. 90rf., P vol. 5, no. 126, 245-2-2):12

9 Di# erent Indian masters such as Abhay$karagupta, Buddhaguhya, Vi l$ savajra, ’$ntipa, N$g$rjuna, Vajrap$!i, and Ati(a have suggested classi cation systems with two up to seven tantra classes. For a brief overview according to Kong-sprul Blo-gros-mtha’-yas’ Shes bya kun khyab mdzod, see Sobisch 2002: 57 # . For a recent translation of that passage, see Lodrö Taye 2005: 89–93. For further remarks on the classi cation of the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra, see also below. 10 For the Tibetan text (in context), see the bold passage two notes further down. For the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra, see Sobisch 2002: n. 518 and Hodge 2003 (this passage on p. 93); and Wayman and Tajima 1992. 11 I translate here Go-rams-pa’s variant reading (dpyad mi dgos pas). The tantra reads: dpyad mi dgos par. 12 In Hodge (2003: 96); Wayman and Tajima (1998, repr.: 120). The relevant passage in P looks like this (P vol. 5, no. 126, 244-5-8): slob ma dad cing rigs btsun pa%// de bzhin dkon mchog gsum (245-1-1) la dad%// zab mo yi ni blo dang ldan%// spro ba chen zhing tshul khrims ldan%// bzod dang ldan zhing ser sna med%// dpa’ la yid dam brtan pa ni%// bcu’am

brgyad dam bdun nam lnga%// gcig gnyis bzhi las lhag kyang rung%// dpyad mi dgos par gzung bar bya%// … (245-1-3): gsang ba’i bdag po%/ ’on kyang dkyil ’khor rgyas pa ’di ni%/ sems can gyi khams ma nges pa yongs su bskyab pa’i phyir snying rje chen po’i snying po ’byung ba zhes bya ste%/ de ni de bzhin gshegs pa rnams kyis bskal pa grangs med par bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub yang dag par bsgrubs pa byin gyis brlabs so%/ gsang ba’i bdag po%/ de lta bas na rnam grangs ’dis kyang%/ khyod kyis ’di ltar de bzhin gshegs pa rnams ni sems can gcig gi phyir byang chub mngon par rdzogs par ’tshang rgyab ma yin%/ gnyis kyi

In order to take [the bestowing of tantric consecration] as a cause for the resolve for awakening (bodhicitta), they should admit limitless sentient beings! The Indian master Buddhaguhya, who lived in the 8th century and visited Tibet, taught that the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra does two things: 1. It occasionally teaches means that accord with the kriy( tantras (which are directed outward to an “objective support”), but 2. is actually a yoga tantra that teaches the “profound and vast.” Therefore, according to Buddhaguhya’s system of tantra classi cations (that included two classes, and according to some exegetes a third that appears to be a combination of kriy( and yoga), the Vai ro can(bhi sa" bodhi tantra belongs to the yoga or to the ubhay( tantra class (which combines the two).13 According to the system of Bu-ston (with four categories), it belongs to the cary( tantra class (Way man and Tajima 1992: 97 f.) and is its prime example. Gorams-pa quotes this tantra here to show that the chief tantra of the cary( class teaches that one does not need to investigate the disciples when bestowing tantric consecration and that one makes the admittance to the tantric consecration of limitless sentient beings the cause for the production of the resolve for awakening (bodhicitta). For some reason that is not made explicit by either Sa-pa!

phyir ma yin%/ gsum gyi phyir ma yin%/ ’on kyang thugs rje chen po’i dbang du gyur pa dag sems can gyi khams ma lus pa yongs su bskyab pa’i phyir byang chub tu mngon par rdzogs par ’tshang rgya ste%/ de dag gis sems can gyi khams rnam pa du ma la bsam pa ci lta ba bzhin du%/ sems can rnams la cho ’chad par rig par bya’o%// gsang ba (!) ba’i bdag po%/ theg pa chen po la goms par ma byas pa rnams ni gsang sngags spyod pa’i tshul mthong ngam thos na sems la dga’ ba ’am%/ dad pa cung zad kyang yang dag par mi skye yi%/ gsang ba’i bdag po%/ gang dag gis sngon theg pa chen po gsang sngags spyad pa’i (245-2-1) tshul sgo mtha’ yas bsgrubs pa la goms par byas pa de dag ni rdo rje sems dpayin te%/ de rnams nyid kyi don gyi phyir grangs kyi tshad ’di byas so%// ’on kyang slob dpon snying rje chen po dang ldan pas sems can gyi khams ma lus pa bsgral par yi dam bca’ ba kho nar bya ste des byang chub kyi sems kyi rgyur ’gyur bar bya ba’i phyir sems can tshad med pa rnams yongs su gzung bar bya’o%// 13 Cf. Hodge 2003: 43 and Dalton 2005: 122f.

or Go-rams-pa, this rule only applies to tantras of the cary( class, but not to the (lower) kriy( or the (higher) yoga. The rule of the S( m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, however, which is quoted in the sDom gsum rab dbye, is according to the Sa-pa! to be applied to all other tantras (3.25c: ’di ni kun la ’jug), except, however, those of the cary( class. But why is the rule of the cary( tantra not to be applied to the other classes as well? After all the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhi tantra refers to bodhicitta, which is one of the most important principles of mah(y(na practice in the yoga and highest yoga tantras. And why is this principle of bodhicitta overruled by an instruction from a kriy( tantra, which is the lowest of the four tantra classes, into which the tantras are most usually divided in Tibetan Buddhism? Both Sa-pa! and Go-rams-pa refer to this problem only indirectly. In order to establish that the rule of the kriy( tantra has to be applied to all other tantras (except cary(), the sDom gsum rab dbye (3.28a–30b) and Go-rams-pa’s sDom gsum rnam bshad (fol. 90v) argue by quoting another passage from the same S(m(nya vidhiguhya tantra (P 9/429, 51-5-4): If you think: ‘Since this is a kriy( tantra, [the rule] doesn’t [apply to] rituals [of] other [[[tantra]] classes],’ [we reply]: In the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra itself it is taught that it applies also to all others: ‘In those [[[tantras]]] where there are activities, but activity rituals are lacking, there the skilled master relies on the ritual that was taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?).’ Since this has been taught, this ritual is applied to all tantras. [P: Where there are activities, but own activity-rituals are lacking, there the skilled master should perform those activities that are taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?).] ’di ni bya ba’i rgyud yin pas%// gzhan gyi cho ga min snyam na%// gzhan rnams kun la’ang ’di ’jug par%// spyi rgyud nyid las ’di skad gsungs%// gang du las ni yod gyur la%//

las kyi cho ga rnams med pa%// der ni spyi yi rgyud dag las%// gsungs pa’i cho ga mkhas pas bsten%// de skad gsungs phyir cho ga ’di%// rgyud rnams kun la ’jug pa yin%// [P: gang du las ni yod ’gyur la%// rang gi las kyi cho ga med%// der ni mkhas pas spyi rgyud las%// gsungs pa’i las rnams bya ba yin] The passage from the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is a paraphrase, not an exact quote. It poses as it is a number of problems that cannot be addressed here. Given the frequency with which the tantra is quoted in Tibetan sources and the importance that is attached to it, a detailed study of this text would certainly be warranted. Of considerable interest in our context, however, is Sa-pa!’s remark (i.e. the last two lines of the above quote), according to which the ritual of this tantra is to be applied to all tantras. The above cited tantra passage “In those [[[tantras]]] where there are activities, but activity rituals are lacking, (…),” is understood by Sa-pa! as meaning that in those tantras that require activities, but are lacking proper rituals of tantric consecration of their own, the tantric consecration ritual of the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is to be used. The wordtantra” is supplied in my translation according to Go-rams-pa’s further paraphrase, which also adds the speci cations “lacking clarity” and “tantric consecration” (sDom gsum rnam bshad, 90v): In those tantras possessing activities such as tantric consecration, but the activity rituals are lacking clarity, there … rgyud gang du dbang bskur ba la sogs pa’i las [ni] yod par gyur la%/ las kyi cho ga rnams gsal po med pa der ni … The tantra itself, far less explicitly, merely seems to state that activity rituals missing in other tantras should be supplied from “the s(m(nya tantra(s?)” (here referring to itself?),14 and in this context

One question is indeed, what is meant by the tantra’s statement “spyi rgyud las gsungs pa’i las rnams.” In its fuller version, the name of the tantra is dKyil ’khor thams cad kyi spyi’i cho ga gsang ba’i rgyud, where spyi is related to cho ga, and not to rgyud. The short version of the name, however, is (as found in Tibetan texts) gSang ba spyi rgyud, but the short

it is taken for granted by Sa-pa! and Go-rams-pa that this tantra’s restrictions concerning the numbers of disciples admitted to the ritual of tantric consecration should be applied to tantras of other classes. By merely quoting this very brief and indeed cryptic passage – even with Sa-pa!’s and Go-rams-pa’s creative interpretation – the doubts whether rituals from a kriy( tantra are applicable to other tantra classes do not seem to have been solved. And furthermore, if Sa-pa!’s statement “is applied to all tantras” allows for the exception of the whole class of cary( tantras from this rule, then why can the tantras of higher classes, such as of the yoga and highest yoga tantra class, which certainly employ the principle of

form spyi rgyud is in this sense, as far as I can see, nowhere else attested in the tantra. The question is therefore, whether spyi rgyud las gsungs is an instance of self-reference (“taught in the s(m(nya tantra”), or whether it is to be understood as “taught in the general tantras” (understanding spyi’i rgyud). Curiously there exists in Sh$kya mChog-ldan’s gSer gyi thur ma a query that refers to the S(m(nyavidhiguhyatantra and ends with the words (12v3): “(…) [then] it can hardly be the ‘general tantra’ for all [classes]” (kun gyi spyi rgyud yin par dka’), to which he replies (12v4): Even though it is not the general tantra for all, its specifying of the number of disciples has been applied by many authentic authorities to the other [[[tantras]]] (kun gyi spyi rgyud ma yin kyang%// de yi slob ma’i grangs nges ni%// tshad ldan mang pos gzhan la’ang sbyar%// – understanding “[[[mkhas grub]]] tshad ldan”). Sh$kya mChog-ldan, sDom gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i bstan bcos kyi ’bel gtam rnam par nges pa legs bshad gser gyi thur ma, The Complete Works (gSung ’bum), Thimphu, Bhutan, Kunzang Tobgey, 1975, vol. 6, pp. 439–648, (=chapters 1–2), and vol. 7, pp. 1–230, (=chapter 3). Thus, if this should not be a self-reference, but a reference to the “general tantras” (whatever that means), the key passage of Sa-pa!’s argumentation collapses. The immediate context of our passage in the S( m(n ya vidhi guhyatantra (51-5-4) does, in my understanding, not seem to discuss a tantric consecration ritual of the present tantra that could be applied to other tantras. It rather leaves the impression that this passage teaches that if rituals for any of the activities are missing somewhere (including in the present tantra), they should be carried out by the skillful master as taught in the general tantras (whatever they are). This is, however, only a preliminary impression.


bodhicitta as much as the cary( tantras, not be part of the exception, too?15 To sum up so far, we found that Sa-pa! and his commentator Go-rams-pa argue that the rule of a key kriy( tantra, namely the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, that prohibits the bestowing of tantric consecration to even numbers of disciples and to groups larger than twenty- ve participants must be applied to all tantras, except those of the cary( class. But while their explanation of the exception for cary( tantras is, due to the explicit statement from the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra, comprehensible, their argument for a transference of the restrictions to the yoga and highest yoga tantras is hardly convincing, since the passage that they quote from the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra in this context to support their claim does not explicitly mention these restrictions, nor the need to apply them to tantras other than those of the kriy( class. In fact, it may be a general statement to the e# ect that rituals missing anywhere can be carried out with the help of rituals found in other general tantras. * * * Let us now turn to the question how the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra itself justi es its restrictions concerning tantric consecration. As we have already seen, Sa-pa! quotes from the tantra (sDom gsum rab dbye 3.24bcde–25ab, P 9/429, 44-4-5): The skilled [[[master]]] admits odd numbers of disciples such as one, three,  ve, seven [and so forth] up to twenty- ve. It is not auspicious to admit

I am not discussing here the problems of the gradual emergence of the tantras in history, since this would neither be Sa-pa!’s nor Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa’s (or in other words an emic) way of thinking. In an historical perspective, the kriy( tantras certainly appeared earlier than most cary(, yoga, or highest yoga tantras, and it would require a di# erent type of argument to show that rituals of the (historically) earlier kriy( tantra are applicable to the (historically) later tantras. Yet, since, as far as I can see, such a gradual emergence is not an issue in Tibetan tantric literature (at least not in a sense as it is discussed by philologists), we cannot expect arguments of this sort in these works.

a larger number of disciples [for tantric consecration]. Sa-pa! explains that the restriction is necessary because the ritual of tantric consecration is to be performed within a single night and has to be completed before dawn (sDom gsum rab dbye 3.26): For a larger number of disciples, a complete ritual cannot be concluded in a single night. If it is not concluded in the same night, it is taught that the ritual is defective. de bas lhag pa’i slob ma la%// cho ga yongs su rdzogs pa ni%// mtshan mo gcig la tshar mi nus%// de yi mtshan mor ma tshar na%// cho ga nyams par ’gyur bar gsungs%// And he quotes again the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, which says (sDom gsum rab dbye 3.27bcde, [a] = P 9/429, 43-5-4; [b] = 43-5-2): (a) When the sun has set, the gods certainly gather through the blessing. (b) It is propitious to worship [them] and then to request their departure until the sun has risen. (a) lha yang nyi ma nub pa na%//a nges par byin gyi brlabs kyis ’du%// (…) (b) nyi ma shar bar ma gyur bar%//b mchod nas gshegs su gsol ba shis%// Variant readings in P: a nyi ma nub pa lha rnams ni%//, b nyi ma shar ba las gyur bar%// Here, the two passages (a and b) quoted from the tantra actually occur in the tantra in reverse order and two lines apart from one another. With the above statements from the sDom gsum rab dbye Sa-pa! o# ers a reason why only a maximum number of twenty- ve disciples are admitted, namely that the ritual cannot be completed within a single night if more disciples are present (the necessity of odd numbers is explained by its auspiciousness). Again, the quote from the tantra hardly supports such an interpretation. In fact, in order to create the sequence ‘sunset to sunrise’ the two passages a


and b had to be presented in reverse order and the text in between these lines had to be ignored. * * * It is well known that the teachings of the sDom gsum rab dbye were also discussed critically within the Sa-skya-pa tradition, in particular by Go-rams-pa’s contemporary Sh$kya mChog-ldan. He formulated 108 questions and challenged the Sa-skya-pa masters of his time for answers. Among others, Go-rams-pa provided replies (in 1476), but Sh$kya mChog-ldan (somehow unsurprisingly) remained dissatis ed and composed his own answers in 1481. To start o# the discussion (in our present topic), he  rst cites a passage from the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra that appears to be in con ict with Sa-pa!’s point of view (gSer kyi thur ma, vol. 7, fol. 9v1, P 9/429, 52-4-5/7):16 The guru should consecrate a single disciple into the ma!"alas. It should not happen that the skilled master consecrates two disciples simultaneously. Two, three, or four [[[disciples]]] are also possible, [but] regarding the activities of the tantric consecration the guru should bestow [[[tantric]] consecration] to all [[[disciples]]] individually with a new di# erent set of requisites [for consecrating]. bla mas slob ma gcig pu ni%// dkyil ’khor dag tu dbang bskur bya%// mkhas pas cig chara slob ma gnyis%// dbang bskur ba ni yongsb mi bya%// gnyis sam gsum mamc bzhi yang rung%// bla mas dbang bskur bya ba ni%// yo byad gsard pa gzhan rnams kyis%// thams cad so so so sor bya%// Variant readings in P: a car, b yong, c ’am, d sar

Sh$kya mChog-ldan, sDom gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i bstan bcos kyi ’bel gtam gser kyi thur ma, The Complete Works of gSer-mdog Pa!-chen Sh$kya-mchog-ldan, vol. 6–7.

For the sake of his argument, Sh$kya mChog-ldan introduces three sections of the ritual of tantric consecration: (1) Admitting adepts and guiding them, (2) preparations, and (3) the actual consecration. In his actual answer he then ascertains (fol. 10v): Regarding the intention of the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra it is taught that after completely performing the rituals of ‘admitting’ and ‘preparation’ at the time of ‘admittance of disciples’ and ‘preparation’ for however many [[[disciples]]] up to a number of at the most twenty- ve there may be assembled into a single group, the ritual of the actual tantric consecration is to be done for each disciple individually. gsang ba spyi rgyud kyi dgongs pa ni%/ slob ma rjes ’dzin dang sta gon gyi dus su%/ nyer lnga man chad kyi grangs kha yar ba ji tsam yod pa de thabs gcig tu tshogs pa la%/ rjes ’dzin dang sta gon gyi cho ga yongs su rdzogs par byas nas%/ dbang skur dngos gzhi’i cho ga ni slob ma re re nas bya bar gsungs pa yin te%/ He furthermore shows that according to the tantra, the master calls up each adept individually in the tantric consecration,17 and that a skilled master never bestows tantric consecration on two (or more) adepts simultaneously, unless he has di# erent new utensils for each of them (fol. 11r).18 Sh$kya mChog-ldan concludes (fol. 11r): If we infer based on that meaning, if not more than one set of tantric consecration tools that are necessary for the tantric consecration is available, the disciples are consecrated successively, and if there are tantric consecration implements available matching the number of [[[Wikipedia:present|present]]] disciples, it is apparently so that it is acceptable to consecrate [them] simultaneously. don de la rjes su dpag na%/ dbang de la dgos pa’i dbang gi yo byad cha gcig las med na%/ slob ma rnams rim gyis skur ba dang%/ slob ma’i grangs dang mnyam pa’i dbang rdzas yod na%/ cig char du dbang bskur bas chog pa lta bur mngon no%//

gSer kyi thur ma, fol. 10v, P 9/429, 50-1-4/5. blo dang ldan pas cho ga ’dis%// slob ma rnams ni legs par bzung (P: gzung)%// slob ma re re nas bkug (P: dgug) ste%// gsang gtor snga ma bzhin byas la (P: nas)%//. 18 See the above quote (fol. 9v1) from mkhas pas cig car … until … so so so sor bya%//. Sh$kya mChog-ldan cites here only the  rst two lines (fol. 10v).

He explains the di# erence regarding the total numbers of adepts allowed in a tantric consecration in the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra and other tantras (max. twenty- ve) and in cary( tantras such as the Vairocan(bhisambhodhi (unlimited) through the fact that in the former the disciples are  rst examined and then admitted, while in the latter they are  rst admitted and then examined (fol. 11v).19 Unfortunately he does not explain this topic further and thus the question remains, why not a number larger than twenty- ve adepts can be  rst examined and then admitted.20 Of great interest is Sh$kya mChog-ldan’s following remark concerning the maximum of adepts in the tantric consecration of other tantra classes (fol. 12r): The  xation ‘up to twenty- ve’ with regard to the number of disciples in the ‘admittance of disciples’ in the S(m(nya


vidhi guhya

tantra is without doubt the intention of the dBang gi chu bo, but those gurus who have shaped that [[[scripture]]] into a ritual practice – having in mind the special necessity of taking [the admittance of many disciples] as the cause for the resolve for awakening as taught in the Vai roca n( bhisambodhi – have not  xed the number [of disciples] (…) gsang ba spyi rgyud du%/ slob ma rjes ’dzin gyi slob ma’i grangs la nyi shu rtsa lnga man chad kyi grangs nges mdzad pa de%/ dbang gi chu bo’i dgongs pa yin par gdon mi za yang%/ bla ma rnams phyag len du

It should also be mentioned here that Sh$kya mChog-ldan (fol. 11v) points out that the number of adepts admitted to tantric consecration even in a cary( tantra is not unlimited by default, but only through the special qualities of the master: “With regard to the tantric consecration of the cary( tantra there is no certainty of an upper limit that agrees with the [number of present] disciples. It is not so that they [can be] unlimited, since more than ten are prohibited. Even though it is so, there is no certainty with regard to the number of admitted disciples, since it is taught that ‘a great compassionate )c$rya should admit [them] without limits!’” (spyod pa’i rgyud kyi dbang bskur la%// slob ma kha ’cham kha yar gyi%// nges pa med mod grangs med min%// bcu las lhag pa bkag phyir ro%// de lta na yang rjes bzung gi%// slob ma’i grangs la nges pa med%// slob dpon snying rje chen po yis%// tshad med bzung zhes gsungs phyir ro%//). 20 The reason that not a larger number of disciples can be examined is probably that, according to Sa-pa!’s interpretation of the kriy( tantra, time is restricted, for which see above, sDom gsum rab dbye 3.26.

mdzad pa de ni%/ rnam snang mngon byang nas gsungs pa ltar%/ byang chub kyi sems kyi rgyur ’gyur ba’i dgos pa khyad par can la dgongs nas grangs nges ma mdzad pa (…) This concerns the Sa-skya-pa practice of Hevajra, whose tantric consecration is in the focus of the dBang gi chu bo, a text of enormous importance composed by bSod-nams-rtse-mo in the second half of the 12th century.21 According to Sh$kya mChog-ldan, bSod-nams-rtse-mo intended in his text a limitation of twenty- ve adepts, but the ritual works derived from it followed the lead of the Vai ro can(bhi sa" bodhi tantra. If this is indeed true, we would have a case where eminent Sa-skya-pa authors applied the rule of the c(rya tantra to a tantra of the highest yoga class, placing it above the rule of the kriy( class. It would certainly be worthwhile to study derived ritual works such as those by Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan of the 12th century (also because of their important remarks with regard to the role and function of the four trantric consecrations of the highest yoga class).22 Sh$kya mChog-ldan introduced further distinctions and clari cations, some of them on the very di* cult terrain of ritual practice, and I am quite aware that more research is necessary to elucidate the  ne points of his argumentation, but I nevertheless hope to have identi ed the major points of his reply (to his own question) here. * Let me now return to Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa’s commentary on ’Jig-rten-mgon-po’s dGongs gcig, where, in the second topic of the  fth chapter and in reaction to Sa-pa!’s criticism, he deals with this problem. Not surprisingly, Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa attacks the supposed authority of the kriy( tantra over the yoga and higher

bSod-nams-rtse-mo (dPal kyai rdo rje’i dkyil ’khor du slob ma smin par byed pa’i cho ga dbang gi chu bo chen mo, Sa-skya-pa bKa’ ’bum 2/20, 35r–89r). 22 Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan (dBang gi chu bo ma nub par bskur ba, Sa skya Lam ’bras Literature Series 11, 122r–122v), and perhaps also rDzong-pa Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan (Kyai rdo rje’i dkyil ’khor du dbang gi chu bo bskur ba’i zhal gdams gnad kyi gsal byed kyi dka’ ’grel bdud rtsi’i bum pa). See also Stearns 2001: 13.


yoga tantras.23 He argues in fact that the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is only a kriy( tantra (p. 247: spyi rgyud ni bya rgyud kho na yin) and that what is taught in it is valid only for tantras of the kriy( class. He quotes the same tantra (P 9/429, 42-5-6):24 Out of love for the worldlings, for certain, I have taught this general ritual of those ma!"alas, such as that of Vajravid$ra!$(?), that I have taught as the 3.500 ma!"alas. ’jig rten dag la brtse phyir nges%// rnam par gnon pa la sogs pa%// dkyil ’khor sum stong dag dang ni%// lnga brgyar bshad pa gang yin pa%// dkyil ’khor de dag rnams kyi spyi’i%// cho ga ’di ni ngas bshad do%// Thus the Vajradhara’s announcement that he has taught a general ritual – which then supposedly contains restrictions with regard to the number of adepts in a tantric consecration – concerns according to Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa only the ma!"alas of the kriy( class, of which there seem to be 3,500, but not the ma!"alas of the yoga and highest yoga tantras. Since this is Rig-’dzin Chos-kyigrags-pa’s main thrust, he has to deal with the passage of the tantra (already quoted above through sDom gsum rab dbye 3.29), through which Sa-pa! intended to show that the tantra’s ritual was valid for all other tantras, too: In those [[[tantras]]] where there are activities, but activity rituals are lacking,

Already Sh$kya mChog-ldan was well aware of this type of criticism. He quotes an unspeci ed opponent with these words (fol. 12v): “If the speci ed number of disciples is established for the tantric consecration of the higher tantras through the reasoning of the kriy( tantra, how can the unspeci ed number not be established through the reasoning of the cary( tantra?” (bya ba’i rgyud kyi rigs pa yis%// rgyud sde gong ma’i dbang skur gyi%// slob ma’i grangs nges ’grub ’gyur na%// spyod pa’i rgyud kyi rigs pa yis%// grangs nges med pa cis mi ’grub%//). 24 This passages stems right from the beginning lines of the tantra, where the purpose of the teaching is stated.


there the skilled master relies on the ritual that was taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?). According to Sa-pa!, this means that wherever a ritual for tantric consecration is missing (or according to Go-rams-pa: “lacks clarity”), the ritual of the S(m(nya-tantra(s?) is to be applied. Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa now points out that “nowadays making counts [of disciples] etc. appears in your [i.e. the Sa-skya-pa] system also with regard to the tantric consecration of Hevajra.”25 But since there exist a great number of Hevajra tantric consecration rituals by both Indian and Tibetan masters, there occurs to be an inconsistency between the sDom gsum rab dbye and the actual practice in the Sa-skya-pa tradition (bstan bcos su bris pa dang lag len ’gal ba, p. 248). The strongest argument, I believe, on the side of Sa-pa!’s opponents is their questioning of the kriy(

tantra’s authority over the higher tantra classes. This has the twin aspects of the kriy( tantrasinferior position within the tantric system of Tibetan Buddhism and the great signi cance of bodhicitta in Mah$y$na Buddhism, of which tantra is a part, which, as is expressed through the passage of the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra, may serve on the side of the vajr(c(rya as a motivation to bestow tantric consecration on large(r) numbers of disciples. Obviously the di# erent parties engaged in the debate have come to di# erent decisions. Sa-pa! and some of his followers decided to follow the rules of the S(m(nyavidhi guhya tantra, whereas his opponents, such as ’Bri-gung Rig’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, have decided to take the formulation of the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra as the lead. Here we may also  nd the key to the understanding of these positions. Did Sa-pa! perhaps  nd it most appropriate to make the least common denominator the basis for his doctrinal formulation? Is this perhaps an attempt to preserve the basic principles of the foundations of the practice also on higher levels? And is this perhaps somehow in the same vein as the Sa-skya-pa doctrine of the three vows (of pr(timok+a, of the bodhisattvas, and of mantra), where they hold

25 P. 247: deng sang dgyes rdor kyi dbang bskur la yang grangs sogs byed pa khyod kyi lugs la snang mod.


that vows are transformed while their essence remains the same (sdom gsum gnas ’gyur ngo bo gcig)? In the case of a person, for instance, who maintains the pr(timok+a vows and then takes the bodhisattva vows, this means that the main element for taking up pr(timok+a, namely renunciation, is  rst limited to the desire to attain peace and happiness for oneself. When the resolve for awakening (bodhicitta) is produced, the inferior intention is abandoned, but the rules of pr(timok+a (such as abandoning killing) remain as an element of the wish to bene t sentient beings. It is thus the case that although the pr(timok+a of the auditors has been transformed into the “bodhisattva (or mah(y(na) pr(timok+a,” its rules are still valid, and although the desire to attain peace and happiness for oneself is augmented with bodhicitta, replacing the inferior motivation by the

vaster intention, renunciation is still at the core. In other words, although the practice has been lifted up to a higher level, certain principles remain intact.26 This doctrine was, according to Go-rams-pa, formulated in parts as a reply to the teaching of the Indian pa!"ita Vibh+ticandra, who had formulated (perhaps while in Tibet during the early 1200s) the doctrine of the vows that are “outshone” (zil gyis gnon pa) by the next higher set of vows. Accordingly, the pr(timok+a vows, for instance, “remain dormant in the basic consciousness” (kun gzhi la bag la nyal ba’i tshul du gnas) if one forms the resolve for supreme awakening.27 In other words, the rules of the lower level remain latent, but unmanifested, when the higher level is practiced. Now, even though this might look like a convenient background for the teaching that the practice of the higher cary( tantra overrides the practice of the lower kriy( tantra, I think that this is not the case, at least not in the context of the ’Bri-gung-pa Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa. For if “outshining of the lower” would be the principle behind the permission of bestowing tantric consecration

For the Sa-skya-pa view of the simultaneous possession of the three vows in a single mental continuum, see Sobisch 2002, esp. pp. 89–96. I have slightly re ned my interpretation of the Sa-skya-pa view on this matter in the present article. 27 For Vibh+ticandra’s view, see Sobisch 2002: 35–88 and esp. p. 115.

to groups of disciples with more than twenty- ve participants, this would mean (in unison with Vibh+ticandra?)28 that the lower system is perceived as something that is more rigid, while the higher system is more lenient. But this is not the attitude of the ’Bri-gung-pas. In fact, a clear statement to that end can be found (in the context of the three vow doctrine) in the dGongs gcig (Addendum 13/14):29 [Others] hold that the three vows are ascendingly more lenient [while ’Jig-rten-mgon-po] maintained that the three vows are ascendingly more rigid. sdom pa gsum gong nas gong du yangs su ’gro bar ’dod%/ sdom pa gsum gong nas gong du dog tu ’gro bar bzhed do%/ According to this view, which is said to have been introduced in Tibet by Ati(a,30 the pr(timok+a abandons the coarse mental af ictions (nyon mongs pa rags pa) with the help of a small number (grangs nyung) of rules that are guarded through ordinary (tha mal

In his Ri chos, Karma Chags-med (1613–1678) says that Vibh+ticandra’s position was practiced by the bKa’-brgyud-pas (citing the ’Brigung-pa ’Jig-rten-mgon-po as an exception). In his words, “the bKa’- brgyud-pas proceed a bit lenient with the rules of the vinaya.” He contrasts this with the statement from the addendum of the dGongs gcig, for which see below. For the Ri chos, see rTsib ri spar ma, collected and arranged by La-dwags Khrid-dpon ’Khrul-zhig Padma-chos-rgyal, Darjeeling: Kagyu Sungrab Nyamso Khang 1978–1985,

31 vols., vol. 5, pp. 77 # . 29 The vajra-statements of the founder of the ’Bri-gung bKa’-brgyudpas together with the formulations of what is the “general opinion” or the “opinion of others” (gzhan lugs) can be found in rDo-rje-shes-rab’s commentary (Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i ’grel chen snang mdzad ye shes sgron me, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute 1990), pp. 153–187, the present one on p. 178). In the commentary of rDo-rje-shes-rab, this is the thirteenth addendum, in Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa’s commentary

(Nyi ma’i snang ba) it is the fourteenth, his commentary is on p. 392 f. (Maryland edition) and on p. 338 (Dehra Dun edition). 30 That this view goes back to Ati(a is mentioned in a brief versi ed commentary by Rig-’dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Dam pa’i chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i dka’ ’grel tshigs su bcad pa mun sel sgron me, The Collected Works (gSung ’bum) of Kun-mkhyen Rig-pa-’dzin-pa Chen-po Chos-kyigrags-pa, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institite 1999, vol. 3, p. 463. 232 Jan-Ulrich Sobisch

pa) body, speech, and mind. The bodhisattva vows do the same, but solely for the bene t of others (rnam pa thams cad du gzhan don kho na las) and through a greater number (mang bas) of rules. They are thus considered to be slightly more rigid than the previous set of vows (cung zad snga ma las dog). The mantra vows abandon the very subtle mental a, ictions of all three gates (sgo gsum ga’i nyon mongs shin tu phra ba), and this is done, having abandoned attachment to ordinary appearances, through the body of the deity, i.e. the illusion-like sam(dhi (lha sku sgyu ma lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin las). While the pr(timok+a does not need the two higher sets of vows as a foundation stone (rmang rdo), bodhicitta needs at least the basic vows of pr(timok+a, such as the refuge vows, and mantra needs the support of one of the seven pr(timok+a vows and mah(y(na bodhicitta. It is therefore considered the most di* cult (ches dka’) set of vows. Thus Ati(a is quoted with the following words (p. 392 f.): There never occurred a transgression in the

pr(timok+a vows to me. Occasionally there occurred tri e [transgressions] in the bodhisattva vows. In the mantra vows the transgressions occurred as a stream. kho bo la so thar gyi sdom pa la ni nyes ltung gtan mi ’ong%/ byang chub sems dpa’i sdom pa la skabs skabs su tsag tsig tsam ’ong%/ gsang sngags kyi sdom pa la ni ltung ba char gcig nyar gcig tu ’ong%/ This clearly shows that the view of Vibh+ticandra, according to which “when the sun (= mantra vows) shines forth, the moonlight (= the bodhisattva vows) vanishes, [yet] the world is luminous” (Sobisch 2002: 117), is not accepted by the ’Bri-gung-pas. In other words, the dGongs gcig does not maintain a view according to which the lower is rigid and the higher is lenient – the opposite is the case: the higher vows are seen as more rigid and the higher practices as more di* cult to perform. If we apply this thought to the problem under discussion in this article, the procedure of the cary( tantra, that allows for a large number of adepts in a tantric consecration, is seen as the more rigid rule, because it presupposes the motivation of mah(y(na bodhicitta, and it is therefore also the more di* cult practice. If this analysis through the somewhat parallel case of the three vow doctrines is correct, the Sa-skya-pas did not simply hold on to the lower principle while the ’Bri-gung-pas have advanced to the

higher, but rather tried to preserve elements of the practice of a lower tantra on a higher level and the ’Bri-gung-pas’ aim for achieving the same results (i.e. tantric consecration), but for a vaster group of participants through a vaster motivation, presupposing a greater quali cation of the guru who bestows the higher tantric consecrations, as this is a more di* cult practice than the performance of a tantric consecration on the lower level. I hope that future research into this and related material will show whether such underlying trends and dispositions are indeed identi able in the approaches to tantric practice of Sa-skya-pa and ’Bri-gung-pa masters of the past.


Bibliography and abbreviations


Dalton 2005 – Jacob Dalton: “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra During the 8th–12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28/1, 115–179. Gold 2007 – Jonathan Gold: The Dharma’s Gatekeepers: Sakya Pa,-ita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Hodge 2003 – Stephan Hodge (trl.) The Mah(-Vairocana-Abhisa"bodhi Tantra, With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. London: Routledge Curzon. Liu 2002 – Kuo-wei Liu: ’Jig-rten-mgon-po and the ‘Single Intention’ (Dgongs gcig): His view on Bodhisattva vows and its in uence on Medieval Tibetan Buddhism. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Lodrö Taye 2005 – Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Taye: The Treasury of Knowledge, Book Six, Part Four: Systems of Buddhist Tantra. Elio Guarisco and Ingrid McLeod (trls.), Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Martin 1997 – Dan Martin: “Beyond Acceptance and Rejection? The Anti-Bon Polemic included in the Thirteenth-Century Single Intention (Dgongs-gcig Yig-cha) and Its Background in Tibetan Religious History.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25/3, 263–305. P – The Tibetan Tripi.aka, Peking Edition (repr.), ed. Daisetz T. Suzuki. Tokyo/Kyoto 1955–1961. Rhoton 2002 – Jarred Rhoton (trl.): A Clear Di/ erentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinctions Among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems: the Sdom Gsum Rab Dbye and Six Letters. Albany, N.Y.: State Univers ity of New York Press.

Sobisch 2002 – Jan-Ulrich Sobisch: Three-Vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism: A Comparative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth Through Nineteenth Centuries. (Contributions to Tibetan Studies 1). Wies ba den: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Sobisch 2009 – Id.: Review of The Dharma’s Gatekeepers: Sakya Pa,-ita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet. By Jonathan C. Gold. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press 2007, pp. xii + 267. Journal of the American Oriental Society 129/3, 512–517. Sobisch, forthcoming – Id.: “Guru Devotion in the Bka’-brgyud-pa Tradition: Its Functioning as the Single Means for the Arising of Realization.” In: Tibetan Studies 10, Proceedings of the Seminar of the Inter na tio nal Association for Tibetan Studies, Bonn, 2006, 26 pp. Stearns 2001 – Cyrus Stearns: Luminous Lives. Boston: Wisdom Publications. van der Kuijp 1987 – Leonard van der Kuijp: “An Early Tibetan View of the Soteriology of Buddhist Epistemology: The Case of ’Bri-gung ’Jig-rtenmgon-po.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 15/1, 57–70. Wayman and Tajima 1992 – Alex Wayman, Ryujun Tajima: The Enlightenment of Vairocana. (Buddhist Traditions 18). New Delhi: Motilal.





Source