The Ornament of the Shentong Middle Way

By Jetsun Tāranātha

Translated by Rimé Lodrö

Translator’s Introduction

One reason that this profound text, has not been more influential and has aroused bitter controversy is that the presentation is condensed to the point that it is, at best, easily misunderstood, and at worst, literally false. Unsympathetic opponents looking for something to refute only acerbate this problem. Hence Jonangpas have been frequently accused of being secret Hindus, or advocates of the absolute conceptual consciousness of Mind-only.

We should recall that, in Tibet, texts like this are most often used as bases for commentary for students by more learned teachers. The text is condensed into summary verses that can be easily memorized. Then the teacher fills out the argument and resolves doubts. Therefore, I feel there is a need for explanatory notation to clarify Tāranātha’s intended meaning. Lengthy footnotes and parenthetical additions can be tedious. So, while I do have some footnotes, I have also added shorter notations to the text, so that readers will not be confused about which words are Tāranātha’s. Longer notations on bolded passages are referenced to appendices A1, and so forth. Links connect passages in the text with supporting scriptures in the companion text. Capitalized epithets like “the Conqueror” or “the World Protector” refer to the historical Buddha,

Śākyamuni. “Word” capitalized refers to the Buddha’s teachings. When one line of Tibetan verse is translated by two or more lines in English, the extra lines begin with a small letter. Perhaps the vagueness of Tāranātha’s approach has its virtues, though. A common oriental way of proceeding in such cases is to give a corner or two of the verbal teachings, to make students work out the rest. That makes students go beyond rote learning, and develop a thorough understanding of the intricacies of their school’s view, and its connection to the associated practice and experience.

Jetsun Tāranātha

Contents

Words of Homage to the Buddha

1. Teaching that the Conqueror’s Word is authoritative scripture

2. Analysis of the Buddha’s way of teaching in his three turnings of the wheel of Dharma

3. A teaching, according three sayings by the Buddha to Subhūti in the sūtras, is taught to clear away maintaining that the two truths are equally existent or equally non-existent

4. Answering an objection by advocates of universal emptiness of selfhood

5. Now what is said there is analyzed, beginning with provisional and definitive

6. Now this is composed concerning the divisions of Madhyamaka and Mind-only, within which Shentong is established as Madhyamaka, rather than as Mind-only

7. Further teachings on the traditions of Rangtong and Shentong

8. Teachings for abandoning controversy over whether Shentong is like the extremists

9. Teaching that the absolute is free from the reasoning of Rangtong Madhyamaka

10. Teaching how it is contradictory to maintain that the emptiness of all phenomena is self-emptiness alone

11. Refuting that Rangtong Madhyamaka is ultimate

12. How, when some Rangtongpas analyze doctrine, their reasoning establishes Shentong

13. Now a little is said about the suitability of our own system

Conclusion and dedication of Merit

Words of Homage to the Buddha

OṂ Svāsti. Namo Buddhaya.

The one who, by tongues of flameA1 of vajra pristine wisdom,
Consumed the mountains and forests of the view of self,
The World Protector, who abides beneath the placeA2
Of the seven kinds of relative consciousness,
Who became the god of gods, I bow to the Lord of Conquerors;
The one whose teachings, with different manners for different occasions,1
Taught to all the way of occurrence of dharmatā;
Though disagreeable, childish ones were disputatious,
Still gave them these authentic instructions on reasoning.
1. Teaching that the Conqueror’s Word is authoritative scripture
1 Teaching students of different capacities in a manner they can understand and to which they will be
receptive.


Though here in the Land of Snow,2 concrete, extremist doctrines,A3
And the realist approach of the ŚrāvakasA4 were not accepted
as the highest formulation of Buddhist teachings;
Awakened karmic propensities of these two approaches,
Led to the meaning of the texts of the Highest Vehicle
being wrongly explained. This needs to be corrected.
Learned Mahāyānists, in the Land of Noble Ones,3
Declared, “The scriptures spoken by the Conqueror
Shall be proclaimed as authoritative from now on.

Reasoning that has exhausted faults does not speak falsely.
For that reason, the falsehoods of the Śrāvaka Vehicle
Cannot be the Word of the Conqueror who taught the Great Vehicle;”
Then, when they proved the Word, Tibetans proclaimed that proving
The Word of the Mahāyāna was accomplished by certain treatises,
Some scriptures that happened to be in accord with their own ideas,
And that all texts saying otherwise were of merely provisional meaning.
Insofar as their meaning benefits beings, indeed it is wonderful;
Still, meanings that do not abide in the essence4 are said to be false –
Mere claims of validity cannot establish scriptures as valid.
If the Conqueror who has exhausted all faults still speaks falsely,5
Why mention his noble disciples who abandon all partiality

And ordinary beings who still possess all faults?6
Such persons cannot avoid falsity. They cannot be authoritative.
Then, according to the meaning just presented,
how can it be right for speakers of Buddhist doctrine
To claim that the Buddha’s words are not authoritative?
Instead, we should seek the perspective from which those teachings are true.
2. Analysis of the Buddha’s way of teaching in his three turnings of the wheel of Dharma
Most Tibetans claim, regarding the Buddha’s three turnings,

2 Tibet.
3 India.

4 Teachings that do not truly describe the essential qualities of their subject.
5 As those Tāranātha is criticizing maintain, and he denies.
6 Noble ones of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles and ordinary beings who are authors of treatises.


That the first, by teaching all dharmas as truly existent, is false;
The middle, by teaching emptiness, is of the definitive meaning;
And the last, by teaching existence,7 isA again of provisional meaning.
In general, not all the provisional meaning is false words.
In the gradual path that leads to the excellent way things are,
Teachings true in the relative are taught as provisional meaning –
Thus, in giving those teachings, the Buddha does not speak falsely;
ButB teachings of the absolute way things really are

Teach the definitive meaning. So capable ones maintain.
“All teachings taught for a purpose are of the provisional meaning,8”
Some, indeed, maintain this; but, as all holy Dharma
Is for the purpose of taming beings, it would all be provisional.
Nāgārjuna, as well as Asaṅga and his brother,9
Establish that the three turnings have a single intention:
The first turning of the wheel teaches the relative.
It is taught in accordance with the way things appear.
There is no teaching that what appears has true existence,
Within the subject of analyzing for how things are;
therefore, the words of these relative teachings are not false.
The middle10 refutes all dharmas of saṃsāra and
nirvāṇa,
All of the relative; but whether sugatagarbha,C
Exists or not is never taught or examined at all.
Therefore, these two turnings do not contradictD the last.
In any case, the first chiefly teaches the relative.
In the middle, there is only half the definitive meaning;
The lack of true existence of the relative,
But not the true existence of the absolute.

The last turning perfectly teaches the definitive absolute.11
The examples of medicine for the sick and learning letters;
Have this intention, and others12 are contradictory.
If it the first turning were to teach, “All dharmas are stable,13”
That would contradict the Sūtra of Katyayana.E
7 The true existence of absolute sugatagarbha with its intrinsic qualities.
8 Those who say this are thinking of examples like the Buddha teaching truly existing phenomena to
students who could not understand or accept the teachings of emptiness.
9 Vasubandhu.

10 Turning of the wheel of Dharma and ff.
11 For Jonangpas definitive, ultimate, and absolute have the same scope.
12 Other intentions alleged by some.
13 Rather than impermanent, which leads to suffering, according to the first of the four noble truths.


If the middle negated the absolute, dharmadhātu and so forth,A5
That would contradict the Sutra Requested by Maitreya.14 F
The sūtras and treatisesG then would have mutual contradictions.H
3. A teaching, according three sayings by the Buddha to Subhūti in the sūtras,
is taught to clear away maintaining that the two truths
are equally existent or equally non-existent
Moreover, 1. the Buddha says in the Chapter on Changeless Dharmatā:
In that way, Subhūti, all dharmas are emanations.15
Some are emanations of the Śrāvakas.
Some are emanations of the Pratyekabuddhas.
Some are emanations of the bodhisattvas.
Some are emanations of the tathāgatas.
Some are emanations of the afflictive emotions.
Some are emanations of the provisional Dharma.
Subhūti, all dharmas in that list are like emanations.

2. Also:


Subhūti asked, “What phenomenon is not an emanation?”

The Buddha spoke saying, “Subhūti, a phenomenon that is unborn and unceasing
is not an emanation.”
3. Then:

Subhūti asked, “Blessed One, what phenomenon might that be?”
“Subhūti, it is the phenomenon that possess the quality of non-deception, nirvāṇa.
That phenomenon is not deceptive.”
4. Answering an Objection by advocates of Universal Emptiness of Selfhood
Rangtong Objection:

Teaching emptiness through existent sugatagarbha
14 A sūtra of the middle turning that teaches dharmadhātu as absolute experience.
15 Because they are mere mentally created appearances of what does not truly exist.


Is known to be separate from the definitive meaning sūtras.16
This is taught by beings who are common individuals.
All such teachings are known to be of provisional meaning.
They have a hidden intention of emptiness of selfhood.
Has that not been maintained?

Shentong answer:

Well, it certainly has been maintained by some...
However, when the essence is taught in the final turning,
It should not be explained as an empty mental construct,I
Mere wistful imagination of what could never exist.
The absolute selfJ is not taught as a relative individual,
Subject to the duality of relative concepts,

Which both of us agree to be empty of true existence.
Accordingly, the final turning is known as “supreme,”
Because it teaches the ultimate self, the way things are.
You complain that our absolute self is like the gods of the Hindus.
Maheśvara and so forth indeed have been called exalted,
But teaching that is not right, for the words are not validly spoken.
WhyK? They are spoken of entities other than the three jewels,
Such words are to be abandoned by those who seek liberation.
If they17 were true, the Conqueror’s speech would not be valid.
Any masters maintaining that such a teaching is valid
Have the same understanding as Indian extremists,

Including Rangtongpas who deny the Buddha’s Word.
If you think that, by being exalted, they do not have this fault;
The same reasoning would apply to Maheśvara and so forth.
Claiming they are better than Buddha, they are no Buddhists.
If,L as they claim, their words are better than the Buddha’s,
Why could the words of a common being not be so too?
Rangtongpas speak of the four reliances incorrectly:

1. Relative existence is said to be existence.
Relative nonexistence is said to be nonexistence.
Absolute nonexistence is said to be existence.
Absolute existence is said to be nonexistence:
16 Middle turning sūtras, which Rangtong considers definitive, famously say that all phenomena,
including sugatagarbha, lack true existence.
17 The words teaching that the Buddhist supreme self is like the Hindu gods, and so forth.


They do not rely on the absolute, but the relative.
2. When consciousness has an essence, they say it is existent.18
When it does not, they cut it off as nonexistent.19
Though wisdom cannot exist from the viewpoint of appearance,20
Within the relative apprehension of consciousness,
Exponents of Rangtong want to claim that it does:

Abandoning pristine wisdom, they teach only consciousness.
3. They claim that teachings taught by the Buddha are mostly false,21
WhileM their “valid” commentaries on his intention are true; =
If a root text is false, their commentaryN cannot be true.
Relying on individuals, they abandon the holy Dharma.
4. Understanding the real in terms of the two negations,O
One that includes an affirmation, and one that does not,
Logicians, and those like them, rely on fallacious words22
And not the infallible meaning, the Dharma of realization.
Most of the later exponents of self-emptiness

Have strayed quite far away from these four reliances,
Though, in the Word of the Conqueror, these four are praised.
5. Now what is said there is analyzed, beginning with provisional and definitive
The present subject needs to be further elucidated.
There are no sūtras at all that clearly teach the approach
That the middle is definitive and the last turning is provisional.23
The Saṃdhinirmocana, Mahāparinirvāṇa,
Aṅgulimāla Sūtra and others clearly explain
That the middle is provisional and the last the definitive meaning.
To claim that the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, teaches the essence
As of the provisional meaning isP as weak as the squeak of a rabbit.24
You ask whether sugatagarbha is like the extremists’ false self,
A mere delusive entity of the relative.

18 In the relative.
19 In the absolute.

20 Here “appearance” = false, dualistic appearance.
21 They claim that all sūtras and tantras that do not teach emptiness of self are provisional.
22 Words are fallible, because the way things are transcends the scope of words and logic.
23 The middle and final turnings of the wheel of Dharma.
24 That claim has no plausibility.



Our true self is absolute emptiness,25 so we teach these are not the same.
“All emptiness negates true existence without affirmation,Q”
Is a fault in the understanding of advocates of Rangtong,26
Persistent proclaimers of nothingness as the way things are,
Though their view is supposed to be beyond all assertions.
Rangtong objection:

“The pristine wisdom of emptiness, your alleged perceiver of suchness,
Is empty, by non-affirming negation, as nothing at all,
According to reason that analyses for absolute truth,
As it is taught within the Buddha’s second turning.
Therefore, not absolute, as you claim, it is relative.”
Shentong answer:

Some of you claim that “emptiness that analyzes the skandhas
Establishes all phenomena as nonexistence.”
This is, indeed, the case for relative phenomena,
But not for the suchness of absolute phenomena,
Whose purity transcends both concepts and their analysis.
Though emptiness proved by analysis27 with analytical reasoning
Is, in your intention, a means of establishing suchness;R 28
As a means of establishing suchness possessing all supreme aspects,29
Your negation directly contradictsS what is to be proved.T
You eliminate absolute suchness, along with all other phenomena.
The final turning is, indeed, described as provisional
In Candrakīrti’s Entering the Middle Way;U

But, as it is described as definitive by the Victorious One,
the final turningV is proved to be the definitive meaning.30
Middle turning discourse, much in accord with the first,31
Presents the “real,” describable dharmas of abhidharma,
Characterized by impermanence, dependence, and suffering,
And disproved, as we both agree, by Madhyamaka reasoning.
Final turning discourse, much in accord with mantra,
25 Of other, relative things.

26 Since many sūtras of the definitive meaning teach otherwise.
27 Of the phenomena of the skandhas, and so forth.
28 Because Rangtong suchness is the self-emptiness of all phenomena.
29 The Shentong absolute, established by the experience of pristine wisdom.
30 By scriptural valid cognition.
31 The first and second turnings both say that absolute nirvāṇa is beyond description, while describable
reality is that of the phenomena of abhidharma.


Transcending all the limitations of relative concepts,
Presents the actual, luminous, blissful way things are,
Established by the experience of all the victorious ones.
Those reasonsW establish the final turning as supreme.
If the third turning is provisional, how can it be so profound?
In particular, when the final turningX is taught as provisional,
Since the absolute is provisional, that is logically absurd.
After teaching the ultimate definitive meaning,

If those to be tamed are told it is of provisional meaning,
Negating absolute suchness, as if it were relative things,
The stages of teaching the twoY will be thrown into great disorder.
When the teaching is out of order, for some individual student,
The true, non-conceptual self will be conceptual.A6
It will not bear analysis, which is incorrect.

True self is not something suitable for analysis,
Because it transcends all concepts that could be analyzed.
Nirvāṇa, as taught in the Questions of King Dharaṇīśvara,32
As the ultimate goal, the truth that fulfills all wishes,
Will then be joinedZ to leading individuals astray,
Chasing a phantom fulfillment, in an inescapable void.
The example of medicinal milk and that of a jewel
Show as one how defilements of true mind are purified,
So that enlightened dharmakāya can manifest.

In the Mahāparinirvāṇa,AA eight misapprehensions are taught.
In particular, the kāya of the Conqueror is pure.33
The buddha field and so forth, the blissful, absolute dhātu,
Are permanent mind itself. Since this is our absolute self,BB
Conceiving a body of flesh and blood, in the truth of suffering,
With instantaneous aspects whose nature lacks true existence,

As what we are is wrong view that has the four misapprehensions.
The first turning is in accord with the viewpoint of the world.
The middle is in accord with the relative being natureless,
While the Conqueror and his children have countless good qualities.34
Indeed, it is better, in many ways, than the Śrāvaka system;
Yet mostly, it still accords with the Lesser Vehicle sūtras.

32 Sūtra and so forth.
33 Of defilements of the two obscurations.

34 Even if, for Rangtong, they do not truly exist as anything at all.


The way of naturelessness35 in the last is like the middle.
What is other than absolute is never taught as existing,
But here many special, absolute dharmas are taught to exist.
Among the Dharma terms of this uncommon Great Vehicle,
There are the five topics, three natures, and eight kinds of consciousness;
Extensively taught in the sūtras of the final turning,
But taught in the middle one seldom, briefly, and unclearly.
The first turning is provisional.36 If the last were also provisional,
The two should be predominantly in accord;A7

Yet the first and last turnings of the wheel of Dharma
have very different ways of explaining the Teacher’s intention.
That was the beginning of the teachings on the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma, and the
discussion of provisional and definitive, with how the last turning is established as definitive, and hence
supreme.

6. Now this is composed concerning the divisions of Madhyamaka and Mind-only,
within which Shentong is established as Madhyamaka, rather than as Mind-only
Though the three turnings have a single pith of intention,
Lesser Vehicle Śrāvakas, the exponents of Rangtong
Adherents of Mind-only, and those of Shentong Madhyamaka,
Have positions very different in certain particulars.
Excluding Śāntarakṣita and Vimuktisena,37

Along with their followers, the other Rangtongpas
Explain the relative like the two schools of Śrāvakas,38
The realist Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas.
The relativeCC in Mind-only and Shentong is similar,
As mental phenomena, included within the grasper and grasped—
That is, Rangtongpas are similar to the Śrāvakas,
And many Shentong presentationsDD are like Mind-only.
However, they are not Śrāvakas and Cittamatrins,
Because their views do not accord in all respects,
Particularly, their accounts of absolute emptiness.
35 Or emptiness of the relative.

36 All Tibetans agree.
37 Who explained the relative according to Yogācāra.
38 Except that Śrāvakas do not then say the relative is empty from the absolute viewpoint.


For example, the Laṅkāvatāra is taught to transcend Mind-only.
The false view of Mind-only is that consciousness truly exists.
The Laṅkāvatāra’s true absolute39 is Dharmadhātu.
Dharmadhātu is not consciousness, so Shentong is not the same.
The three vehicles, in the ultimate, are notEE merely ornamental;40
Yet one or three vehicles may or may not exist for Shentong,
and the same is true for the cut-off familyFF

Of beings who can never attain enlightenment.
The three natures and two truths may be maintained or not,
though this is not characteristic of Yogācāra Madhyamaka,
Because those natures and truths are always present there.
All the four doctrines present some division of the two truths.
The three natures are also taught in the Perfection of Prajñā,
And also, byGG Nāgārjuna’s Bodhicittavivarana.41
The sūtras explain a temporary cut-off family.

It is taught that tathāgatagarbha is in all beings,
And so it is certain that they will actualize enlightenment.
As taught in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkara,HH
an ultimate cut-off family is thus refuted.
Because there is the ultimate,42 Shentong teaches one vehicle.
Rangtongpas maintain three incidental vehicles,
But their absolute has neither “vehicles” nor “attainment.43”
The Chapter Requested by Maitreya too has three.
Some Rangtongpas use Mind-only for the relative.

Though they say that, why speak of divisions created by fools?A8
The Conqueror teaches both transcending Mind-only and not,44
As do Mañjuśrī’s instructions, composed by Mañjugoṣa,
And, likewise, the teachings of Āryadeva and Jetāri.
A tantra commentary by Avalokiteśvara,
Has all these teachings occurring in a single presentation.
These words explain the provisional doctrines of Mind-only:II
Consciousness with appearance of dualistic grasper and grasped,
When its essence is free from grasper and grasped, is maintained

39 Presented as absolute mind in Shentong.
40 The differences are not merely verbal or stylistic.
41 As they are in Mind-only.
42 Which manifests as 1. the ground of all that is and can be, 2. the principal means of practice, and 3. the

fruition attained at the appropriate time.
43 Because it is experience that transcends all concepts. Shentong says the same about concepts of the
ultimate.

44 In different texts.


To be truly existing, absolute truth, and ultimate suchness.
Yet the absolute of Mind-only is dualistic consciousness.
If so, its aspects, grasper and grasped also truly exist.”
They cannot be seen through as delusion, when enlightenment is attained.A9
Yet, appearance of grasper and grasped is claimed to lack true existence.
Here both mind and phenomena are real things.

“Real things, in reality, are established as only mind.”
Anyone who says that is a Cittamatrin.45
How could it be otherwise? Yet, wrong appearances
that are delusive apprehensions of real things
have no true existence as anything, even mind.
Why do they not transcend the doctrine of Mind-only?A10
When phenomena of consciousness are realized

as relative appearance that has no true existence,
Relative appearance is established as nonexistent;
therefore, this is what is taught in Madhyamaka.46
Since appearances of the absolute are truly existent,
The way things are is realized by pristine wisdom.
Were it not the case that the absolute truly appears,
As is said in the view of literalistic Rangtongpas,
These absolute appearances of pristine wisdom
seen in the meditation of the noble ones

could not beJJ wisdom that realizes the Middle Way.
Enlightenment would be delusion, not knowing how things are.
7. Further teachings on the traditions of Rangtong and Shentong
Rangtongpas, when proclaiming only the texts ofKK Nāgārjuna,
Though indeed, within that limited scope, they are in accord;
Some maintain external objects, and others refute them.
Some maintain self-awareness, and others of them refute it.
Some of them affirm the eight kinds of consciousnesses,

within the relative, and others of them refute them.
They do or do not say that those in the Lesser Vehicle
Are able to realize the two kinds of selflessnesses,A11
And so forth. For every one of their fundamental doctrines,
their personal fabrications yield a turmoil of different aspects.
45 The Sanskrit term for an advocate of Mind-only.
46 Shentong also accepts this.


Indeed, they only agree that no dharmas truly exist;
So these “followers of the tradition-founding chariots,”
Are led, without trust in them, into paths of their own ideas.
Rangtongpas lack extensive commentaries
That demonstrate the self-contained necessity
of Great Vehicle sūtras, abhidharma, and vinaya;
And so, they analyze the view exclusively.

When they explain the tradition of these three piṭakas,
Some are Vaibhāṣikas, some are Sautrāntikas,
Some accept the traditional texts of Yogācāra.
They cannot reach a consensus about the meaning of scripture.
Shentongpas all enter the ocean of the Five Dharmas of Maitreya
And the textual tradition of Asaṅga and his brother;
Thus, they have no root doctrines that are not in accord.
In all commentarial texts on the Great Vehicle piṭakas,
No quotes from Yogācāra treatises other than those
are ever superimposed on them as postulates.

Therefore, as even many hundreds of lower mountains
Cannot overshadow their universal monarch,
Supremely lofty Mount Meru, at the center of the world,
Rangtong writings cannot suppress these texts of Shentong.
Some Rangtongpas claim that, for various ones to be tamed,
Compared to the sūtras, their treatises are more powerful,
as they teach the true intention of the Buddha.
This has, indeed, been refuted.A12 If it were really true,
Their sectarian comments on the Conqueror’s intention
would be superior to the treatises of Maitreya.

Though you search the world’s ten directions, no such works exist,
as it was validly proved by the noble one Nāgārjuna.
In commentaries wherein white virtue rises completely,
Candrakīrti, citing the prophesies of the Laṅkāvatāra,
says the Collection of Reasoning of the noble one Nāgārjuna
Is well-known to have commentary in the style of Shentong;
The Akutobhayā47 and so forth are also much in accord with that;
and the elder Dharmapāla, comments on mental awareness
in Āryadeva’s Four Hundred, as being the Middle Way –
That is how the subject was taught by Candrakīrti.
Therefore, within these texts of the noble ones, fathers and sons,

47 Ga las ‘jigs med, “Not fearful of anything,” Nāgārjuna’s autocommentary on the Root Verses on the Middle Way, aka the Mūla Prajñā.


The teachers of Rangtong48 can find no direct support at all.
There are points they would like to prove, but they lack the reasons to prove them.
For the followers of Candrakīrti and Dignāga,
As for direct disciples of the noble ones,
Different doctrines arising was pointless; and the disputes
Of Prāsaṅgika and Svatantrika arose only later on;
so there was no judge or criterion of “correct” Madhyamaka.
In particular, Shentong is taught in the Praise Collection,
The Bodhicitta-vivarana, Five Stages, and elsewhere.
Thus, both of these intentions were received by Nāgārjuna.

“The doctrines of Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga are one,”
Was clearly taught by the master Ratnakaraśanti.
Śāntarakṣita and others taught in the same vein.
Some later disparaged the vehicles of personal self-awareness,49
According to an approach of refuting self-awareness.
Mostly due to Rangtongpas, disputes were entered into

between the schools of Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika.A13
“The absolute is not within the sphere of reason,”
was objected to by Rangtongpas as an inadmissible statement. A14
NorLL did Rangtong present the five topics, three natures, and so forth,
Which are key features of the intention of Asaṅga,
So calling their words “explaining the unexcelled Great Vehicle”
was hardly a designation that was accurate;

But, the prophesied explanations of Shentong were appropriate.
Might it be possible to fully explain the Great Vehicle
by saying that all dharmas are only self-emptiness? –
As is claimed by many exponents of Rangtong.
The invincible knower, Maitreya, says the opposite.
That knower’s intention commentary tradition is better;
because he is the yidam of Nāgārjuna himself,50

Because he says the Great Vehicle is all-victorious,
And because within the tantras of secret mantra,
this is what is chiefly taught in maṇḍalas,
Though in the sūtras it is mostly taught as well,
As it is by all the close children of the Buddha.
That tenth level lord himself 51 taught it in such a manner.
Even the Śrāvakas say that Maitreya is the regent.

48 Literalistic Rangtong.
49 This would include the Great Vehicle tradition of self-awareness of Maitreya and Asaṅga and the
tantric vehicles of self-awareness pristine wisdom.
50 See the Related Scriptures citations of Maitreya in tantric practice texts below.
51 Maitreya.


Nāgārjuna, as a human being, attained the first level,52
Supremely Joyful, where emptiness is fist directly seen.
This was taught of him as human before the Conqueror.
Because the source was a prophesy about the future,
The Śrāvakas claimed that it had evidence that was mistaken.
Those knowing intention commentaries should analyze well
whether this evidence is really good or bad.
Depending on secret mantra, buddhahood is attainable.MM
Within the absolute truth, the invincible knower Maitreya
Measureless eons ago, was truly, completely enlightened.
Some claim that, while Maitreya indeed expounded Shentong,

Mañjuśrī taught Rangtong, but where is that in Mañjuśrī’s texts?NN
WithOO oral instructions that teach the deep path of the vajra vehicle,
And also maintain the view of Kalkī Mañjuśrī Yaśas;
In his Brief Teaching Maintaining the View, he explains Shentong.
Then why, unable to see this, do others now speak falsely?
While Rangtongpas own tradition is without clear sources,
They disparage others’ traditions that are excellent.
Are they not corrupted by demons of grasping partiality?
When some of them claim that that the dharmas of Maitreya are Rangtong,
Their “words of great power” are quite exhausted within their own circle.
Most in Tibet and India do not accept those words,

which is much better than this one-sided Rangtong view.
When they say Tibetans, first and last, are Rangtongpas,
including both doctrines in theirPP tradition is a fault.
In particular, they truly contradict

the texts of the traditions of each of these two doctrines.
There are clear prophesies by the Conqueror that Asaṅga
Would write very excellent intention commentaries,
Distinguishing provisional meaning from the definitive,
Also, Vasubandhu, Dignāga, Dharmakīrti,
Ratnakaraśanti, as well as other teachers
Were excellently prophesied by the Conqueror himself.
Jñānagarbha, Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka,

Candrakīrti, Āryasiṁha, and others too,
Explained the sūtras and tantras in which these teachers were prophesied.
According to Jñānagarbha, Vasubandhu and so forth,
Were prophesied to be highly famed as chariots.

52 Bodhisattva level.


CandrakīrtiQQ heard much and conferred it with pure competence.53
When the Conqueror prophesied these exponents of Shentong,
Was it not destined that these knowledgeable ones,
becoming human, would write intention commentaries?
Though these others were indeed supremely holy,
They could not contend with those above who were prophesied.
For example, Candrakīrti, consulting the Laṅkāvatāra,
Explained, on that basis, it had the intention of Mind-only;
But Vasubandhu, consulting the Saṃdhinirmocana,
Having said the intention was three-fold naturelessness,
Then explained what he called “the teaching of naturelessness.”
With sūtra texts and reasoning in equal accord,
The powerful combination of scripture and reasoning
of the venerable, supremely competent Vasubandhu
Made him a capable one equal to any other

among the six ornaments that beautify the world.
In the noble land of India, among the authors of treatises,
The Rangtong tradition was held to be the highest authority.
In particular, Prāsaṅgika exponents, who were then supreme,
TriedRR to refute that there is a ground of all karmic seeds,54
Although, as the essence, the all ground, is irrefutable,55
Justified both by scripture and enlightened experience.
Apprehended and apprehender, clear awareness and its object,
And capability of memory and experience,

because they were phenomena dependent on self-awareness,
Were challenged; however, mere self-awareness was not rejected.A15
True existence of the dependent was indeed refuted,
but that was not the case for the perfectly established.
One’s mind, with its uninterrupted nature of luminosity,
Was never refuted by the texts of Madhyamaka.

In particular, all ground pristine wisdom was not explained,
So Prāsaṅgika texts were neutral regarding its existence.
Though the essence adorned with the major and minor marks was maintained
As provisional meaning, mere sugatagarbha was not refuted.

53 This second list of teachers explained prophesies, but were not prophesied themselves.
54 Which is the basis of relative experience.
55 The relative all ground that stores karmic seeds is an aspect of the true relative in Yogācāra. It is
correctly refuted by Madhyamaka with the rest of the relative. The absolute all ground that transcends
karma, pristine wisdom, is irrefutable, because it is the essence of enlightened realization of the way
things are.


8. Teachings for abandoning controversy over whether Shentong is like the extremists
Regarding the views above, later Tibetans analyzed the founders of textual traditions, great and small,
that were the sources of doctrines. Proceeding from scriptural proofs, their presentation was easy to
understand. Also, some Rangtongpas said that, since the Shentong tradition was similar to the
extremists’ Saṃkhya school, its view was deluded.

Rangtongpas made the claim that Shentong was Mind-only.
If Shentong is Mind-only it is contradictory,
Like the Indian extremist tradition that maintains a conceptual self.
Rangtongpas were arrogant about the great, eloquent teachings
of the Abhidharmakoṣa and other texts

That are explanations of the Lesser Vehicle,
And said they explain existence in the Greater Vehicle.
They claimed that Great Vehicle texts are like those of Indian extremists.A16
This was mad talk of those who are seized by demons of jealousy.SS
If, these two religions are similar in all respects,
the Great Vehicle would, indeed, be established as Hindu teachings.
Presentation of the four doctrines would be nonexistent.
If the two were alike in all respects, it would be so.

The two schools of Śrāvakas would be like the Indian Vaiśeṣika.
Buddhist Yogācāra would really be like the Samkhya.
The conduct of naked Jains would be like that of monks.
Meditation on compassion would be as in Hindu tradition.
The conduct of secret mantra would be like that of the Shaivites.
Showing a partial similarity with Buddhis teachings, the Five Destructions of Viṣṇu56 says:
There is complete transcendence of mere names.
Things and non-things are completely abandoned.
True liberation from all emission and gathering57
Has been designated “the son of the god of wealth.58”
In the real, real things do not exist.

Non-things also have no unreality.59
Real things and non-things are completely liberated,
56 Viṣṇu’s tenth avatar Kalkī brings about the destruction of the world at the end of the dark age and the
renewal of the Golden age. The story is similar in many ways to the Buddhist story of the 25th Kalkī king
of Shambhala. I don’t know the details of five destructions.
57 Similar to arising and destruction of separate dualistic relative things.
58 Because liberation that fulfills all desires is the most excellent wealth.
59 Concepts of real and unreal are transcended.


By what are they known? By that itself.60
Also the Composition on the Beauty of Śiva says:
One son, Bhramā, is supremely true.
The lord of awareness is completely limitless.
When there is speaking only of “existence,”

Doing that is described as a completed noose.61
According to what is said there, except for Rangtong exponents being just a little not the same
as the other Buddhist views, certain aspects of the Indian and Buddhist views are superficially
very similar. On that basis, Rangtongpas invalidly claim that they are have no difference at all.
Such texts of the extremists are cited in the autocommentary of Śāntarakṣita’s Ornament of the Middle Way: We are said to be empty of the characteristics of the god Viṣṇu. Great and small
songs of the essence, Songs of Having Goodness, Songs of Establishing dominion, the “Lam ba
da of Śiva,” and various Samkhya texts that express views like those in the quotes above are
indeed heard from some of the Brahmin paṇḍitas.TT

Though the False Aspectarians and Saṃkhya are much alike,
Their mere terminology is mostly dissimilar.
Some Hindu terminology accords with our tantra texts.
Vaiṣṇava texts are somewhat like Prāsaṅgika.
The Shaivites are proclaimed to be like Svatantrika.
These advocates of a creator have such particular teachings.
If two views with partial likeness are completely equal,
As the best of extremist doctrines, the Saṃkhya system,
is famous, Buddhism too would have the virtue of fame.
Among those who maintain the bondage of saṃsāra,

Indians who maintain that something or other exists,
And those who maintain the existence of the perfectly established
Except for respectively being in India and in Tibet,
look and see whether the two are any different.62
According to the scriptures of the Conqueror and his children,
The Shentong view is correct, but literal Rangtong is not.A17
Some Rangtongpas, because the scriptures provide them no certainty,
Claim now that their view must be established by reasoning.
Their tradition is established by neither scripture nor reasoning.
60 Similar to saying that the knower of enlightened reality is the supreme self beyond concepts of relative
selfhood.

61 Because then there is the bondage of attachment to concepts.
62 Rangtongpas say that the two views are essentially alike, most importantly in maintaining a fallacious,
absolute self. Shentongpas say they have many important differences.
The Ornament of the Shentong Middle Way
19

Though indeed there is a need for validation by reason;
For those who have yet to attain the noble ones’ pristine wisdom,
The way things are is profoundly established by valid scripture.
If the scriptures that tell what is seen by meditation
over three eons beyond calculation are incorrect,
How could the thoughts of a common being be more valid,
When they can never transcend the sphere of erroneous concepts?
Moreover, this is so, because what is very hidden
From ordinary beings, but not from enlightened ones,
Must be reliably known by scriptural valid cognition.
We have to think like that.

9. Teaching that the absolute is free from the reasoning of Rangtong Madhyamaka
Analysis how they are not established as one and many,
Is rightly put forward regarding compounded phenomena.
Uncompounded phenomena are neither one nor many.A18
Non-things like space do not partake of these divisions.
However, when examinedUU by minds that are confused,
By thinking reality must conform to relative concepts,
And that all concepts have been refuted by reasoning,
The essence seems to be nothing at all, hence nonexistent.
As your Rangtong system refutes dharmatā as nonexistent,VV
Completely nonexistent, it can never change.
Pristine wisdom, nothing forever, has nothing to realize.
When divided parts of place and time exist,

That these parts are changeless is not possible.
No place exists that could not be an object of sense perception.
Time changes, because there are three times, the past and so forth.
Refuting arising, and so forth, does not refute dharmadhātu.
This pristine wisdom is unborn and never ceases.
Within the various greater and lesser different aspects
of the noble ones’ tradition of the Middle Way,

Cause and conditions, coming and going, defined and defining,
Extremes of before and after, co-dependent cause and effect;WW
All these limitless labels, when analyzed by reason,
Occur in the relative only, and not otherwise.
These causes and so forth are only things of the relative.
Dharmatā does not depend on such changing dharmins.
Whatever exists depending on conventional dharmins


is something that does not exist in its own right.
Dharmatā, which is established in its own right,
has no dependent establishment by cause and effect.
Therefore, it does not arise in interdependence,
And does not share the emptiness of interdependent phenomena.
10. Teaching how it is contradictory to maintain
that the emptiness of all phenomena is self-emptiness alone
All relative dharmas63 are empty. That is Shentong tradition.64
All relative dharmas are essenceless. That is Shentong tradition.
For you Rangtongpas, none of the phenomena

That constitute the aspects65 of awareness and appearance
Are maintained as “empty” in practice, and so the mere word is received. A19
If appearances, like those of a vase, are emptiness,
Because you postulate emptiness as absolute truth,
In your system, a vase and all dharmas of the relative
are established by reason as being absolute truth.
If, on the other hand, they are not emptiness,
Because they are existent within the relative,

Where alone existence and nonexistence have meaning,
That contradicts your claim, “All dharmas are emptiness.”
Shentongpas maintain three different kinds of emptiness
And maintain three kinds of related naturelessness.
These are not maintained in the absolute alone.A20
Shentong, with such an approach, does not contradict itself,
So a very superior doctrine arises in consequence.
Our empty aspect, the relative, is not absolute;
and our absolute’s true appearance is not relative.

11. Refuting that Rangtong Madhyamaka is ultimate
Since Rangtong transcends Mind-only, it is indeed Madhyamaka,
but it is not the ultimate Madhyamaka.
63 Here dharmas = phenomena = relative phenomena.
64 If the intention included absolute phenomena, sugatagarbha and so forth would also be empty.
65 Or those of grasping subject and grasped object, comprising all existent phenomena of the relative.


It has mere emptiness, but no ultimate emptiness.
Its non-affirming negation is indeed definitive,
but it is not the ultimate, definitive meaning,
As it denies experience of how things are.
For that reason, since Rangtongpas do not proclaim
The Middle Way as ultimate, how is it the Middle Way?
When Rangtong texts are analyzed, there is no Middle Way.
Shentongpas analyze too, but maintain a Middle Way.


Not asserting what they maintain as the ultimate Middle Way,
Rangtongpas “Great Madhyamaka” is not very greatXX at all.
It is, in fact, a dissonant mix of Cittamatrins
Who do not accept the doctrines of Cittamatra
and Sautrāntikas and Vaibhāṣikas who do not accept
The sūtra collection of the Lesser Vehicle.
How can theyYY deny the texts of Sautrāntika or Vaibhāṣika?ZZ
Don’t they all have the same ideas about what is real?
Rangtong tradition says “emptiness is the absolute.”

Yet, in Rangtong tradition, emptiness cannot exist,
As it is nothing but a logical principle,
And as no dharmas at all truly exist for Rangtong.
Because they establish their absolute as nonexistent,
it cannot be the ultimate way things really are.
Mere non-affirming negation can never reach the ultimate.
What is and is not dharmadhātu,AAA are both non-existent for Rangtong;
So “absolute dharmadhātu” is impossible for them.
Then how can experience of emptiness and the absolute dhātu,
Not be false and relative within the Rangtong system?
Objects of conceptions and objects of false seeing,

From the viewpoint of analysis for the absolute,
are nonexistent, as well as lacking true existence.
If these points do not establish such objects as relative,
what could ever suffice for their being so established?
If false and conceptual objects can be established as relative,
the absolute dhātu, not so established, will be true.
Since it will not be not relative, it will truly exist,
It will exist from the viewpoint of analysis,
andBBB it will be rightly maintained as perfectly established.A21
If this does not serve as the Middle Way, the way things are,
Maintaining freedom from conceptual complexity



will also fail to qualify as the Middle Way.
Does it matter if true existence is maintained,A22
As Shentong does, and Rangtong famously does not do?
We both deny the truth of conceptual characteristics,
But the truth of the real, devoid of proliferating concepts,
these Rangtong exponents do not grasp, even partially,66
And so they never do anything but just negate.

They refute all true existence and true describable qualities.CCC
As they apply to them all the reasons refuting the relative.
These reasons are also maintained within in our Shentong tradition:
The perfectly established has67 no truths of complexity.
If there is truth with complexity, we refute it as relative,
That is why, though it is the essence of everything,
it is said in Madhyamaka, “The absolute is essenceless.68”
Denying three vehicles, Śrāvakas claim “There is only one.”
They accept only the Buddha’s original Śrāvaka teachings.
Maintaining the same, Prāsaṅgikas follow after them.

The reason this is so is because these two schools are equal
in their realization of the two kinds of self.A23
Here, it follows that the kāya of the essence69
Truly exists for Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas,
and they irreversibly enter into it in attainment;
However, their kāya of the essence is not like ours.
If it were,DDD the three other kāyas would have the same reasoning.
Similarly, their Buddha, is not ours, and so forth.70
Thus, abandoning the obscuration of knowables,
By irreversibly entering the kāya of the essence,
Requires, for them, abandoning appearance altogether.
Rangtong also entails these many, fallacious conclusions.

Its view is faulty by mixture with Lower Vehicle doctrine.
Does it make a difference whether, in attainment,
They abandon the obscuration of knowables?A24
It follows from teaching the distinctions of such abandoning,
66 Though Jonangpas hold that those in Rangtong tradition who have a proper view of self-emptiness do
understand this as the meaning of statements like, “form is emptiness.”
67 OR in the perfectly established there are no truths of complexity.
68 In a sense where all essences involve the conceptual complexities of relative phenomena.
69 Svābhavikakāya.

70 None of these can have aspects of absolute appearance.


That the essence is indivisible, so this cannot be reversed.
All teachings have their power by the power of aspiration;
When Rangtong says that pristine wisdom has no appearance,
there is nothing left after analysis that we could aspire to.
Their dharmakāya withoutEEE distinctions is similar.
When those of the Lesser Vehicle have realized
the two kinds of selflessnesses of all phenomena,

They see such a dharmakāya. That is the common fruition
Of noble ones who abide within the Lesser Vehicle.
Though they have realized all objects as self-empty,
They cannot realize their emptiness within the absolute self.
They have only inferior emptiness of other
Where one relative thing is empty of another.
A vase is just without a pillar, and a pillar
Is just without a vase. Divisions do not exist

Between the refuted relative and the irrefutable absolute.
So for them, all phenomena are empty of themselves.
There can only be the single kind of abandoning,
that applies non-affirming negation to everything as one.
Since the all ground does not exist, karmic seeds have no place.
When material dharmas of mind and metal factors71 cease,
The three vehicles leave no remainder. Why are they not the same?
In insight that is merely non-affirming negation,
Since there are no knowables of any kind,
How can there be obscuration by dualistic knowables?
Their scriptures have no clarity, but others have clear scriptures.
“All dharmas are realized to have no self of dharmas,
”
Is not consistent forFFF Lesser Vehicle noble ones.
Substances and falsely imputed things exist for them,
and accepted objects of false conceptions are extensive.
If these faults are not realized, ultimate realization
ofGGG phenomena as they are is contradictory.
If you ask “is this not clear to these Lesser Vehicle noble ones?”
it is not something suitable for them to perceive,
As there is nothing left over from phenomena they renounce
To realize as the phenomena of enlightenment.
They do not know the reasons for this limitation,
And, as they have no means of eliminating concepts,
71 Dualistic mind that identifies the objects it apprehends as perceptions of separate, material objects and

mental factors that fill in their relative qualities.


They cannot realize the perceivable ultimate.
Suchness can never be discriminated
merely by abiding in conceptualHHH distinctions.
Maintaining external objects ascertained by six-fold consciousnesses,
While refuting the absolute all ground as well as self-awareness,
Maintaining concrete, merely relative objects of refuge,
Like Pratyekabuddhas and Śrāvakas, and in other ways,
Rangtongpas mix themselves with Lesser Vehicle doctrine.

12. How, when some Rangtongpas analyze doctrine, their reasoning establishes Shentong
When there is the Rangtong’s tradition’s freedom from complexity,
It is non-affirming negation that no one can experience.
It is mere logical inference from inconsistency
Disproving all assertions about the existence of something.

Experience of such unreality can never exist at all.
When conception makes a general image72 into its object,
Seen merely from the viewpoint of abstracting a relative nature,
the “sample” is verbally labeled and held in memory;
Because it is established by analysis

That such “natures” have no instance in experience,
When objects of relative natures are seen, they are delusion;
there is no reality in what is apprehended.
If it is true that there is such freedom from complexity,
it exists as something that is truly existing. A25
If it exists as something that is truly existing,
It bears examination for the absolute.

If not, relative dharmas and lack of true existence
have the same scope, as there is nothing real at all.
The pristine wisdom of the Conqueror and others,
supreme, is free from proliferating complexity.
When something appears from that viewpoint, it exists, and it is true.
When such dharmas do not appear, there is seeming duality
Of absolute and relative phenomena,

Equally nonexistent, from the noble ones’ viewpoint –
Like Mind-only’s empty abstractions of an absolute mind
And phenomena of the relative that exist within it.

72 In the mental sense.


Since non-deluded wisdom of the absolute,
sees the true nonexistence of the relative,
Freedom from complexity is deluded for Rangtong;
Not when regarded as a logical principle,
But when it is taken as a quality of the real;

because there is nothing real within the Rangtong system,
so that all phenomena are equally deluded.
Thus, “relative” and “absolute” cannot be distinguished.
All is alike, but insofar as the two are different,
As the only reality and virtues are those of the relative,
rather than the absolute, is it the relative
That is abiding as whatever is real and good.

Though, in pure reality, their two truths are equally nothing,
the relative, creates objects from the viewpoint of delusion.
These abstractions, by definition, are not absolute.
You now establish the relative by valid cognition,
Reaching that conclusion in dependence on maintaining,
“Absolute reality is certainly nonexistent,
So the only cognition of existence is relative.”
If so, our view deserves your contemptuous deprecation.
From the unexamined viewpoint of the world,

all the things of ordinary life exist.
However, from the viewpoint of analysis,
these same things should be analyzed as “nonexistent.”
“The relative does not exist in absolute truth,
however, as the relative, it does exist.”

That is called “the viewpoint of analysis;’”
But relative, in the world, is not divided from absolute.
As you equate existence and the viewpoint of the world,
Invalidating the viewpoint of analysis,
InIII your tradition, the relative exists absolutely.
You must maintain the two truths,JJJ to be quite nonexistent.
As appearance proved to be empty of the relative,
is what passes as the absolute in your tradition,

You do not refute appearance of the relative.A26
You say, “Though a vase is not empty of a vase,
A vase, from the ultimate viewpoint, has no true existence.”
Due to your abandoning grasping true existence,
From the ultimate viewpoint, are the two extremes abandoned,
Eternalistic existence, and a nihilistic void?
As you deny that there is absolute appearance,


From the viewpoint of meditation, no appearances exist.KKK
This nothingness is your ultimate. This is not the Middle Way!
“In every case, the two truths, relative and absolute,LLL
Equally exist or not,“ you say, but then,
“Absolute existence is an impossibility,
So all existence is relative.” This is contradictory.
For you, the absolute exists as the relative,
Which is to say that truth exists as falsity.

As all is the same, the relative also is absolute,
Which is to say that falsity is the only truth.
Since the absolute exists as the relative,
It follows that the absolute really is the relative,
As all beings existing as human are human beings.
Absolute and relative make no distinction at all,

And so in your system these terms are meaningless.
Moreover, the absolute must exist absolutely.
If the contrary is established, the absolute would be relative.
The absolute could not be not established as the ground.
There would be no criterion of truth and falsity,
Which is the definition of absurdity.

So the absolute is established as absolute reality.
If the absolute appears from the viewpoint of delusion,MMM
Awareness that apprehends the absolute is deluded.NNN
Since the absolute is defined as emptiness,
It follows that emptiness is realized by delusion.
According what is maintained by later Madhyamaka,
The relative exists, so wisdom is deluded,
Because in the meditation of the noble ones
Wisdom sees the relative as nonexistent.

Meditation is deluded, not to mention post-meditation.
If, from that viewpoint, wisdom,OOO is relative appearance,
The relative is true, and yet when it appears,
They inconsistently say, “it has no true appearance,”
and “the relative is appearance of what does not exist.”
Their relative appearance is not false appearance,
so it follows that the objects of relative truth exist.
For pristine wisdom, the relative appears to be nonexistent,
And so, for Rangtong, pristine wisdom is deluded.
From that viewpoint, when something appears to be existent,
it is true, and, therefore, a non-erroneous object.


So wrongly maintaining that refutation of refutation
Of relative true existence has been correctly established,
Exponents of Rangtong say the following words:
“If it were true and meaningful that the nature of relative dharmas
is that all such dharmas are without any true existence,
Why would that not similar to expositions of Shentong?A27”
If it is “not true,” by those two negating words,
As dharmatā is understood as the way things are,
All is equal in being only truly existent,
With no analytical viewpoint, no absolute, and so forth.”
Thus, these literalistic Rangtongpas unwittingly establish Shentong

13. Now a little is said about the suitability of our own system
Since the nature of dharmas is changeless, there is certainty
That dharmakāya exists within all sentient beings.
If, at the beginning, dharmakaya is not there,
But later it is, it has only a changeable nature.

Since what is compounded never exists, it is nonexistent.
Changeless suchness is certainly something uncompounded.
It is known to transcend both real things and non-things.73
Because it is the way things are for enlightened beings,
It cannot be refuted; and, as it is the viewpoint
of absolute pristine wisdom that is never deluded,
Even in knowing delusion,74 it is not deluded.

The absolute, dharmadhātu is therefore, truly existing.
Awareness of the relative is of deceptive phenomena.
Material objects and non-things can never be truly experienced.
Thus, there are criteria distinguishing truth and falsity.
Therefore, dharmadhātu is absolute awareness.
The suchness of the dhātu is realized as75 good.

Since it is absolute goodness, that goodness is supreme.
Though Rangtong claims that relative goodness is goodness itself,
Because is it is the only goodness that there is;
73 Of the relative.
74 Experienced by other deluded beings.
75 It is established by experiential valid cognition, and its being basic goodness is part of that experience.


Why should absolute goodness not be said to be good,
When it is so experienced in the truth of realization?
These words are from the Ghanavyūha Sūtra:
The ground of all various topics
Is goodness, sugatagarbha,

A word for that essence is “all ground”
It is so taught by the buddhas.
The Abhidharmakoṣa says:

What is absolute goodness? It is suchness.”
By these words, the all ground is taught to be pristine wisdom.
Since it is suchness, there can be only pristine wisdom.
When there appears to be anything else, it is delusion.
By being explained as goodness, it is not the all ground consciousness.
The experience of consciousness may be good or bad,
But it is never experienced as eternal, absolute goodness.
This is teaching the all ground of wisdom and sugatagarbha.
In abhidharma, that suchness is taught as the cause of enlightenment,
Because it is also explained to be the uncompounded,

Realization of which is realizing enlightenment.
The absolute truth of cessation is the only truth,76
Because it is not unreal, and it transcends the false relative.
In Shentong, by one truth, the other one77 is empty.
Therefore, if you think this emptiness is inferior,
To other kinds, and especially to Rangtong’s self-emptiness,
The sūtras teach seven kinds of emptiness:
(1) Emptiness of characteristics,

(2) emptiness of the nature of real things,
(3) Emptiness of the possible,
(4) emptiness if the impossible,
(5) So-called emptiness of the inexpressible,
(6) The great emptiness of the absolute pristine wisdom of the noble ones, and
(7) One thing being empty of another.
(1) Real things are empty of their general characteristics.
(2) Real things are empty of arising by their own nature.
76 The truth of cessation of suffering is the only one of the four noble truths that is absolute. The others are
relative.

77 Of the two truths.



(3) The skandhas, and so forth, are empty of the two kinds of self,
(4) Empty of nirvāṇa, and (5) of imputed natures.
(6) Pristine wisdom of the absolute is empty
Of karmic seeds of all conceptual, faulty views.
(7) The individual characteristics of relative things,
are empty of each other. So the list is explained.

Six of these seven different kinds of emptiness
are supreme, but the seventh kind is the least of them.
Regarding the great emptiness, the ultimate way things are,
With no self of individuals, it is always empty of other.78
However, as this emptiness is anything but inferior,
It is suchness, dharmakāya, and the truth of the path.79
Explained as the absolute, the changeless perfectly established.
That is the uncompounded and the absolute truth.

The Five Hundred Stanza Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says of the three kinds of emptiness:
“Because their three natures are also taught, we should have faith in them.
Conclusion and Dedication of Merit
The views of those that dispute with the view of Shentong in general
Are straightforwardly analyzed here, with scripture and reasoning.
Moreover, as many students of Shentong as closely analyze
Their own tradition should know the texts that are involved.
Free from one and many, the root of truth in reasoning
Is reaching the absence of compounded phenomena.80

Then we refute concepts of selfhood, in whatever logical style,
As the Twenty Verse Treatise81 PPP refutes external objects.
Our tradition clearly occurs in all Yogācāra texts,
Chiefly the Discrimination of the Middle and Extremes.
The extensive reasoning is explained in copious treatises.
78 Perhaps the selfhood of individual phenomena is included within the self of individuals here, since there must be

both of the two kinds of emptiness of relative selfhood for the absolute to be empty of other.
79 There can be a path leading to the cessation of suffering, because the absolute, and pristine wisdom, as the essence
of the path, are real.
80 Experience of the absolute provides reasoning with the perceptual valid cognition that establishes the
propositions establishing Shentong by reason. Until then it must be established from scripture. It cannot
be established by reasoning alone, because it is beyond the scope of reason.
81 By Vasubandhu.


All this is the matchless tradition of the Middle Way.82
Though this was explained again and again by competent ones,
What is contained in this great tradition was cast aside.
Though some necessary teachings have been explained
That are easy to understand, many new sophistries
Are propagated, in the attempt to discredit them.
This extraordinary manner of the Great Vehicle
Is disparaged as Mind-only, with the implication

That it should be abandoned, because of that bad name.83
Our critics claimQQQ that we take refuge in literalism.
They always like to apply this “conquering reasoning.”
Furthermore, there are countless detailed analyses
Of disputed points within the systems of Rangtong and Shentong
That do, indeed, make progress, but are hard to understand.
If such writings are not helpful to other beings,
They are useless. Therefore, they should not be written.

By the merit of this explanation, may limitless sentient beings
Abide within the holy Dharma of the Great Vehicle,
And experience absolute truth in all its totality.
May they quickly attain the level of the all-knowing Conqueror.
May they experience the joy of undefiled Dharma.

That was the Versified Ornament of Shentong Madhyamaka, gzhan stong dbu ma’i rgyan tshig le’ur byas pa. It
was entirely composed in the kingdom of Patāranā, in my thirtieth year at the Jonang hermitage. May
auspicious goodness increase. There are 157 new verses. Mangalaṃ. Translated and Edited.
82 Madhyamaka. The tradition of literalistic Rangtong that does not go beyond logic can never include the
Middle Way between logic and experience.

83 Rangtong and Shentong agree that Mind-only erroneously accepts that conceptually describable mind
is absolute.


Scriptures Related to the Ornament of Shentong Madhyamaka
By Jetsun Tāranātha
Namo guru buddha satvebyaḥ
I prostrate with devotion to those who are worthy of homage
The beautiful ornament of Shentong Madhyamaka,
the excellent form of the Middle Way is set out here.
Of the citations from the excellent, requisite Scriptures,

just those from the sūtras have been gathered here.
They teach the definitive meaning – which the competent should maintain.
Regarding this definitive meaning, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra says:
To give an example, the Blessed One is like this: The sky is all of one taste, and all
that it has to offer is unobscured. Likewise, after beginning with teaching, to start
with, how there is no essence of phenomena and there is natural, complete nirvāṇa,
the Blessed One then taught the definitive meaning. This is of one taste with all the
sūtras of the provisional meaning. All his sayings in the Śrāvaka Vehicle, the
Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Great Vehicle, are unobscured.84

The absolute teacher purely and truly explains the definitive meaning. This is done through the
power of understanding its relationship to what is opposite and additional to it. The Akṣayamati
Nirdeśa Sūtra says:
Sūtras that teach relative practice are said to be of the provisional meaning. Sūtras
that teach absolute practice are said to be of the definitive meaning.
Sūtras taught for the purpose of entering into the path are said to be of the
provisional meaning. Sūtras taught for the purpose of entering into the fruition are
said to be of the definitive meaning.

Likewise, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says:
84 The first, provisional teachings are not false, because, when rightly understood, they contain the
Buddha’s true intention partially and from certain limited viewpoints.


What is abiding in the definitive meaning? “The definitive meaning” is awareness of
the Dharma of realization. Abiding in it involves never living in illusion, behaving
hypocritically, creating pride, or being attached to acquisition and fame. In the
Dharma taught as means of practice, the Tathāgata said, “Do not produce
attachment.” That is called “the definitive meaning.” When someone abides in that
teaching, that individual is called “one who abides in absolute truth.” Therefore,
abide in the definitive meaning.

What is not abiding merely in the meaning for guiding?85 It is the meaning for guiding
when the sūtras say ,”All is torment: “All is impermanent. All is suffering. All is empty.
All is selfless.” Such teaching is called “the meaning for guiding….”
Moreover, the Śrāvaka vehicle is called “the meaning for guiding,” The unsurpassable
Great Vehicle is called “the definitive meaning.”

It is the meaning for guiding when someone says, “The Tathāgata is impermanent. He
changes. He is transient.” When someone says, “The Tathāgata is permanent. He does
not change. He is not transient,” that is called “the definitive meaning.”
When someone enters into realization through the Śrāvaka vehicle, what is realized is
the meaning for guiding. The insight gained through entering into realization through
the bodhisattva teachings is called “the definitive meaning.”

When someone says, “The Tathāgata must live by food,” that is the meaning for
guiding. When someone says, “The Tathāgata is permanently abiding, unchanging, and
not transient,” that is called ”the definitive meaning.”

When someone says “The Tathāgata’s nirvāṇa is like a fire that dies, when the wood that
fuels it is exhausted,” that is the meaning for guiding. When someone says, “The
Tathāgata abides eternally as dharmadhātu,” that is called “the definitive meaning.”
The extensive divisions are taught in the Akṣayamati Nirdeśa Sūtra. Some treatises say that a
teaching that leads students from a meaning that is readily grasped to another intended
meaning86 is called a teaching of “the provisional meaning.” As such a meaning is a stage on the
path that leads to the definitive meaning, these two explanations are not contradictory.
Regarding,

Nāgārjuna, as well as Asaṅga and his brother,
Establish that the three turnings...
Nāgārjuna’s Root Verses on the Middle Way says:
85 Guiding from saṃsāra to the definitive meaning.
86 In Tibetan, “leading” is drang, “meaning” is don, and “provisional meaning” is drang don.


Knowing things and non-things, The Blessed One said,
In the Sūtra of Instructions to Katyayana,
“Existence and nonexistence are both refuted.RRR”

That citation establishes that, like the Buddha’s other turnings of the wheel of Dharma, the first turning, teaches that ultimate reality is free from conceptual extremes, and that nirvāṇa alone is
true. Saying thatSSS teaches that the middle turning, in addition to teaching the emptiness and
non-existence of all relative phenomena, has the further ultimate intention of Shentong.
The teachings of Maitreya, as well as all the texts of Asaṅga and his brother, say that the
intention of all of the three turnings can be summarized as one. The MahāyānasūtrālaṁkaraTTT is
alone in commenting on the intentions of all three turnings. Even so, it does not teach that their
view and doctrine three, rather than one. In that text’s explanations of these turnings’
intentions, their view and doctrine is not taught to be three,UUU because it is taught to be single.
Regarding “medicine for the sick,VVV” the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says:

As a sick man, for his sickness,
Is given medicine by a physician,
So the Buddha, to sentient beings,
Gives the teachings of Mind-only.87
Regarding “the example of... learning letters,” Nāgārjuna says in his Precious Garland:
As grammarians first introduce reading
By teaching letters; likewise,

The Buddha teaches to students,
As much Dharma as they can bear.
Regarding “the Sūtra of Katyayana,” The reason for teaching Katyayana the instructions
taught in that sūtra is that he was attached to stable existence and nonexistence in this world.
Therefore, he was not liberated from birth, old age, sickness, and death; from pain and
lamentation; and from suffering, unhappiness, and being disturbed. He was not liberated from
cycling among the five kinds of beings.88

Regarding “Maheśvara and so forth indeed have been called exalted,” The venerable
Vajrapāṇi says:
The Maheśvara of the Vedas
87 When capitalized, Mind-only refers to Great Vehicle school maintaining the provisional teaching that
dualistic mind is absolutely real.
88 Like this six, combining gods and jealous gods as one.
Jetsun Tāranātha

Truly attains the whole earth.
That is taught in the Vajra Peak Tantra. There are very many other such passages.
Regarding “the four reliances...” The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says:
O Monks, abide in four teachings. What are these four?

1. Abiding in the teaching and not abiding in the individual who teaches it.
2. Abiding in the meaning and not abiding in the literal words.
3. Abiding in pristine wisdom and not abiding in consciousness.
4. Abiding in the definitive meaning and not abiding in the provisional meaning.
The individuals who realize these four are not individuals of four different kinds. Each
individual should realize all four.

These four reliances taught there are extensively explained in the Sūtra Taught by Akṣayamati.
Regarding “the middle is definitive, and the last turning is provisional,” and so forth, taught
in three verses, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Chapter Seven, says:

Then the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata said to the Blessed One, “The Blessed One
first, in the region of Vāraṇasi, in the Deer Park Ṛiṣivadana, by fully teaching the four noble truths, for those who would truly abide in the Śrāvaka vehicle, turned a
wondrous, marvelous wheel of Dharma. No one, gods or humans, had turned it in the
world before. This wheel of Dharma turned by the Blessed One was surpassable, had a
cultural context, was of the provisional meaning, and was a subject of controversy.
Then, for those who would truly abide in the Great Vehicle, through the aspect of
speaking about emptiness, he turned an even more wondrous, marvelous wheel of Dharma. In it, the Blessed One composed teachings saying that the essence of
phenomena does not exist, arising does not exist, cessation does not exist, and that there
is peace from the beginning that is nirvāṇa, natural, complete transcendence of suffering.
This wheel of Dharma turned by the Tathāgata was surpassable, had a cultural context,
was of the provisional meaning, and was a subject of controversy.
Then, well-distinguishing for those who truly abide in all vehicles, he turned a third
supremely wondrous, marvelous wheel of Dharma. This turning of the wheel of
Dharma by the Blessed One was unsurpassable, had no cultural context, was of the
definitive meaning, and was not a subject of controversy.

Also, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says:
Within the twelve divisions of the Buddha’s teachings, the Sūtra Collection arises. Within
the sūtras, the very extensive class arises. Within the very extensive class the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras89 arise. Within the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
arises, as the essence of butter arises from churning milk. The “essence of butter”
exemplifies buddha nature. “Buddha nature” is the Tathāgata.
Also, the Sūtra Benefiting Aṅgulimāla says:
Then Aṅgulimāla said these words to Purna the son of Maitrayani:90
By all the buddhas and Śrāvakas,

That which none have found,
That phenomenon, after enlightenment,
Should be taught to living beings.

What is the import of these words that were taught? Purna said: “The blessed buddhas
of the past sought, within all phenomena,91 for the dhātu of sentient beings, a self, a lifeprinciple,
an individual, that from which their strength arose, and a son of Manu;92 but
not finding them, they thought, “Selflessness, is the Word of the buddhas,” and they
passed beyond them. Similarly, the blessed buddhas of the present and future do not
and will not find these. The same is true of all the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas.”
Having said that, Purna said further, “Thus they teach that a life-principal, an
individual, a possessor of strength, a son of Manu, a sentient being, and a dhātu of self
are nonexistent, so that there is selflessness. Therefore, the buddhas teach that all these
phenomena are empty, and they teach that with such a Dharma terminology.
Then Aṅgulimāla said these words to Purna the son of Maitrayani:

Alas venerable Purna, you are making noises like a fly. You do not know how to teach
Dharma terminology. A fly knows only how to make the sound “zi zi.” Insect-like fool
that you are, say no more!

Purna, because you do not know the hidden speech of the Tathāgata, thinking that
selflessness alone is the Dharma, you fall into the dharma of stupidity, as a moth falls
into a lamp.
Regarding “that which “the buddhas have not found,” the blessed buddhas of the past,
not finding tathāgatagarbha to be nonexistent among the relative phenomena that
comprise all sentient beings, went beyond that. The blessed buddhas of the present also
do not find the absence of the dhātu of self within all sentient beings. The blessed
buddhas of the future also will not find the absence of the dhātu of self within all
sentient beings. The Pratyekabuddhas and Śrāvakas also did not, do not, and will not
find, the absence of the dhātu of self within all sentient beings, in any of the three times.
This is the meaning of the verses above.

89 Prajñāpāramitā.
90 An arhat among the Buddha’s ten close Śrāvaka retinue. He was excellent at teaching Dharma.
91 Here phenomena = relative phenomena.
92 The primordial human being of the first eon, in Indian mythology, like Adam in the Bible.


Also, regarding “that which all the buddhas have not found,” though the blessed
buddhas of the past diligently searched among all phenomena, they did not find a
worldly self the size of a thumb, a grain of millet or rice, or a mustard or sesame seed;
red, blue, yellow, or white in color; short, long, or very long in length; and so forth, a self
said by the Hindus to be “blazing and present in the heart,” and to be eternal, stable,
and changeless.WWW

Not having found such a self, when all the buddhas and Śrāvakas had become
completely enlightened, they explained this to living beings. That is the meaning of that
verse above; but Purna analyzed it wrongly, and so his explanation is not its actual
meaning.

Also, regarding “that which the buddhas have not found,” the blessed buddhas of the
past, not having found a produced Tathāgatagarbha, went beyond it; yet the
unproduced dhātu of buddhahood, adorned with limitless excellent major and minor marks, exists within all sentient beings.

The blessed buddhas of the present, though they diligently search for a produced
Tathāgatagarbha, do not find it; yet the unproduced dhātu of buddhahood, adorned
with limitless excellent major and minor marks, exists within all sentient beings.
The blessed buddhas of the future, though they will diligently search for a produced
Tathāgatagarbha, will not find it; yet the unproduced dhātu of buddhahood, adorned
with limitless excellent major and minor marks, exists within all sentient beings.

The fly-like Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas of the three times acknowledge that
Tathāgatagarbha exists; but they also say, “It cannot be seen with the eyes,” and they
wonder what the cause of this may be. I will teach that cause. It is like this.
Rahulaśrībhadra, was very devoted to training and discipline, and so he looked very
diligently to see whether his drinking water contained living beings. He thought, “are
there living beings, or not, as it seems there is just dust, and none are there.” When he
systematically examined the water, he saw that tiny living beings were indeed abiding
there.

Similarly, tiger-bodhisattvas who have attained the tenth bodhisattva level see for
themselves that, within their bodies, the dhātu of selfhood exists. These bodhisattvas see
the limitless dhātu like that. Entering into experience of tathāgatagarbha like that is said
to be very difficult and to require great perseverance. This world is as if entirely blazing
and supremely blazing everywhere. Those within it who give up their personal lives to
become teachers, teach this benefit that is very hard to accomplish. I teach
tathāgatagarbha to these tiger-bodhisattvas, but I do not teach it to others.


Sentient beings themselves are tathāgatas.93 For example, vision is unobstructed in those
who have the miraculous eye. Therefore, when child-like ones who have the eye of flesh
come together with these unobstructed ones, and they all look for track of a bird in the
sky, do these child-like ones who have the eye of flesh see the track of a bird in the sky,
or is it these unobstructed elders with the miraculous, divine eye who can clearly see it?
Ordinary individuals having the eye of flesh can proceed only by becoming confident in
the kindness of these elders.

Similarly, Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, like these childlike ones that have the eye of flesh, becoming confident of the manner of all the sūtras, know that tathāgatagarbha
exists; but how can they see the dhātu that is an object of the tathāgatas with correct
vision? If Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas must rely on the kindness of others, in this
case; how can ordinary people become confident of tathāgatagarbha, when their vision
of it is no better than that of the blind?

“Formerly, on this earth, there were four94 sweets.” Those words are saying, “this was
not taught by former truly, completely enlightened buddhas, but I have heard it.”
Present sentient beings who tasted these four sweets by eating them as children, having
becoming accustomed to them over a long time, even now cannot give up their delicious
taste.

Similarly, sentient beings who formerly meditated on tathāgatagarbha and who
performed many other actions with regard to it, in the presence of many truly,
completely enlightened buddhas of the past, even now have confidence in
tathāgatagarbha. That is because those beings have long since meditated on
tathāgatagarbha. They have long since repaid the kindness of the tathāgatas with
practice, and not otherwise. In the future too, sentient beings who hear and believe the
teachingXXX of tathāgatagarbha will not be otherwise. These children of the tathāgatas,
like those who ate the four sweets as children, will repay the kindness of those
tathāgatas with practice.

Regarding “the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as provisional meaning...,” the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says:
Mahāmati asked, “When tathāgatagarbha was taught in other sūtras spoken by the
Blessed One, the Blessed One said there that, since tathāgatagarbha was luminous and
completely pure by nature, it was completely pure from the beginning, possessed the
thirty-two major marks, and existed within the bodies of all sentient beings.
The Blessed One said that, like a precious gem of great price wrapped in dirty rags,
tathāgatagarbha is wrapped in the rags of the skandhas, constituents, and sense sources.
Thus, its manifestation is overcome by stains of passion, aversion, and stupidity, and it
is completely defiled by defilements of conceptualization.

93 Because their essence is buddhahood, and they are capable of manifesting it.
94 The well-known list of three sweets is 1. honey, 3. molasses, and 3. sugar. I know of no list of four.


Tathāgatagarbha was said there to be permanent, stable, and changeless. Why is this
speech of the Blessed One about tathāgatagarbha not like Indian extremists’ teaching
of a self? Blessed One, Indian extremists also teach a self that is permanent, the doer
of all, has no conceptually describable95 qualities, is all-pervading, and is
indestructible.

The Blessed One spoke, saying “Mahāmati, my teaching of tathāgatagarbha is not
like Indian extremists’ affirmation of a self. Mahāmati, the tathāgatas, the arhats, the
completely perfect buddhas teach tathāgatagarbha as the meaning of the words
“emptiness,” “the true pure ultimate,” “nirvāṇa,” “the unborn,” “the signless,” “the
wishless,” and so forth. They teach tathāgatagarbha so that childish ones may
abandonYYY being frightened by selflessness. Through the means of tathāgatagarbha,
they teach the topic of the completely non-conceptual, the sphere of enlightened
experience without false relative appearance.

Thus Mahāmati, bodhisattva great beings who arise in the future and present should
not be attached to this teaching, as a teaching of selfhood.
Regarding “the example of medicinal milk and that of a jewel,” the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
says:

The Buddha spoke saying..., “It is like this, for example. A king of little competence and
little knowledge had a physician who was also incompetent and foolish. Not realizing
this, the king bestowed great rewards on thatZZZ physician. That foolish physician gave
milk as a medicine for all sicknesses. He did not know the cause from which any
sicknesses first occurred. Incompetent even in giving milk as medicine, he gave milk as
medicine for all wind, phlegm, and bile diseases. As even that physician himself did not
realize, the king too could not distinguish when giving medicinal milk was good or
bad.”

“Then, a competent physician came to the king from another country. He possessed
eight kinds of understanding,96 was very skilled in curing all diseases, and had mastered
all kinds of diagnoses. At that time, the incompetent physician, not questioning or
learning from the capable one, adopted an arrogant attitude. At that time too, the
capable physician, seeming to rely on the incapable one, took him as his master. Because
the capable one had trained in secret methods of diagnosis, the foolish physician also

mastered them, but he was so stupid that he did not realize that he had learned them
from the capable one. He made a promise to the capable one with these words. ‘If you
act as my servant for forty-eight years, I will teach you these diagnoses.AAAA’”
“Then that capable physician gave an answer in accord with the speech of the incapable
one, saying, ‘I will do that. I will be your servant as long as my leprosy lasts.’”
95 Words in red red-orange are annotations by Dölpopa to the same passages in Mountain Dharma.
96 I do not know this list.


“Then that foolish physician, bringing the new physician with him, went to the king’s
palace. Meeting with the king, the new physician did various diagnoses for him.
Furthermore, he made a great deal of intelligent conversation. In the end, he took over
rulership of the country, and this was his means of curing the king’s sickness. He
remarked, ‘Great king, comprehend what is going on here!’ The king harkened to the
words he said. Realizing that his former physician was incapable, he expelled him from
the country.”

“Then the new physician did further healing rites and homage, thinking at that time,
‘the time has come to teach this king.’ Having thought that, he made a request to the
king with these words. ‘Great king, my intentions are many, so please grant a request of
mine.’”

“The king replied in appreciation, ‘From my right hand to all the limbs of the body, may
they arise as you desire, and may all of them be given to you.’”
“The physician requested further, ‘Thus, all the limbs of the king’s body will indeed be
given to me; but my mind will not be capable of dealing with it, if I ask too much.
However, for the sake of all the people of the country, from now on, please proclaim as
lawBBBB forbidding the treatment of the old physician, giving milk as medicine. Why?
Because that medicine is poisonous, many people will die, if they drink it. Therefore, if
anyone gives that medicine, the best of the limbs of the giver should be cut off. If that is
decreed, giving milk as medicine will be forbidden. Then, before long, there will be no
more death from drinking it. All the people will be happy and comfortable, so please
grant my request.’”

“Then the king said, ‘Your request is very beneficial. From now on, if one of the people
of the country is sick, no milk shall be given as medicine. If people give milk as
medicine, the best of their limbs, the head, shall be cut off.’”
“So he decreed. At that time the capable physician gave medicines of various tastes, hot,
bitter, sour, sweet, astringent, and so forth. Sicknesses were cured and none of them was
uncured. Then, before very long, the king himself was struck by sickness, and he
summoned that physician and asked, ‘I am suffering very much from this sickness. How
can I be cured?’”

“The physician, looking at the king’s illness, said, ‘It seems milk is the necessary
medicine.’ He said to the king, ‘To join the king’s sickness with skillful means, please
take milk as medicine. My formerly saying that giving milk as medicine was
inappropriate was false. Actually, there is no better medicine than milk. Since the king’s
illness comes from heat, it would be good to give milk as medicine, in this case.’”

“The king said, ‘Physician are you mad, or, if someone is struck by a sickness of heat, is
milk really beneficial? Before you said that milk was poisonous. How can I drink it now?
Are you taking good care of me, or is this medicine that was praised by the previous
physician truly poisonous? Now that the former physician has been expelled, you say
Jetsun Tāranātha

that milk is a good medicine for sickness. Yet if that saying is joined with your former
words,CCCC my oldDDDD physician was certainly capable.”
“Then the capable physician made this request of the king, ‘Your majesty, “Don’t say
that! For example, a wood-eating worm may leave a letter as a track in the wood it is
eating, even though the worm has no idea whether there is a letter there or not. When

competent persons possessing superior knowledge see that later, they do not grasp it as
miraculous and say ‘This worm knows letters!’’”
““Great king, your former physician was also like that. Since he had no understanding
of illness, his giving milk for all of them was like a letter inadvertently left behind by a
worm. Your former physician did not know when milk was good and suitable and when
it was bad and unsuitable.”

“The king said, ‘Indeed, my former physician did not know that.’”
“The capable physician said, ‘The medicine milk is both poisonous and amṛita that
confers deathlessness. How can medicinal milk be both poisonous and amṛita? If cows
are given grass and grain residue from making beer, when they eat the grain husks, their
calves will be very tame. The place they live should not be the top of a high mountain.

They should live where it is not cold. The water they drink should be from clear
mountain streams that do not flow too strongly. When herd-leading bulls and ordinary
animals of the herds do not live together, they both eat and drink contentedly. Milk of
cows that are contented in their going and staying benefits the sick. For that reason, it is
called “amṛita.” Milk that is not like that is said to be poisonous for all.’”

“Then the great king, hearing those words, replied. ‘It is good, physician; it is very good!
From now on, I shall know whether milk is good and suitable or bad and unsuitable.
Then, if milk is given as medicine, the sickness will be cured. From now on, the
command shall be given To all the people of the country, ‘Drink milk!’’”
“On hearing these words, the people of the country, reviled the king, saying ‘O King, is
your conceit due to hungry ghosts or madness? What is wrong with you? We are being
deceived by being taught, ‘Drink milk.’’”

“As long as all the people were angry, they remained before the king’s eyes. The king
spoke to them saying, ‘Don’t you criticize me. This physician has investigated whether
milk is suitable or unsuitable as medicine, and so I have no fault.’”

“Then the great king and all the people of the country were very joyful. After that, they
all sang a song, and special reverence and respect arose for that physician. All the sick
people had their sicknesses cured by being given medicinal milk.”
“You too, O monks, in such a manner, should offer reverence to the Tathāgata, the
Arhat, the truly perfect Knower. The Sugata, the Knower of the World, the
unsurpassable Tamer of Beings, the Charioteer, the Teacher of gods and humans, the
blessed Buddha should be known like that. Coming into the world as the Great




Physician, overcoming all the bad-seeming medicines of the extremists, I am the
physician to all kings.“
“What I said before was taught for the sake of taming extremists through the words,
‘Self is nonexistent. The individual is nonexistent. Sentient beings are nonexistent. Life is
nonexistent. A possessor of power is nonexistent. A person is nonexistent. Knowing,
action, and the doer are nonexistent,’ Saying these things, I taught them at that time.”

“O monks, the so-called self of the extremists is like letters left in wood eaten by a worm.
Therefore, the Tathāgata taught ‘the Buddhadharma is selflessness.’ That was for taming
beings, due to knowing the times. Teaching that self is nonexistent like that had a certain
cause and conditions. In the same way, my teaching now that self is existent is like a
competent physician knowing when milk as medicine is suitable and unsuitable.
Inferior, childlike people, in grasping a self, grasp it as being the size of a thumb, a
mustard seed, or a small particle. Therefore, the Tathāgata teaches that that the self is not
like that. Though the Tathāgata teaches that all phenomena are selfless, they are not
selfless in true reality. Self is a phenomenon that is really true, eternally abiding, and a
master who is changeless and without transition. That is what is called “self.” Teaching
that is like the great physician who was capable in using milk as medicine. The

Tathāgata is also like that; For the sake of ordinary beings, he teaches, “All phenomena
really have a self.” You and the four kinds of retinue, monks, nuns, laymen, and lay
women, should act diligently within all phenomena in that manner.
Also, the Sūtra Requested by King Dharaṇīśvara or the Sūtra Teaching the Great Compassion of the
Tathāgata says:

Child of noble family, it is like this, for example. Skilled jewelers who know well the
methods for purifying jewels take a completely unpurified jewel, from the family of
precious stones. Soaking it in a sharp mineral salt solution, they completely clean it97
by thoroughly rubbing it with hair-cloth.98 However, they do not cease their efforts
with just that.

After that, soaking the gem in sharp food juice,99 they completely clean it by
polishing with a woolen cloth. However, they do not cease their efforts with just
that.

97 “Sharp,” rnon po, makes me wonder if lan tshwa and zas kyi khu just below might mean some kind of
semi-liquid polishing compound, containing dust of a substance as hard as or harder than the gem stone.
Hopkins, Mountain Doctrine, p. 203, says soda, which would have some detergent properties, and herbal
juice. His text seems to be not quite the same as this.
98 Hair, or cloth woven from hair of a goat, yak, etc.
99 Hopkins, op. cit., says quicksilver.