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


Rong zom pa on the Ālayavijñāna Theory

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Avalokiteshvara-Mandala gf.jpg



Dorji Wangchuk, “Rong zom pa on the ?layavijñ?na Theory.” In Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, and Nikolai Somsdorf. Indica et Tibetica 59. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019, pp. 471–478. Rong zom pa on the ?layavijñ?na Theory*

Dorji Wangchuk

(Universität Hamburg)

1. Prologue

This modest contribution seeks to discuss the interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na theory by the eleventh-century Tibetan scholar Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (henceforth: Rong zom pa). In it I shall attempt to answer two questions, namely, (a) how he understands and interprets ?layavijñ?na as a Yog?c?ra theory, and (b) whether he endorses it as a theory that is reconcilable with the philosophy of the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da, of which he was undoubtedly an early proponent. What I, however, do not seek to do within the framework of the present paper is either to discuss the reception of the ?layavijñ?na theory in Tibetan Buddhism in general1 or to present Rong zom pa’s interpretation of the Yog?c?ra doctrine in particular.2

2. Rong zom pa on the Number of Vijñ?nas

Tibetan Buddhist sources allude to the idea that there were Cittam?trav?dins (in India), who postulated (a) one, (b) two, (c) six, (d) seven, (e) eight, or (f) nine vijñ?nas (i. e. perceptual-conceptual modes), but it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this matter.3 What is, however, significant and relevant here is how Rong zom pa views this situation. Three points may be made in this regard. First, it is clear that he was aware of Buddhist systems that posited a set of six vijñ?nas. For in-

1 A study of the perception and reception of Yog?c?ra is currently being pursued by the present author. For a brief study on the status of Yog?c?ra in Tibetan Buddhism, see Wangchuk 2013. 2 For a study of the Yog?c?ra doctrine in the writings of Rong zom pa, see Almogi 2013. 3 The attempt in Tibetan sources to document the varying number of vijñ?nas according to various systems and scholars will be discussed elsewhere.


stance, in his lTa ba’i brjed byang, he clearly mentions the expression “set of six [vijñ?nas]” (tshogs drug) when refuting non-Buddhist doctrines from the perspective of ?r?vakas (nyan thos pa).4 Second, Rong zom pa has explained different aspects of the philosophical positions of two Yog?c?ra sub-schools,5 namely, one that proposes one vijñ?na and another that proposes eight.6 Although these schools are not always explicitly identified as Yog?c?ra schools — but simply as Byang chub sems dpa’ gcig pur smra ba7 (or gCig pur smra ba8) and Byang chub sems dpashes pa tshogs brgyad du smra ba9 (or Shes pa tshogs brgyad du smra ba10), respectively — they were almost certainly seen by him as Yog?c?ra sub-schools.11 His allusions to (or discussions of) a certain Buddhist school that posited a set of eight vijñ?nas are relevant here inasmuch as they invariably feature ?layavijñ?na as the eighth vijñ?na. It should also be noted that the octo-vijñ?na theory presupposes the hexa-vijñ?na theory, where it is of course slightly redefined.12 Third, and interestingly, Rong zom pa seems to belong to that group of Tibetan scholars who attempted to reconcile the mono-vijñ?na and octo-vijñ?na theories. For him, vijñ?na is sub-classified into eight forms on the basis of their functions (las) and not their genus (rigs); in terms of genus there is, according to him, only one vijñ?na, namely, ?layavijñ?na.13

4 lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 24.3–4): sems ni tshogs drug sems las byung ba dang bcas pa/ dmigs pa dang rnam pa’i cha can du dmigs te/ spyi khyab pa’i rdzas ni ma dmigs so// . 5 These Yog?c?ra sub-schools have been briefly noted in Wangchuk 2007: 38, n. 72; Almogi 2009: 192; Almogi 2013: 1335, n. 15.

6 See, for example, Rong zom pa’s ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 533.20–23): ’di {sangs rgyas kyi dgongs pa/ } [Texts within curly brackets are glosses found in the edition.] dang bden pa mthong ba’i bye brag {khyad par} ni/ shes pa tshogs brgyad du smra ba dang/ gcig pur smra ba’i bye brag gis cung zad tha dad par bzhag pa’ang yod na/ mdor bsdu na snang rtog mngon du rgyu log pa ni bden pa mthong ba’o// bag la nyal zad pa ni byang chub nyid brnyes pa’o// ; cf. ibid. (pp. 456.8–458.3). 7 gSung thor bu (p. 83.19).

8 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (pp. 445.16, 456.10, 533.21). 9 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 445.1): byang chub sems dpa’ shes pa tshogs brgyad du smra ba’i gzhung. 10 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (pp. 456.8–9, 533.20–21).

11 Compare, however, Rong zom pa’s gSung thor bu (p. 63.18–20): sgyu ma tsam de nyid sems snang ba yin par ’dod pa rnal ’byor spyod pa dang mthun no// sems kyi tshul ji ltar ’dod pa ni byang chub sems dpa’ gcig pur smra ba dang mthun/ . It is as though he treats Byang chub sems dpa’ gcig pur smra ba as a Mah?y?na school distinct from the Yog?c?ra school. It could also be that he is considering the Yog?c?ra school in general and Byang chub sems dpa’ gcig pur smra ba as a specific Yog?c?ra strand.

12 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 456.8–10): ’di yang shes pa tshogs brgyad du smra ba ni/ sems ni kund gzhi/ yid ni nyon mongs pa can gyí yid/ rnam par rig patshogs drug ces ’dod do// . Here ?laya (kun gzhi) should be understood as a shortening of ?layavijñ?na (kun gzhi rnam par shes pa) and his rnam par rig pa (vijñapti) is to be identified with what is elsewhere known as prav??ivijñ?na (’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa).

13 sNang ba lhar sgrub (p. 568.17–19): rnam par shes pa’i tshogs brgyad kyang las kyis phye bar zad kyi rigs ni kun gzhi rnam par shes pa’i rigs nyid yin pas tha dad pa med do// . Rong zom pa on the ?layavijñ?na Theory 473

3. Rong zom pa’s View of ?layavijñ?na as a Typical Mah?y?na Doctrine Rong zom pa, even though he was a proponent of a sub-school of Madhyamaka called Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da, did occasionally refer to the ?layavijñ?na theory, which is considered a typical Yog?c?ra theory (though it may be claimed that not all strands or strata of the Yog?c?ra school posited the ?layavijñ?na theory and not all Buddhist schools which posited it were Yog?c?ra adherents). A relevant question that needs to be asked and answered is whether Rong zom pa regarded the ?layavijñ?na theory as exclusively a product of the Yog?c?ra school.

Rong zom pa makes it clear that the notion of ?layavijñ?na is a “typical Mah?y?na doctrine” (theg pa chen po’i khyad par gyi chos), although he also states that ?layavijñ?na in an incipient form (sa bon tsam) was already being taught in the authoritative scriptures of the ?r?vakas (nyan thos kyi lung).14 It is, however, not clear which non-Mah?y?nic sources he had in mind. It may well be that he was thinking of the Abhidharmas?tra, which is alluded to in the Mah?y?nasa?graha. At any rate, the claim that the ?layavijñ?na theory is a typical Mah?y?nic doctrine seems to be consonant with another claim found in some doxographical sources, namely, that the non-existence of ?laya[vijñ?na] (kun gzhi med pa) is one of the seven positions of Vaibh??ika and Sautr?ntika (i. e. non-Mah?y?nic systems).15 Insofar as Rong zom pa considered the Yog?c?ra school to be Mah?y?nic,16 it would not be a problem for him to attribute the ?layavijñ?na theory to the Yog?c?ra school (although not all sub-schools of Yog?c?ra would, again according to him, have posited it), especially if we concede that he accepted the main tenet of the aforementioned Yog?c?ra sub-school called Byang chub sems dpa’ gcig pur smra ba (or gCig pur smra ba).

While it is clear that Rong zom pa regarded the ?layavijñ?na theory as a typical Mah?y?na doctrine, the question is whether it was also accepted by the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da school, which he characterizes as “special Mah?y?na” (theg pa chen po thun mong ma yin). If we examine his interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na theory, to which we shall return below, it becomes evident that he offers two interpretations, namely, one according to what he calls the “System of Those of the Lower Vehicles” (theg pa ’og ma pa’i tshul) and another according to what he 14 gSung thor bu (p. 64.20–22): dper na byang chub sems pa’i spyod pa rlabs po che dang/ kun gzhi’i rnam par shes pa lta bu theg pa chen po’i khyad par gyi chos dag kyang/ nyan thos kyi lung las sa bon tsam grags pa lta bu’o// .

15 See, for instance, Mi pham?s Yid bzhin grub bsdus (p. 621.2–3): kun gzhi med pa ni/ tshogs drug gi shes pa res mos su yod kyang de las gzhan kun gzhi med de ma dmigs pa’i phyir/ thams cad kyi gzhir gyur pa brtan pa’i sems zhig yod na de gang zag gi bdag yin par ’gyur ba’i phyir mi ’thad ces so// . 16 That the Yog?c?ra school is Mah?y?nic is made clear by Rong zom pa in his lTa phreng ’grel pa (p. 327.3–4): theg pachen po’ang rnam pa gnyis te/ rnal ’byor spyod pa dang dbu ma pa’o// . For more sources on this topic, see Wangchuk 2013: 1316, n. 1.

refers to as the “System of Higher Vehicles” (theg pa gong ma’i tshul), the latter of which is certainly to be identified with the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da. According to the second interpretation, ?layavijñ?na can be defined as the metaphysical substratum-less-ness of all phenomena, which has been described in other rNying ma sources as the “ontic universal ground” (don gyi kun gzhi), and thus the substratum for both sa?s?ra and nirv??a, as opposed to the Yog?c?ric ?layavijñ?na, which is associated exclusively with sa?s?ric phenomena. The equation of ?layavijñ?na with tath?gatagarbha, as in the La?k?vat?ras?tra, is well known to scholars.

In short, it seems that for Rong zom pa the crux is not so much whether a Mah?y?na source contains the term ?layavijñ?na as how one understands this concept. Thus, it appears that from his perspective, the term ?layavijñ?na would be neither indispensable for the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da school (inasmuch as the metaphysical substratum-less-ness of all phenomena can be expressed even without the term ?layavijñ?na) nor totally objectionable (inasmuch as it can always be understood in the sense of the metaphysical substratum-less-ness of all phenomena).

4. Rong zom pa’s Interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na Theory

Rong zom pa mentions the Tibetan rendering of the term ?layavijñ?na on several occasions, but it is the explanation of the term in his ?eg tshul that allows us insight into his actual understanding of the theory, and it has indeed already drawn some scholarly attention.18 Here I wish to provide some contextual background to his explanation of the term ?layavijñ?na. Rong zom pa’s ?eg tshul is a magnum opus and a classic on the doctrine of the Great Perfection (rDzogs pa chen po or simply rDzogs chen) as he understood it in the eleventh century.19 It contains six chapters (skabs), the last one of which is devoted to the “means of transmission” (brgyud pa’i thabs). The opening lines of the chapter20 make it clear that in it he wishes to demonstrate how to seek a soteriological path (lam) by approaches that involve effort (rtsol ba dang bcas pa’i thabs) for those who are incapable of properly

17 See, for example, Schmithausen 1987: 80–81. 18 Karmay 2007: 179; Schmithausen 1995: 335 f.

19 mKhan po bKra shis rdo rje of the Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre (nnrc) of the Ngagyur Nyingma Institute (nni), Namdroling monastery (Bylakuppe, Mysore District, Karnataka, India) is currently pursuing his ’bum rams pa research (in Tibetan) of the ?eg tshul, which includes a critical edition of the text. For an English translation of the text, see Sur 2017. 20 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 540.7–9): da ni rdzogs pa chen po’i tshul ji lta ba bzhin du gnas par mi nus pa rnams la/ rtsol ba dang bcas pa’i thabs kyis lam btsal ba bstan par bya ste/ de yang rdzogs pa chen

po’i lta bas zin par bya’o// . Rong zom pa on the ?layavijñ?na Theory 475

applying the methods set forth in the Great Perfection. He adds that these strenuous soteriological approaches should be governed (zin) by the view of the Great Perfection. After pointing out that several means (sgo) of “mending [one’s] mind” (sems bcos pa’i thabs) have been taught in the P?ramit?naya and Mantranaya, he lists and explains five such means of nirv??ic release (thar pa’i lam). The ?layavijñ?na theory is explained in the context of the third way of attaining nirv??ic release, namely, through a kind of sam?dhi called bzung btags bkag phye bcom pa’i ting nge ’dzin (or bzung btags bkag phye bcom pa dang ldan pa’i ting nge ’dzin). This seems to be a special term or phrase from an Anuyoga Tantric scripture called Kun ’du rig pa’i mdo (or rDo rje bkod pa), for he cites some verses from it in this context.

21 Rong zom pa presents there five procedures, which he explains through the analogies of “catching” (bzung) a monkey, “tying down” (btags) a cat, “shutting” (bkag) a window, “opening” (phye) a royal treasury, and “demolishing” (bshig) an empty house. The ?layavijñ?na theory is explained specifically in connection with the expression “opening a royal treasury” (rgyal po’i dkor mdzod kha phye).22 The most important point of Rong zom pa’s explanation of the ?layavijñ?na theory is that he interprets it according to what he calls the “System of Those of the Lower Vehicles” (theg pa ’og ma pa’i tshul) and according to the “System of the Higher Vehicles.” To judge by Rong zom pa’s overall philosophical direction, the former system would include all strands of Mah?y?na Buddhism that propose or presuppose the ?layavijñ?na theory but do not posit the indivisibility of the two truths or modes of reality (bden pa gnyis dbyer med pa). These would be Yog?c?ra and some strands of Madhyamaka. The latter system is certainly to be identified with Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da, of which he was undoubtedly an early proponent.

According to the first interpretation, ?layavijñ?na is like a ripe fruit (shing thog) “[a)] because it remains (or: stands ready) as the cause and (at the same time) has ripened as the fruit of all defiled (= sa?s?ric) elements” and “[b)] as regards the 21 Kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo (B, vol. 102, p. 61.5–7): rtogs ’dod spre’u ’di bzung nas kyang/ /rkun mo byi la btags byas te/ /gse khung skar khung kun dgag cing/ /khang stong phang phung bshig nas ni/ / rgyal po’i dkor mdzod kha phye na/ /de dag rtag tu sangs rgyas yin/. The variant readings recorded in the dPe bsdur ma edition are not reproduced here. The verse is cited by Rong zom pa with some variation; ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 544.4–6): gtogs ’dod spre’u ’di bzung nas kyang/ /rkun mo byi la btags byas te/ /khang stong phang phung kund bshig nas/ /gseb khung skar khung kun bkag ste/ /rgyal po’i dkor mdzod kha phye na/ /de dag rtag tu sangs rgyas yin/. In the same passage, he also cites the following verses from the Kun ’du rig pa’i mdo (B, vol. 102, p. 35.16–20): sgron ma ’bar ba’i rin chen ni/ /gal te ngan khung bsas gyur yang/ /de nyid yon tan rang snang bas/ /’od ni mkha’ la gsal bar ’gyur/ /de bzhin sems nyid rin chen sgron/ /lus ngag ’khor bar bying gyur yang/ /rang byung rang zhi rang snang bas/ /shes rab chos nyid mkha’ la gsal/ . Cf. the verses cited in the ?eg chen tshul ’jug (p. 545.14–17).

22 ?eg chen tshul ’jug (pp. 545.1–24); cf. the lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 17.18–21). Given numerous philological problems, it has not been possible to provide a complete translation of this passage here.

undefiled elements, it is merely their locus and support, just as when a medicine remains (undisturbed) in a vase of poison.”23 According to the second interpretation, ?layavijñ?na is actually called *?layabodhici?a (i. e. in the sense of ontological bodhici?a) because it is primordially pure inasmuch as it has the nature of the bodhigarbha (= tath?gatagarbha or svaya?bh?jñ?na). Impressions of cognitionalemotional defilements and baseness are said to be adventitious contaminations. It is like gold that is encrusted with turquoise, or like a precious jewel sunk in mud. Although its actual qualities do not appear on the surface, its nature has never been damaged.

Rong zom pa’s first interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na theory can be considered common and conventional, that is, more or less in conformity with the ?layavijñ?na theory that we know from Yog?c?ra sources. His second interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na theory can be considered uncommon and unconventional, in that it is actually identical with (a) his interpretation of the tath?gatagarbha theory,24 (b) his understanding of the distinctive ontology of the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da, characterized by the indivisibility of the two truths or modes of reality, that is, by the substratum-less-ness of all sa?s?ric and nirv??ic phenomena, and (c) the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da’s proposition that all phenomena are ab initio awakened (ye nas sangs rgyas pa).

5. Rong zom pa on the Yog?c?ra Interpretation of ?layavijñ?na

A question that poses itself is whether Rong zom pa would have personally endorsed the usual Yog?c?ra interpretation of the ?layavijñ?na theory. In other words, would he regard ?layavijñ?na the way it is depicted by Yog?c?ra, as a possible entity, just like a pot, for example, or would he hold it to be non-existent, like the son of a barren woman. Insofar as he explains everything that appears as pure and impure physical bodies (lus) and domains (spyod yul) of existence or activities, defined by factors such as space (phyogs) and time (dus), which are momentary appearances of ?layavijñ?na, he seems to have no difficulty in accepting or presupposing the existence of ?layavijñ?na, at least on the conventional level.25 His acceptance of the existence of ?layavijñ?na does not seem to represent a contradiction with Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da ontology or Buddhology, 23 The English translation of the first interpretation is cited here from Schmithausen 1995: 336 with slight modification.

24 For a discussion of Rong zom pa’s interpretation of the tath?gatagarbha theory in the light of his Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da position, see Wangchuk 2017. 25 sNang ba lhar sgrub (p. 586.12–17): mdor bsdus te bsgrub par bya na ji srid du yongs su dag pa dang ma dag pa’i lus dang spyod yul du snang ba yul dang dus la sogs pa rnam pas rab tu phye ba thams cad ni kun gzhi rnam par shes pa’i skad cig ma gcig gi snang ba yin pa’i phyir gdod ma thob Rong zom pa on the ?layavijñ?na Theory 477

for in both cases he does posit mere appearances (snang ba tsam), which are, according to him, possible only because pure and impure impressions (v?san?; bag chags) can be accumulated, or stored, in ?layavijñ?na. In other words, so long as v?san? as a theoretic construct helps him to explain mere appearances, he has no difficulty in accepting ?layavijñ?na as one as well. The theory would only then be problematic for him if ?layavijñ?na is seen as a metaphysical substratum of sa?s?ric and nirv??ic phenomena, and of unawakened and awakened beings as well.

6. Epilogue

What I have attempted to do in this article is to briefly present Rong zom pa’s understanding of the ?layavijñ?na theory. I pointed out that Rong zom pa seems to have recognized two branches of the Yog?c?ra school, namely, one that posits only one vijñ?na and another that posits eight vijñ?nas, which latter invariably includes ?layavijñ?na. He himself, however, seems to see no contradiction between the two. Rong zom pa characterizes ?layavijñ?na as a typical Mah?y?na doctrine. He offers two interpretations of the concept, namely, one according to what one might call the common Yog?c?ra interpretation, and the other from the perspective of the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da school. The latter is an interpretation of ?layavijñ?na in Rong zom pa’s own understanding of the tath?gatagarbha theory or of the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da’s proposition (according to him) that all phenomena are ab initio awakened (ye nas sangs rgyas pa). To sum up, Rong zom pa seems to have no problem in presupposing the existence of ?layavijñ?na as proposed by Yog?c?ras insofar as it helps him to explain pure and impure appearances as enabled through impressions implanted in ?layavijñ?na.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo = De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi thugs gsang ba ye shes don gyi snying po khro bo rdo rje’i rigs kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo rnal ’byor grub pa’i rgyud ces bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. In bKa’ ’gyur [[[dpe]] bdur ma]. 108 vols. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008, vol. 102, 1–286.

lTa phreng ’grel pa = Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po. Man ngag lta phreng gi ’grel pa rong zom pa??i ta chen po chos kyi bzang pos mdzad pa. In Rong zom gsung ’bum, vol. 1, 301–351. lTa ba’i brjed byang = Id. lTa ba’i brjed byang chen mo. In Rong zom gsung ’bum, vol. 2, 1–26. (sic) par bya ba’i chos ni gang yang med de/ dper na nam mkha’ la nam mkha’i mtshan nyid sgrub tu med pa bzhin no// zhes bya ba ’di yang skyon med par grub pa yin no// . 478 Dorji Wangchuk

?eg chen tshul ’jug = Id. ?eg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos. In Rong zom gsung ’bum, vol. 2, 415–555.

sNang ba lhar sgrub = Id. gSang sngags rdo rje theg pa’i tshul las snang ba lhar bsgrub [= sgrub] pa rong zom chos bzang gis mdzad pa. In Rong zom gsung ’bum, vol. 1, 557–568. Yid bzhin grub bsdus = Mi pham rNam rgyal rgya mtsho. Yid bzhin mdzod kyi grub mtha’ bsdus pa. In gSung ’bum: Mi pham rgya mtsho. 32 vols. Chengdu: [Gangs can rig gzhung dpe rnying myur skyobs lhan tshogs], 2007, vol. 17, 599–671. Rong zom gsung ’bum = Id. Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999.

gSung thor bu = Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po. gSung thor bu. In Rong zom gsung ’bum, vol. 2, 27–130. Secondary Sources

Almogi, Orna. 2009. Rong zom pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jn?na: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Choskyi- bzang-po. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies. — 2013. “Yog?c?ra in the Writings of the Eleventh-Century Rnying ma Scholar Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po.” In Ulrich Timme Kragh (ed.). ?e Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: ?e Buddhist Yog?c?rabh?mi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1330–1361.

Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. 2007. ?e Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. [Second Edition]. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Schmithausen, Lambert. 1987. ?layavijñ?na: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yog?c?ra Philosophy. 2 vols.. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. — 1995. Review of Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, ?e Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden / Boston: Brill, 1988 [First Edition]. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 90: 334–336.

Sur, Dominic. 2017. Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle: Dzogchen as the Culmination of the Mah?y?na. Boulder: Snow Lion.

Wangchuk, Dorji. 2007. ?e Resolve to Become a Buddha: A Study of the Bodhici?a Concept in Indo- Tibetan Buddhism. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. — 2013. “On the Status of the Yog?c?ra School in Tibetan Buddhism.” In Ulrich Timme Kragh (ed.). Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: ?e Buddhist Yog?c?rabh?mi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1316–1328.

— 2017. Rong-zom-pa’s Ontological Abyss: Where the Positivistic Ontology of the Tath?gatagarbha School and the Negativistic Ontology of the Sarvadharm?prati??h?nav?da School Meet.” Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 21: 85–107.

UNEARTHING HIMALAYAN TREASURES INDICA ET TIBETICA MONOGRAPHIEN ZU DEN SPRACHEN UND LITERATUREN DES INDO-TIBETISCHEN KULTURRAUMES

Begründet von

Michael Hahn Herausgegeben von Jürgen Hanneder, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Konrad Klaus und Roland Steiner Band 59 Indica et Tibetica Verlag

Marburg 2019 Unearthing Himalayan Treasures Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard Edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi and Nikolai Solmsdorf Indica et Tibetica Verlag Marburg 2019

Signet: Bodhn?th st?pa, after Ehrhard 2005 (11991): 3 Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der TARA-Stiftung Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © Indica et Tibetica Verlag, Marburg 2019


Source