Where Buddhas and Siddhas Meet Mipam S Y

11
WhereBuddhasand Siddhas Meet

MipamsYuganaddhavada Philosophy
DORJI WANGCHUK
~ a r~centreview article on Douglas S. Duckworth's study of Mipam Namgyel

?yatso'~ (1846-1912) interpretati~n of the buddha-natl~re (tathagatagarbha)
~ - ~ry : toint~d out that while Duckworth is absolutely right in 出 s charte 乜 a
~on °_fMi~am•sphilosophy (0 「 philosca approach) as "dialectical monism ,
thereis still
~ nee~ to define and refine our understanding of-as I prefer to call
it一 Yugandhv
(zung'jug tu smra ba) philosophy, 2 namely, by (a) 邙 'Plicat -
mg some of th
e _tacit assumptions underlying his yuganaddha-related (zun g 冠）
thought, (b) trackin
g down and discussing his definitions and synonyms of yuga-
naddha,(c) presenthlg his id
posinga typology of eas relating to faulty notions of yuganaddha , (d ) pro -
(e) systemati core yuganaddha concepts defined or redefined by hint , tmd
~zing.various strategies or argum;nts employed by him for ~stablishing
a Yllganaddha
~elationship between any -two opposed ~r juxtaposed pole s. In this
~~ntribution,I intend therefore to explore som~ -of these ~venu~s,'"ith an as 血珝
tion th
hisinter ~ und~rstanding his Yuganaddhavada philosophy is key to tmderstandi~g
pretation, appreciation, and reconciliation of the major ~f 叩）如 o doctrines
in India
~d Tibet that crystallized into the form of)'l.lgan~ddha do-ctrine- which
he beli eueved was taught by all "awakened ones" (buddhas) and''uccon1plishcd ones"
(siddhas)alike一 particuly of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltst•n's (1292 - 1361) zhentong
(gzhanstong) philosophy and Tsongkhnpa Loz,mg Drokp..l's (1357 - 1419) n 叩 gton
(rang stong) philosophy.3
THE 1ERM YUGANADDHA
A brief explanallon of the key term zwag du'jug pa (or zung)ug) - the Tibetan
translation""
of the Sanskrit yuganaddJui- whlch underlies MJpan1'sYugandh 沮 da
273
芍 4 DORll \\TANGCHU K
philosophy, ma y be required here . Whether specified or not, th

e expression xyzun,
;ug always see ms to be employe d as a bahuvrihi (i.e., (i adjectival) compound
qualifies other nouns (represented by z) . Thu s the expression chos.kun
dbyings rig zung du ;ug p a4 (i.e., where x is dbyings, y is rig pa, and
g~1gnaslugs
choskun
;1~
gyi gnas lugs) ma y be translated as "th e reality of all ph enomena, which iis character
-
ized by the nature ofunity l integrality (lit ., Perhaps 'state ofbeing yoked l p 皿 ed
/ co njoine d / unified ') of the sphere [of reality] and cognition :'O ther form; such
as zung du zhugs pa, 5 zung du chud pa ,6 and zung du'brel ba7 have also been used.
In all of the se, what seems to be worth bearing in mind is that ;ug pa is obviously
understood in the sense of an intran sitive and h eteronomo us verb and thus would
mean something like "to occur (or co -occur) in (or as) a pair."
MIPAM'S YUGANADDHAVADA PHILOSOPHY
Mipam , as a Mahy 細 a philosopher , can be regarded as a Yuganaddhavadin par

excellence, inasmuch as he was a proponent of the view that major authoritative
Mahy 細 a scriptures, system s, and scholars in India and Tibet had one great ~nte~ -
prise ,·namely , to elucid~te the ultimate true reality, spiritual path, and spir!tu~ goal,
~s all having a unitary (or monopolar / unipolar) yuganaddha nature.8 ~e may
philosophicilly be designated as a ~onist, inas~uch as he consistently held ~a ~y
given (~ostly ) binary poles of entity versus reality are only apparently and relatively
dual or diverse but are actually and ultimately one or unitary. In particular, ~s ;ve
shall see, Mipam,s consistent a'nd persist ent ~gument that ther e c~ ultimatelf b:
only "one m~de of reality" (bden pa gcig) as the ultimate "one object of cogni?on
(gzhal bya gcig) and thu~ ultimat~ly ~nly "one valid type of coW1ition"(ts~zndm_a
gcig)-~hich ~ivolves no subject-object dichotom y, and~where the object of cog~1i-
tio~ (shes bya) and cognition, (shes pa) become in; ~par ably fused int~ one si?~ ~
point , which may best be describ~d as the "Dhar~akayai c point of singul 詛 ty
(chos sku thig le nyag gcig)9- seems to be crucial for 比 s Yug~a ddha vada ph ilos~-
phy. In other words, Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy -seems to culminat~ i~
the idea of the "indivisibility of cognition and the obje~t ·of cognition" (shes ,_ l,1~1.1!
sh~s bya ~bye: med)~which i s identical with the ide~ of the "yuganaddha of th~-
s~here of re~ity and gnosis" (dbyings ye I rig zung'jug) or the `.indi` sibiliw 0t
the sphere of reality and gnosis" (dbyingsye I rig dbyer ~ned),10 as also.tSsertcd h>
Rongzmp 劻 Such a line of thought is also linked with the "one vchidc" (tltt,gP"
gcig) theory;2 proposed by all Tibetan Buddhist traditions and schol.trs indu 中 1g
again Rongzompa.1l
Hermenculically or methodologically, however, ~lip,1m m~,rbe ch 叩｀ m c teri zc d
as a harmonist, inasmuch as he sought l0 C 編、 p~ain •~ntl intcrp~ct.iny given pair of
(authoritaUve but ohen diametricaUy) opPoscd or ju.àp oscd poles of scriptu res,
systems, tradiUons,schemes. standpolnts` and so forth, so as to recognize that thcy
are actually noncontradictory and co mpl c mcntory （尹 so to bee tn
i a position to
harmonize or reconcile them). His monlstic and harmonistic attitude and agenda.
which run like a thread through his writings dealing,vith Buddhi•st religion ru1d
AND SIDDHAS M EET 275
WHERE B UD DHAS
a crucial role in his lifel~~g philos.o?hical -~

to have played ~b~tion , however, will focus on his monistic
1 ◄ seem
p阯 osphY'.
咋 e present c~n
icalproject.
hermn 盂： his harmOnistic approach.
rather
MAHAYANIC HERMENEUTICS
MIPAM
's THREE THEORIES OF
ectation that understanding the hermeneutical schemes underlying

In 出 e exp
ddhavada Philosophywill helP us enhance ourunderstanding of
洵 aJl'sYugn
hisYuganaddhavada PhilosoPhy,
I-~ould like to briefly discuss three of his theo-
nesofexposition and interpretation, namely, his theories of (a) the two models
~f~;~f~ldtruth (satyadvaya, bden pa gnyis), (b) the two types of valid cognition
(tsha d ma 妒 !)'is, and (c) the two soteriological models .
TheTwo Models of Twofold Truth
Mipamproposed his theory of «two different satyadvaya models" (bden pa gnyis

kyiJogtshul mi ara ba gnyis; bden gnyis'jog tshul gnyis) on more than one occa-
~~n,15without ever apparently giving them technical labels. The labels given by later
!i~:tan ~cholars,such as Botr~ D~ngak Tenpai Nyima (1898 / 1900~1958), 16are
{a)"~ofo~d (objective I ontic) reality [compri~ing the modes of] appearance [and]
~mptin~ss," ~snangstong bden gnyis) and (b) "two-fold (subjective/ ~pistemic) truth
[comprising]the existence-percePtion[relation]' , (gnas snang bden gnyis) . The first
is an (objective) rea1ity model defining an ontology, and the second a subjective
~-u~ mo~el defining ~ epistemology~ According,..,;~ the first model , two ;spects
or dimensionsare attributed to the ontological entity or reality, namely, an ap 逛
~-~L ~p,ect (snang cha) or mode of appea;ance (sn~ng tshui),'called "~onven.tional
reality"(sa~vrtisatya, kun rdzob bden pa), and an emptiness aspect (sto11gcha) or
modeof ~xistence(gnas tshul), which is called "absolute reality"(pm arth ＾叫皿
dondam bden pa) . Thismodel PresuPPoses an objectivereality indePendent of 画
perceptionor conception ofit, or of any ofits proPositions that cou1d POssibly be
true. The relationshipbetween the objective satyadvaya accePted by Miptun wou1d
be one of "imtrinsic identica1ity but asPectual separateness''Ugo bo £ci'UldoSP I':
tha dad).1 1
• 11 Such a position seems to have been already propose
d br Rongzomr~ ·
As f~. as I understand , according to the second mod_el,a c~r~~ti~~t'obiCCtand a
cognitive subject betweenwhich there is no conrdae 一 tha S, beh@
1is. 」 `the
mode of perception
formefsobjective mode of existence and the latter`s subjecUve - arc c 、 lcd the "con-
(gnastshul dangsnang tshul mi mtIum pa'i yul dmIg yuI am;ubject ) between which
vcntional" (kun rdzob); a cognitlve objecl 1 、 d a cognitive
; obJectlve mode ot: 亞 Stenc
there is concordance- that is, betwcen the formcrs tslwl d,mg smmg C$ ,.hul mtl,`"'
andthe latterk subjective mode of perception @＇ t ；邲， 1am) ． 1he basic idea prc
pa'i yul dang yul car1)-are called the "absolute
subjective
conception. or proposi~~n
perce~!io~. .、 4ity.`
SUPPosedin this mO del is that a.fit tallics with objecUve ｀ The rclationship
can be regarded as "truth'`1 only l
~d absolute according to the subjective truthmodel
between thc conv cntlona
.!7 6 Do.RJI \\ 'A NGC H U K
~~ n ot be that o f `、 intr s i c idcntkali

ty but aspcctu::iJ
ldog puthn da d) but rath er one of ì dcnU separateness''
血 y-rcscindi (ngob。
bkag pa'i tha d ncl) 卫 Ing separatc n e 可呤 b
A qu estion that po ses itself is whether th
th esatyadvnya`' (bde,l
(bden. g,'y s zu n g 'j ug) ， whicsert
g1ly is dbycr med)or the `
philo soph y, work s accordingto the 6rst ``

te~c ) truth modelt or both. There i~
c theory of lhe
血 Uy the bedrock
｀ ind 迤 bil
yuganadd1Ia of the s at y ad 寧
of Mi
lp 咖 's Yuganaddh
(ontic) rcalitymodel ," th
e s econd
位 c ig 扣
鹹
哂
`
ofthe: ； `yafi'rs; 。問 ;del . aco 「`[
no doubt that the
advaya ·works perfectl y well ac~~;~ yugand 曲 a of
second model ) the yuganaddha But
inasmuch as the relationship between x andseem actually 血 · pos si ble,
Y that constitute the yuganaddhacan
hardlybeone ofessential identicali
ty (ngo bo gcig) and ma
ofmutual contradiction and yeven aPertob 吡
exclusion, given th~t what i1s conventionali
"false" (rdzun pa) and onl ts actuall y
Y what is absolute is actuallvY ""true'' (bden
tion , however, is that the yuganaddha of th pa). y M 蒞
indeed work al s?. according to the second model,· e satyadvaya should work and does
but
ferent conceptualization. Th only on the basisof a dif.
e x(-yug3:11addha according to the first modelis b 函
on the principle of th e _inte~ity and coequality of x -and
according to the second model is based ~n the y. The xy-yuganaddha
principle according to whichx
and Y are considered to be indivisible and
one, inasmuch as x does not actually
exist. In other words , it 誌 based
on a principle according to which virtualx and
actual Y are one and the
sam~, ~ust as in the case of a virtual pauper (whois a
citizen) and an actual
P 「 ince (who is a ruler) being
eing one and the same s~e person.
oerson. :a
l existence of x would imply a re
:en x and y, and thus render the i
)f ìndvsbltyof 珥年 andil
:µsara and nirv 紅面 ('khor Uas"
:enee" (srid zhi m~,yamnyid)/4 a
Rongzompa 25 and, importantly, l
y on the basis of the second sa 甲
elieved that a failure to recogn 卫
ation and even demonization of:
唧 ears- to have proposed~albeit
inasmuch as he clearly interpre~
;" （ parm 拉如 a , ye s1,esdam p,J,
lterpretations of the de kho TIil,,
'--- -' ·... ' "" 11'
1gan ontology
·一－～釕 ·
The point of intersection
model. andlhe
second ..
叫 or Buddholg 回 ( s ubjecUv)trh model " seems to
苹 ording toboth thxy-yuganaddha (where x is the absolute, - -u
」極］~
acor 山吶 to thefirst and second modcls, whereas y is the ab` i`
presupPom lhe ..~ ec~nd model) . ln , h e tb` 正
(obje 硒） twofold tersUn g ly , deFnlgo 、
-reality mod ef · or the.. (subj`` ＂、
``) 逆·
WHERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 277
UUthmodel," Mipam's model ofbden pa gcigitseIfcan be said to be oftwo types,

n 皿 1d y, a "one-reality model" and a "one-truth model." The one•reality model is
;ssent1ally his "one-(pra)meya"(gzhal bya gcig) model, while the one-truth model
would be 坤｀ one-(pra)mil'J, model;'which we shall examine later. In sum, Bud-
dhological yuganaddha , which is the perfection and culmination of gnoseological
yuganaddha, seems to represent a case in which not only the objective reality model
and subjective truth model converge and merge but also the one-reality model and
one-truth model meet and merge into the "one singular dharmakayaic point" (chos
sku thig le nyag gcig).
Two Types of Valid Cognitions
As someone with a strong conviction in the efficacy and necessity of logic and ep 料
temology, Mipam constructed his· entire philosophical edifice-his philosophische
Gedankengebaude,so to speak-including his Yuganaddhavada philosophy, within
the framework of Buddhist logic and epistmolgy 亞 A crucial point of departure
~er~ is the assumption that the Buddha taught two types of to-be-cognizerl (rtogs
bya) or cognitive object ([pra}meya, gzhal bya), each in the form of nvo modes ~f
re~l>'.',29 namely,_the mode of appearance of as-many-as-there-are (yavat, ji snyed
fa ) ph~nomen~ en~tie_s(dharmin, chos can), which is the conve'ntionai reality
(samv 而 s~tya: kun r~zob kyi bden pa), and the mode of existence of true reality
(dharmata, chos nyid) as-it-is (yathavat, ji lta ba), which is the absolute true real~
ity. He ?e_lieve~in the logical demonstrability and cognitive (praj 硨 c and ji 函 aic)
penetrability of the two modes of reality, that is, either by m~~s of indir~ct con~
~ep~~.co~ti~n or d~ect per~eptualcognition. For him,30the statement according
to which the sphere of true reality is the cognitive object of gnosis in the meditativ;
s.tate_(sa~iihitajnana, mnyam bzhag ye shes) and the statement according to which
the absolute true reality is not a domain of cognition are reconcilable inasmuch as
the former is to be understood in conventional terms (tha snyad du) and in terms
of negative determination (rnam gcod du), whereas the latter is to be understood
in the context of the absolute and in terms of positive determination. Because the
absolute cannot be determined positively, it is said to be even beyond the cogni-
tion of a buddha. Because it can be determined negatively, the absolute is for him
not only a cognitive object of a bodhisattva who is a noble being ( arya, 'phags pa )
but also of a bodhisattva who is still an ordinary being(prthagjana, so so skye bo).
Similarly, corresponding to the two kinds of cognitive objects ({pra)mtya,
gzhal bya) in the form of two modes of reality, there are two kinds of valid cognitions
([pra]m 而 a, tshad ma), namely, "conventional valid cognition" (vyciahrkpmd 怛
tha snyad pa'i tshad ma) and "absolute valid cognition" (paramarthikapmma~ don
dam pa 'i ts 加 d ma).31 Corresponding to the two conventional modes of reality,
namely, the conventional mode of appearance (tha snyad snang tshul) and conven-
tional mode of existence (tha snyad gnas tshul), Mipam has proposed two kinds of
conventional valid cognitions.Ji namely, one based on ordinary (lit, •of this-side,..
i.e., this-worldly) perception (arvagdarsana I aparadarsana. tsliu rol mthong ba)
278 DORJI WANGCHUK
and the other based on pure perception (*suddhadars arsana, dag pa'i Qzi
corresponding to the two absolute modes of gzzgspa). Al 沁
re~ity, namely
reality (` saparydyaparamdrtha, rnam ' quasi-absolute
grangspa'i don dam) and actual true
`
reality( aparydyaparamartha/ `ni5parydya, rnam grangs ma ` absolutetrue
has ProPosed two kinds of absolute va1id cognitions. 33 ympa'i don dam), he
~~cause ther~ is ulti~ately only one m~de of reality (bden
pa gcig),34a con.
cept that seems well attested in Indian sources, 35and that is ~h
: o~e ultimateobject
of cognition, there is ultimate! y only one valid cognition , which Mi
pam, unlike
~on~~~o~pa,~ 6 eq~ates with self-occurring gnosis (sv;yaYJlbhujnana, rang byunggiye
~~es).37_~is ide~ of a single ultimate valid cognition a~tuilly tillies ~th Candrakirti 's
idea of `ònedirect va1idcognition' '( mngonsum gcig), namely, the gnosisofthe
Omniscient One 速 Mipam thus occasionally also sp-eaks of thre~ 如 nds~of v 汕 d cog-
~ition, 39that is, two types of p 「 am 平 tha culminate in one pram 亞 In propos~g
this scheme, Mipam seems to have fully exploited Dharmakirti 's propo~iti~nthat
there must be two kinds of pram 坤 a, namely, pratyak~a and anum 而 a, becausethere
are two kinds of prameya, namely, svalk 額血 and samnylk?1J 正 but ultimately
there can be only one p 「 amQ because there is ultimately only one (pra)me ya..U
Two Types of Soteriological Models
Various Buddhist sources and systems seem to presuppose various soteriolog~c; al

modelsincludingwhatmaybeca11edthe«generationmodel, " ''transmutahonmodel,
"43 "rev-
"clearance model;'"purifi~ation model;'42-"separation / dissociation mo~el;
elation model;'a mixed model, and so on. On the basis of the two kinds of causal
d
mechanism presupposed for a Buddhist soteriology, one can, as I have suggeste
on an earlier occasion,44 SPeak about two kinds of soteriologicalmodels , namely,
model"-
a «nature / revelation mod-el" and a "nurture / generation / illumina~ion
(hetu,
based on or explained by employing the concept of the two kind~ of .~a ;kyed
rgyu) , namely, a `generating cause' '( utpadakahetu, skyed par byedpa'i rgyu;)
l bar byedpn'i
byed kyi rgyu) and an "ill~inating ca:-use''([abhi}vyafijakahet~,-~sa ally
rgyu; gsal byed kyi rgyu) ．心 Those who endorse the "nature mo de!" would norrn
" as being in
not ~eject the «n"ur~~e model" per se but interpret it "inclusivisti~?' thus as
c?1:1form_i~with the phenome~a's "apparitionai mode" (snang tshul), and tshul).
ultimately b eingcofrmtywhPa's ｀` existnalmod "(gnIS 、 lUti ·
that there l、
The. implication of suc·h an incl~sivistic interpretation is
mately onlYone soteriological model, and this seems to have overndingsignlifC 叩 ce
forMipam'sY uganaddhavidaPhilosoPhy, whichis whatonemightcalla` `cognl tl`
penetration model''based on three related concepts, namely，()th e
concept
.tiW·
画
`
~t is only through recognizing and cognizing the true rea1ityas it 1.S ulat 0IW t.
bring about a soteriological breakthrough,46 (b) the concept ofthe `` in邸 3bilt` ``
阯 itV
cause and goal" ｀ i nd i 、 iU
(rgyu'b 心 dbyer medpa) ,` ' and(c) the concePt ofU`,vhic 副
of the to-be-abandoned
and antidote" ( spanggnye,, dbyer mcd),,ill all of d n\O dcl
already attested in j
Rongzm 沁 writngs. That is, a kJndof sotcriologic
u'bras) and abandonment-adoptio~_(spang blang)

thatdissolves
thecause-effect (rgy~ ~tll the argument that x is actually y, or _m?re
．心 betwn x and y,
deviated from its y nature, just as a Prince wandenng
油 tiO 呻 1p
that x has never
predsely, toor incognito among his su'bjects (rgyal bu dmangs su.'khyams
皿 bekn0 血 stdeviafrom his princelynature.5lThisisa model that becomes
,a) has never ascends the staircase of doxographical
Iv relevant an d conspicuous as one
inereasingy f the Dzokchen, which, according to the Nyingma
hierarchy,so that the system f o
-all Buddhist vehicles, exclusively follows the cognitive-
tradition,is the zenith o
trationmodel. 1he cognitive-PenetraUon modellSnot a c`linear-gradualladder
pene
`singular·point model, " accordingto whichthe ontologiCal·
~odel" but rather a
spintua1grOund(gzhi), gnoseologiCal-sPiritualpath(lam) , and the buddhological
goal( :;,:;b:)· ar; co~c;ived of ;s a singular point of totality or integrality, 52 an
idea also proposed by Rongzompa. 53
PROPOSITIONS
RELATEDTO ONTOLOGY,EPISTEMOLOGY,GNOSEOLOGY,
AND SOTERIOLOGY
Somephilosophical propositions underlying Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy

related to ontology, epistemology, gnoseology, and soteriology may now be con-
sidered. First, with regard to ontology, it could be maintained that for Mip 血 al
conventionalcognizable objects culminate or terminate in ((particulars" (sval 榕 ar;,
ranggi mtshan nyid). This is in line with the Dharmakirtian system that emphasizes
vyavaharikapramdr;a.Similarly, according to the Nagarjunian or Candrakirtian sys-
tern that emphasizes parmthik 而 a, it can be said that all absolute cogni-
zableobjects culminate in the particular of true reality (chos nyid rang mtshan). All
absolute true realities, whether quasi-absolute or genuine absolute, culminate in the
yuganaddha of appearance and emptiness (snang stong zung'jug) . Rongzompa, too,
contends that all cognizables (shes par bya ba'i chos) culminate in nothing other
than innate nature or true reality (rang bzhin nam chos nyid tsam).54
Second, with regard to epistemology and gnoseology, it is maintained that all
logicalproofs (hetu, gt~n tshigs) culminate in "proofs of innate nature" (svabh~va~~tu~
~angbzhin gyi gtan tshig),55~d thus also all types of connection (sa1Jlbandha, ~br~!
ba) betwee~ the proo(and the to-be-prove~ -culminate in''natural conn~cti?~~•
(svarupasambandha~ rang bzhin gyi,brei ba). 56All types ofl~~ic~ reaso~in~ _<(u~~i :
rigsp~) culminate ~ (log 囧 reasonigful-bd' （ dharmtyuki, ch 心
nyidkyi rigspa) .57AllconcePtualcognitions (anumana, rjes dpag) culminatempcr -
ceptual cognitions (praty 桴 a, mngon sum). ss All perceptual cognitions culmi~atc
in self-cognition (svasa,rivedand; svasarrivi~i,rang ri~)- t-'?'),59-This can be maintained to
be true for both a vyahrikpm 甜 a an d - ap 缸 am 缸 hikap 「 am 細 a. Sc~-cognition
＇証 naic self-cognition (sems mng
that is a vyah 缸 ik~pram 研 i Canbe de facto a Vl 」
that is a p 年 amrthikp 甜 a can ony ly be a j 酺 naic
rig pa), whereas self 心 cognit
; ~hich can b~ equated with self-occurring
self-cognition (ye shes rang rig pa),
gnosis , at least for Mipam .
丶
~so DORJI \VANG CHUK
Third, witl1 regard to soteriology, it may be stated that whatever i1s to be

abandoned (heya, spang bya) culminates in nescience (avidya, ma r(g pa), or all
intellectual-emotional defucments (klesa, nyon mongs pa) culminate in·mere di;
orientedncss (rmo,1gs pa tsam).61All gnoses culminate in insight consisting in the
cognition that all phenomena are characterized by nonessentiality (clzosth~ms cad
la bdag med par rtogs pa'i shes rab) ,62which can also be equated with self-occurring
gnosis.
SOME TACIT ASSUMPTIONS
Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy is obviously based on some tacit assumptions,

which may require some explication. First, it presupposes bipolar tensions, which
he attempts to revolve or dissolve between two entities, two qualities of one and
the same entity, two modes of reality, two philosophical systems, two positions, two
schemes or models, and so on. Second, the poles x and y must necessarily com•
mand equal weight inasmuch as both, each in its given context, are equally tenable
or authoritative and hence cannot be dismissed as wrong. A Yuganaddhavadin thus
tentatively accepts both poles as correct but ultimately transcends both in finding
some kind of unity between the two. He would not 曲 mis one of the poles as
untenable. Third, the tension between the two opposed or juxtaposed poles x and
y presupposes a mutual contradiction or exclusion, or else there would be no ten-
sion between them and hence no need for resolving it. Fourth, two kinds of mutual
contradiction or exclusion seem to be presupposed in Mipam's yuganaddha mode
of thinking, namely, actual and virtual.
Fifth, Mipam's strategies for diffusing the tension between the nvo poles seem
to differ according to the type of contradiction presupposed. That is, if an actual
tension based on a real contradiction is presupposed between the two poles, then
the tension is resolved by establishing a common pivot point that underlies them
or a singular point that transcends them. If a virtual tension based on an apparent
contradiction is presupposed between the two poles, then the "apparent / putative
x" is equated with y, thereby establishing their unity. The basic assumption is that
apparent contradiction is no contradiction. An establishment of the yug 叩 adh
of the two is nonetheless held desirable because normal humans wrongly hold tht
contradiction or tension between them to be real or actual. It is 紺 d to require a
bodhisattva of the eighth stage (bhumi, sa) to correctly fathom the eight kinds of
profundity involving paradoxical sta~emcnts of Mahayana scriptures.63 The si.xth
ethical-spiritual com~tm~1~t . to rev~rse. gro~~ng religiou
presupposition is an ethical-spiritual_
pole~ics and sectarianism in Tibet.rwThat i~, the ~r~vin~m.otivatlonal t. 。 rces 比 hind
a yuganaddha mode of thinking scems to be a desire for harmony. a sense of·we
for thc Bud 曲 ist doctrines , and the wish to avoid ru 血 ing the _ri 呔 s of ,passing
categorical judgments , and thereby incurring the r t " 血 n o i s e r g S ofab 叨 donmg the
Dharma" ( chos sp(mggi Ius) by way of dispargemnl 血 J denial.
`7
\ VU ERI: BUDD II AS ANO ~ l DD HA S M l:.CT 28 i
FAULTY NOTIONS OF YUGANADDHA
EVIdenlh , ｀、 Up 皿 c on s iderc 詛 nou s ofyuganaddha th4 do n otme et the crit ena

of his own Id·eaof the yuganaddha of nature as faulty.05He also evid entl y assum ed
lhatthefaul0' undcrstandingoftheyuganaddha at the level ofthe sPiritua1 path and
tlteone at tl1eresultant level are due to a faulty under standing of the yugan addh a
at the level of the ontological ground. 66He obviou sly rejects any under standing or
interpretationof xy -yuganaddha that attributes to it the nature or qu 血 ty of (a)
artifc 呻 ty,(b ） conditaly, (c) partiality (here in the sense of "fragmentarine ss,,),
(d) bipolarityo 「 pluraity, or (e) antitheticality (or contradictorine ss) of x and y.6-
(a) He rejects any suggestion of an idea of yuganaddha in which x and y are
intertwined,in the way white and black threads are interwoven (srad bu sgrim p a
bzhin),68thereby implying that either the yuganaddha relationship between x and y
is not natural but rather artificial, that is, that the understanding of the yuganaddha
conceptis superficial 69 (b) For Mipam, genuine yuganaddha mu st nece ssarily be
~e ul?mate state of reality that transcends the bipofar states of being conditioned
(sa 祁 krta, __ aus byas pa) and unconditioned (as 西炤 a,'dus ma byas pat although
occa.sion~yit may be described as the "great [state of being] un~onditioned ''('d-,_,s
ma b!as chen po). In other words, for hi~, any propositio;-or suggestion that the
~enuine yuganaddha should be a conditioned stat~-that is, a st~e subjected to
~ p~o~essesof origination, continuation, and disintegration~is faulty ~d unten-
able. {c) Mipam clearly rejects the notion of an ultimate reality characterized by
tnere absence of hypostatic existence or nonimplicative negation (med par dgag
-
pa) described byhimas the ``lopsided l fragmented emptiness" (stongpa phyang
chad) 涇｀ lopside fragmentedcognition''(rigpa phyang chad) 「 `bare emPtiness"
(stongrkyang) ， 72 皿 d so on-Posited bythe radical Intrinsic EmPtyists (rang sto,lg
pa). He also rejects the notion posited by the radical Extrinsic EmPtyists @han
:t~;g P.~) of an ultimate reality ~haracteri,zed by the presence of po;itive q~ 汕 ties
:u1 ：阯 cative negation(maym par dgagPa) as Partial(or fragmentary) and hence
. A genuUR yuganaddha forhim must be beyond negation and affirmation..3
Moreover, for him
there can never be a yuganaddha relationship benveen what he
calls~absence of a rabbit's horn and pr;se;ce of a yak's horn'; (ri 酬 g rwa med
dang
g?~~ gi rwa yod) .N The ontological ground, which, for him by default has d
四 gandh
a nature, must be free from all modes of dualities (g,1yischos k 面 tslm
kun dang bra/ b
a) and without limitation / fragmentio 叩 d one-sidedness (rgr,1
chadphyogs lI血~ med pa). 75(d) A genuine yuganaddha must be one cht1.racteri 1~~~
b
y singularityand never by Plurality, as his msistcnce on thc idca ofthe "onc truth"
(bdc" pa gcig) d
e~monstrates,and aJso never by one-dimensionulity , as h1s'- ' mph.ts 、
on th
~ i~ _ivi~~biJityor inseparability of the h~ofold truth (hde, 」 gm · Is dhw r mcJ )、
testifies. Finally, (e) Mipam secms to have had difficldUes wJth `` 'n pmp`nition or
PmsuppositiontlUl suge 、 ts a relationship of.mtihcl 這 1tly hetwcn . 、叫）， th.i
1S,a rclatlOnship defincd by mutuJ cAcludon or L ` ontr 公｀ li\. . tion. .
l82 DORJI \\'AN GC H U K
TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGIES OF YUGANADDHA
Before proposing some typologi~s of the.~ganad~a concept, five different

types
of clus{ers: or a-classification of yuganaddha, may be mentioned. These seem to
suggest some of the attempts_ made by th~ Ti_bet~ ~aditi_on to classify the ide;· ~
the basis ofvarious doctrinal systems and criteria. First, in a non-tantric Madhya-
maka context, the scheme of "ground madhy~~a , ~hich~ is the yugand~ 。 f
啟 ofld truth"(gzhi dbu ma bden gnyis zung'j ug); "path madhyamaka, which is th~
yuganaddha of two accumulations (i.e., pwJya~~rr,bha~a an~ j~anasarr,bhara)" (lam
db~ ma tshogs gnyis zung'jug); and "goal madhyamaka, which is the yuganaddha
of two [buddha] bodies (i.e., dharmakaya and 元 paky Y'('bras bu dbu ma sku
gnyis zung 1ug) is suggestive of an attempt to classify yuganaddha according to the
levels of the ground, path, and goal 四 Second, in the tantric context, the expression
"twenty-three [kinds of] yuganaddha" (zung'jug nyer gsum) associated with the
Paiicakrama has been employed,79which is indicative of an attempt to bring various
types of yuganaddha under one roof. Third, also in the tantric context, one finds
a de facto classification of yuganaddha at the level of the path into "yuganaddha
of training (saik?a)" (slob pa'i zung ;ug) and "yuganaddha of no-longer-training
(asi 榕 a)" (mi slob pa'i zung ;ug).80The former is divided into "yuganaddha char-
acterized by abandonment (i.e., of klesas, etc.)" (spangs pa zung'jug) or "ordinary
saik?a-yuganaddha" (slobpaa'i'i zung 」 ug phal pa)81 and "yuganaddha characterized by
realizati?~ <~:e_., _o~ dh~rmanairatmya, etc.)" (rtogs pa ~u~g'jug) or "special sai 烜
yugana~~~a:: ~slobpa'i zung'jug khyad par can).-82Fourth: a· li;t of "fo-ur [kinds of]
~ganad~a" (~ung 1,u? bzhi) can also be found, namely,83 "yuganaddha ~f appear-
anceand emptiness'' (snang stong zung'jug) , CCyuganaddhaof [gnostic] cognition
and emptiness" ( rig stong zung'jug) ,`' yuganaddha of bliss and emptiness` (bde
stongzu 冠）， a ~d "yuganaddha of cl~ity / luminosity and emptiness,, (gsal stong
zung'jug), to which we shall return. Fifth.·i
, it may also be mentioned that a section
from the Ma,:ii Kabum alludes to "
t~ "three [kinds of] yuganaddha'(zung'jug gsum),
namely, `'yuganaddha of utPattiIkrama] and
(bs~yedrdzogs zung 扣 g or -bskyedrdzogs zung du •;
ut~an_na[krama] I nin,anna[kramaf
and prajfia" (thabs shes zun~' 'jug pa}, "yuganaddha of upaya
g 」 ;ug or thabs sh
of (dharm] 區 t u and j 庫 n" ( dbyings dang es. z~ng du'jug pa), and "yuganaddha
ye sh
be other ways of class1fying the yuganaddha es zung du'jugpa) .84There may
but no attempt has bee~ m~de to trace them all. c~ncept found in ·Tibetan sources,s.~
TRADITION-INSPIRED Ty
POLOGY OF y UGANADDHA
~n the following fcw paragraphs, a new
be proposed by
scheme devised for classifymg
哂 ol
y d rawing inspiraUon from wh)
筍 of the
· major Tibetanat Buddh·
ap 函 s to b
`
ganaddh a concepts will
e a P0Pular
mak ．吣 That iis, one may classify yugru1addha 1st th emes such typological
(partly With as Madhya-
as either (a) "yuganaddha of thc expressible referent;, some neo-T
or (b) "yuganaddha of the exPressiveword" ( rjod byed (brjod bibetanisms)
tsh· ya don ~; zung'jug)
,g gi zung'·
Jug), consist-
BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 283
WJ-IERE
th e Yuganaddhavada philoso~hy. Th~-forme:

or systems that posit
fscriptures u1drevolve around content (inhaltlich) and acmality, and
啤° ddhaW0
叩 eO d
f yugana
the nominal-concep
tual (begrifflich) and virtual ity.
thelatteraroun
ressible Referent
ddha of the Exp
Yugana
in traditional Tibetan sources, I have ventured to sub-
Althoughhardly :~licit in
I call `'yuganaddha of the exPressible referent'' (brjod bya don gyi
classifywhat
zung]ug) into Ugroundyuganaddha:' "path yuganaddha," and "goal yuganaddha." 87
Theword`ground"isemployedhere inthe sense ofthe `'metaPhysical ground ,'' a
d~ension ~f being or reality, which is conceived of as being totally independent of
anycognitionor realization. It is meant to render -~he Tibetan term gzhi, ~hich ~
tu~ renders a number of different Sanskrit words 醚 Our context seems to demand
that we understand it in the sense of a metaphysical or ontological "substratum ,,
(adhara,rten), "base" or "ground" or "foundation" (prati${ha), or "root " or "basis"
(mu/a,rtsa ba), which in turn is often understood as either the ultimate true reality
or the philosophicalview (lta ba) of this reality,89and hence also as the soteriologi-
cal "point of departure" for any given Buddhist system.90 It should be noted that
even those Buddhist systems, such as the Sarvadharmaprati$tfianavada, that den y
any ~d of metaphysical substratum would have their- own notion of "ground,;,
nam~1r.• so to speak, a "groundless ground" or a "substratumless substra~:• The
w~r~."?ath" in the expression "path yuganaddha" is always to be understood as
a Mahy 年 i_c spiritual ·or soteri~logi~ path leading to direct meditative insight
(jnana,ye shes), whicha1ways has ground yuganaddha as its cognitive object (i.e.`
its underlvi}'1n~substrate or nature). Mipam seems to distinguish a` ＇」醢画 c " path
yuganaddha from a praj 睏 C I 噸拙 aic path yuganaddha, -the actu~ path ~1ga-
naddha beingfor him, of course, a1ways j 臨咩 cand never Praj 益 ic o; 噸严 c,
insofaras a qualitativedistinction is made between the two. The word ``goal''in the
ex~~ession"goal yuganaddha" is to be understood in the sense of the -/\1 油勾詛 ic
Spiritual or soteriological goal or result, that is, buddhahood. Hence it may also
be called"resultant yuganaddha " or "buddhological}'l1ganaddha," ru1d it is actually
~g- but a perf;ct;d form or state of path..,yug~;ddha , that is, a completely
revealedor exposed ground yuganaddha.
GROUND YUGANADDHA
~ipam employs multiple terms to express the concept of gr~und yug.ma~dh_a. _s_~ ~~
of them 訌 e very sPecifictoa ccrtain sybtcm, whercas othcrs are uscd genera11y,
in all Mahayana systems. Although ad scnsum these arc 紺 d to be identical, each
system comes with a unique prefcrrc d terminology of its own. Of the numerous
expressions Mipam employs in i~ different contexts and for dilforent systems, .sev~~
terms that explicitly cont 血 the term yuganaddha may be mentioned here: (1) Of
all these, the expr~ssion "yuganad~a of appearan,ce叩 dempUns·'
&
（ srm, ＇ gsto1I
zung'j)" 一 al~ng with a host of synonyms, such as ">'lJga naddha of emptiness

2 屈 DORJI \VANGCHUK
"yuganaddha of wofold rea1ity' ' ( bden gnyis zung 加 g), ｀ hi- 五了二玉
`" th the` ìndivisibillty oftwofold truth' ,97and ` twofldreaiy
(bden gnyis ro gcig).98 (3) There is yet another key term that ~s
,w hic ·lS O 平汜 Sl(r '
i ~mployed mainly
not exclusively) in the `` Zhije and Lamdre ', tradition oftheSakyrd o1 四
th_e"yuganaddha of clarity / luminosity an? emp~ess "99or "indivisibility of~
/ luminosity and emptiness"(gsal stong dbyer med), 100an expressiontha 忘
too , often employs and endorses. 101(4) A term for ground yuganaddhathatmiti
be more appropriate for the Yoginitantric or Anuyogic systems of the ~哼 2
tantric tradition is the "yuganaddha of bliss and emptins 严 o r elsethe 國志 ·
ibility of bliss and emptin;ss " (bde stong dbyer med).103Mipam evide~tl y t~ 记
granted that the tradition of th~ Kalacakra Tantra, too, professes the " yu~ 幽
of bliss and emptiness." (5) Perhaps the expression "yuganaddha 0 f E and\ ＼洫書
(e warri zung'jug)1 04can also be see~ as denoting the same ground):!~~ dha 氐
a tantric PersPective. The reason why the `＇ yug 血 adh of E andW 面户止
to the gr~uni is because it is 函 d to 1be the hetutantra (rgyu'i rgyu~ accod u
the highest system. 105(6) Two of the typical e 叩 resion for ~oun d } ｀ gan 心
employed in the context of the Dzokche~ are "yuganaddha of (gnostic)..ce>gl (rigs 名隠
~d emptins' 嘀 and "indivisibility of (gnostic) ~ognition and e~p s~ ·and(!(
dbyer ~ed) 血 (7) Also,thexprin c yugandh ofprimordid puri0 .酆
I 鴴 equa 沚 le 逕
~~n:ianence [of intrinsic qualities]" (ka dag-lhun grub zung'jug) , u.ilities ]..(
ìndivisibilltyofprimordial Purity and the immanence [ofintrinsicq calp: 「
dag lhun grub dbyer med)] 09is usedb y MiPam to designate the òntologi
kchen," 0_~_more literally, "Dzokchen [at the level of the 」 groun d` (g:hi nk 和
chen po).110
PATH YUGANADDHA
,-··.\ llhough its superfluousness

SUDl'rn11n,: is often n1c:
AND SIDDHAS MEET 285
WHERE BUDDHAS
f the soteriologic al model followed by a competing

le consequenc: o d-here that at least for Mipam's tradition, the
anundes or 画
system.
It-may be restate
mdition hlcal hierarchy, the tighter or more natural
ascends on the doxograp
靄 higer" on~ th~t c~n;titutes the xy-yuganaddha and the interrela-
therelationbetweenxandy anaddha, ground yuganaddha, and goal yuganaddha
; among the path yug
uonshiP
become.
冧 ird, one occasionally realizes that one cannot always ne~tly classify a
certainxy-yuganaddha into the categories of ground, path, or goal yuganaddha.
Forinstance,~hat about s 岬 sar-nivfu:}ygdh ('khor clas zung Jug)-an
expressionthat,though occasionallyfound, isaPParent1y not employed byMiPam
or·his mentors-that is, "indivisibility of s 叨迢 ra and nirv~" ('khor clas dbyer
med) 严 Is the indivisibility of s 平 ar and nirv~a ground o 「 path yuganaddha?
Wedo encounter the concepts of "the path, which is the indivisibility of s 血函屆
and nirv 年 '(lamkhords dbyer med) and "the view of the indivisibility of
．、 s平 ar and nirv 師 a:'13 which seem to identify samsara-nrrvana- sa.qisa . yuganaddhawith
',`,` .'· r,athyuganad~a rather _than with ground yuganaddha. As briefly ~uggested ear-
`｀ `^
;•,.. '：、
fm -. .· 、 lier, some traditionswish to identify theview of the ultimate true reality with
｀云
、- `` ... . 、
the "ground;'as is evident from th e use of the expression "establishing the view,
' . -..
·•. ...`
｀一., + －可 whichis the ground" (gzhi lta ba gtan la'bebs
; .-.
` ~·
d r... `, pa), whereas for others the view of
II- ~ the ultimatetrue reality is identifi;d ~ather with prajfi 函 c path yuganaddha. At any
．』
:;·•... rate, the indivisibili
ty of s 平 ar _and nirv 硏 itself, as anexpressionof u1tirnate
..,... . true reality; ; must be identified with ground yuganaddha, and it is only in connec-
. .
-t-
一國
--XY,-，重
u.A"rb tion with cognitive (i.e., either

-.i.c·· 3-
、戶
prajfi 甾 c or j 益 naic) access to it that ~ne properly

丶
`
'
1
.
`.,' speaksof the "the view of the indivisibili

'dasdbyer med) and "the ty of s 平 ar and nirv 硏｀ ( /ta ba' 如 r
量,
path of the indivisibility of

a·
, .. ot s 年 ar and nirv 平？ I would

t
一｀
· thus contend that this i

. .X s is true also in the case of the "indivisibility of existence and
囑．
'
鬢
己
』
quiescence"(srid zhit mnyam nyid).

.
；之． . .,. Thisbrings us to the fourth and final ooi

＇心', concepts associated point, namely, a host of xy-yuganaddha
t 丶' ·
,..: pra 醞 cwithPa yuganaddha that seems tohave Prirnarily to do with
r: 「＇． or jflanaic ~ognition of the ground yuganaddha, which is the,,iew (/ta
ba) and its
application or implementation in one's actual p 「血 s of meditation
(sgompa) and ·
encounter in _one'sactions or transactions (spyod pa). One is thus bound to
expressions such as `cyuganaddha ofview and medJtation` '" and Vuga·
naddha of view and conduct:'11~
Six key terms and concepts that conver the path
Y\Jganaddh a may be mentioned here: (l) Cle 訌 ly, the concept of)"llganaddha of
samatha and
vipasyana" (zhi lhag zurig 1g 严 is fundamental to both Mah 西 a
and non-Maha
aya.na soteriology. In his coment 訌 y on the Abhisnmayalaf!Jktira,
凶 parn
explains the "path that· comprises the combination / concurrence of upaya
andpr 」紐 (thabs da~g shes rab zu~g ;fa'bn I ba'i lam) as a path that does not.full
>
4r
,t into one of the extre~es of 紐 nath;· and vipasy 血 a, turbu1ent S 年 aric existence
' ~d nirval)ic quietude (zlii /hag gam srid zltir mi lltung ba).117(2) The concept of the
yuganaddha of upaya and prajfi 缸 (thabs shes Zl' 咽｀ jug 严 sem obviously impor-
tant for Mahayana soteriology. A path devoid of the yuganaddha of karu 面 (i.e,
upaya) and praj 醯 (snylg rje dat,g shes rab zung Jug) has often been considered
1Stl DORJl \\'ANGCHUK
a dcfident Mal 面細 c path and hence _distant from the "resultant

mother,,( 'b
y um ) or the resultant prajiiaparamit~. n9 ~3) Similarly, the Mah 內「
蝌 .na soteriologicaJ
path can be said to be defined purely along the lines of the "
yuganaddh a ofthe
n,·ofold accumulations" (tshogs gnyis zung ;ug), 120that is, of the
accumulationof
beneficial resources (pur:iyasar,1bhara, bsod nams kyi tshogs) and the
accumulation
of gnosis(jnanasarribhara, ye shes kyi tshogs). (4) It may seem that the"
yuganaddha
of utpatti[krama] and utpanna[kramaJ:'121 or the "nonduality of utpatti[k rama]and
utpanna[krama)'' ( bskyed rdzogsgnyis su medpa) ,122 is a typical mantricpathyuga.
naddha , which presupposes or includes in __ one way or another all preceding ·types
of path yuganaddha. In addition to the "yuganaddha of the twofold accumttla-
tions :'w hich for him would be a sutric path yuganaddha, Mipam alludes to (5)
the "yuganaddha of the illusory body and luminosity" (sgyu od zung'iug), which
would be a mantric path yuganaddha, and (6) the "yuganaddha of primordial purl~·
and innate actuality" (ka dag dang lhun grub zung'jug) as the ultimate path yuga-
naddha of Dzokchen.1 23
GOAL YUGANADDHA
~panis position on what I refer to as "goal yuganaddha" is inextricably ~e wi~

hi~-positions on buddhology, ontology~ gn~se~logy, and soteriology, 124 an~ ~us i~
will be beyond the scope of this study to do justice to the toPic. Nonetheless a
few points can be mad~ here. First, a'traditio~al term that w~uld be the d_o_s~t
:0 our "~~al yuganaddha" occurring in the sutric Madhyamaka context would be
`` yuganaddha ofthe twokayas" (sku gnyis zung'jug) ,125or 西區 yugandh 闐
~lob pa'i zung'jug), which· occu .rs ~ the m~t;ic 0~~ntext. 126S~c~nd, for Mip 皿
both the exclusivesUtric and mantric Mahy 年 acnbesid to be equally Suitablc
for establishing the same ground yuganaddha and realizing the same g。 aJ 涇 l·
naddha,m the difference between sutric and mantric Mah 硏 na being
the dintr·
ent manner in which c~~nitive (i.e., praji. d to the
紐 c and jiianaic) access is_g 血 ne
gr_o~ndyugandh 叩 d h onct 丶
ow goal yugan~ddha is re~ized. Third, for the ~ro~
of `special Mahayana" ( t/
1Cgchen thun mong ma y 切 pa) ， who
` ＂ mIU th「
model" or `
"mdivisibilitcognitive -Penctrauon model' ' of soteriology, which presuprOSt;` `d
yugandhr 。 ef ground and goal', (gzIlI'brns dbyer med) ,` i 8 thc 臣 ound.`
follow tht
＇ \ c,
`
nec s 訌 il y idenlic4 1n · essence. In pJrun term s, whJ , t n o 卜
the end ls what one 汕 read
the standpoint of -V '(_had in the beginning! This is partkul,tr!, " I` 」面」 1` ｀
as the path " （如 s b
ajrayanlc soteriol ogy, according to whiLh onc "takes thC S 、 t
the cognitive u lam byed). One ImplIcaUon of a cmwcqueflt aplL.` ＂叩｀ `th
pcnctmtion modcl I f, lw !
in such a way that lhe "path" S lhat thc goulitsclt takes thC PIacc o fl 、「
common ly undersl0od is rclativizcd. Mip 皿
instance, undcrslan<las
yug 叩 adh, "' or v 汕 s self-occurrI
clng gnosls not only as ground) ｀ gmad 曲 i l g``l `
ful palh or 而 tidoc ch cogmUon (as wc have secn) , bu t ;Uso as thc m0 、 t p (.｀「
subsumed under n and:;ClO\;; d by j1\ 訕 mc ; cognitJOl\ masmuch as dl pathS an`
path turn s out to bc as d1mct 叩 antih:s (dI1S```
v\'HERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 287
nosis does 庄 What he de facto maintains is

as self-occurring ~
f oescience
ì.') 0 , buddhological-s;lf-occurring gnosis is in a position to fully and
缸 u1~ate: Y l 。 } l n
the ontological self-occurring gnosis and that even a bodhisat-
.tivdypenemte
co 要
the ten th stage is saiid t~ barely fathom it, as if trying to perceive a visible
n · 」 on
themght (mtshan mo'igzugs mt/zong ba !tar) 户 For the proponents of the
objectin ~;~~~mo del of soteriology, ~here~s~us.only one elimin~tum (sf.an~
,ogn.t itive-pene ition (ma rig pa), and whether or not one has realized
byngcig), namely, noncogru is;; mere matter of cognition or noncognition (rig dang ma
the goalyuganaddha is a
"' ofthegrOundyug anaddha. For one who has obtained a jackal's faculty
`;?} lcespyanggi mig), there would be neither a need to dispel darkness (mun
~;r to -rely on the power of light (snang ba'i mthu la b~ten mi
pa b~almi dgos)
dgos),for on~ ,~ould perceive objects regardless of day or ni~t (nyin mt!ha~ b1e
b~agmedpar) and cognize space (nam mkha')to be luminous by nature. similarly,
for one who has obtai~ed the immaculate dharmic faculty of sight (chos kyi mig dri
;;~ medpa), there would be neither noncognition to be eliminated nor a.~ognition
to be ge neratd ,1 出 since noncognition itself shines as j.fl 細 aic cognition .135
Yuganaddha of the Expressive Word
What we refer to as the "yuganaddha of the expressive word" may be discussed

here briefly by addressing two questions , namely, which scriptures and systems
can be considered to express yuganaddha and where they are said to converge
and diverge. First, all those Mahayana scriptures and systems that expound the
"indivisibilityof the twofold reality"-which seems to be the most important cri-
terion for the definiteness of the teaching 136-would qualify as "the yuganaddha
of the expressive word." Scripturally speaking, Mipam reiterated that the Budd.ha
had in all profound slitric-that is, Mahy 細 a scriptures of the Middle (bka' bar
pa) and Final Promulgations (bka'tha ma)-and Buddhist tantric scriptures (mdo
rgy~dkun) one overriding concern, namely, to teach the ultimate true reality, w 届 ch
i~ c~acterize d by a yuganaddha nature· (i.e., Yuganaddhavada philosophy). 137A
similar position can be found in Rongzm 嵒 ~itngs.1 38 In te~ms of tr~ditions
or systems, the Indian M 血 y 訕 a traditions of Maitreya and As 血 g` M 函 jusri
andN 咾紺 ~a complexes (tshul gnyis zung'jug),139 the'Svatantrika-Madhy~aka
andPr 細洒 a-M dhy amk tra<litions, 140p~~arly, the Madhyamaka t;adition
described by Mipam as bden gnyis zung'juggi dbu ma, bden gnyis zung'jug kh 心
len dang br~l bd'i dbu ma, or zung'jug rab tu mi gnas pa'i dbu ma chen po 141 -
which he dearly identified
with Sarvdhmpti~ 出年 avd or with Pra 洫 gika-
Madhyamaka.1~ Also included are the Zhije (zhi byed) and Lamdre (lam'bras)
traditions, and the Tibetan tradition s of th~ so-call~d Three Great Ones (chen po
gsum).113
~ he regarded as the yuganaddha of the expressive word , inasmuch -as
all of these have ontologica l or gnoseological yuganaddha as their main doctrinal
contents.,. Al
so with regard to Buddhist scholars and saints both in India and
Tibet~the y
uganaddhavada doctrine is said to have been thoroughly elucidated,
可
proponents such as DolpPa. l45 一｀痘

S~cond,expressing verbal yuganaddha is like the pr overbial fin
ger that
to the moon (i.e.~ the ontological yuganaddha) and once Prajhi ic or ideal 因
accesshas been gained to it, that is, the gnoseological yuganaddh a state hyj`
attained, all saints and scholars seewith one vision and sPeakWith as 反
one voi 叱 k
is at this stage and in such a context that the "buddha s and siddhas ~
SaidtoCt
one in intent" (sangs rgyas dang grub thob dgongs p a gcig).146Fo r 汕
pam, this~
where all Mahy 年 a scriptures, systems, and scholar s converged.
How are we then suPPosed to explain the undeniable differences and 鹹
~enc~sthat w~ observe among various Mah 訒年 a scripture s, systems, and scho 固
For Mipam, the answer lies in not whether the Yuganaddh avada
at all taught but rather h ow it. is taugh~ ~r introduced. The ditferen~e philos 「`
for 血四
thus all about whether ground yuganaddha has b
een taught by way of negation
(via negationis) or by way of affirmation (
via eminentiae); wheth er and to 吐』
degree it has been ta~ght ~pophaticall
Y,cataphaticall y; ho w explicitly or implidtly.
`』 akingf0r at el 扇;；『 : s ~-'J_ tsan thab ss su

btsan su shar
shar))..1
m
s2 .
`tso f d e fe c ahvdeoxgrp 缸 ca1 。 r s yst e m1 C 扣 e rach Y, ~ i ~ 岬弓
ne ss or li mitation -found in th e "lower"'， syste 而｀
d for by the "higher,, systems. 153 That is, a subtle limita-

d or eompensate
remOve i1ca-Madhyamakasystemis `(the elements [in it] ofc1ingingto
the S 噱 tanr
蛔 of of the twofold truth" (bden gnyis so sor zhen pa'i cha), 咖 ch is
the separateness bya) for the Pr 每邴 ka-Mdhym sytem 巨 A subtle limi-
durn (dgag by
a negan
fthesUtricsystem such as Pr 每 ngika-Mdhym istheèlements [in
° tation
it] ofclingingtoemptiness' '( stong par zhen pa) , which is comPensated for by
thedoctrineof `greatbliss" (mahdsukha, bde ba chen po) taught by the mantric
Mah 碩 na. 1ss How about the differences among various mantric systems? For him,
tliese·systemsdiffer in the manner in which certainty regarding the yuganaddha
is gained.156 In a similar vein, Rongzompa has stated that the indivisibility of the
twofold reality (bden pa gnyis dbyer med) 一｀ coequality'(mn pa nyid) or "view-
ing[allphenomena] as being coequal" (mnyam par lta ba)-has been taught in
bothsiitricscriptures of definitive sense (nges pa'i don gyi mdo sde) and in mantric
scriptures.The difference between the two, however, is that the former does not
teachthe "means of practicing coequality''(mnyam par sgrub pa'i thabs). The dif-
ferenceamong the six mantric systems lies in the quality of the view of coequality,
~~ch is inversely proportional -to the degree of clinging to a substantialist view
(~n?ospor lta ba'i zhe~ pa) or a view of ~equality (~i,;,nyam par /ta ba) 回 One
~fthe_differencesbetwe;n exoteric (phyi pa) ~d ~soteric (~ang pa) tantric systems
i~saidto be that the practitioners ~f, th~ former "grasp the ~o modes of ·reality
~ternately"(bden gnyis res'jog tu azin par byed) ~d • are incapable of "med.itat~
ing on the yuganaddha of utpattikrama and utpannakrama' , without altemating
(res'i~g med par) from one to the other. Whereas the practitioners of the latter
are able to meditate on the yuganaddha of utpattikra.ma and utpannakrama in
theform ofUgreat self-occurring gnosis, characterizedby the indivisibllity of the
[twofold]reality" (bden pa dbyer med rang byung gi ye shes chen po) and attain in
onelifetime`Vajradharahoodcharacterizedbyyuganaddha" (zung)ugrdorje Ch 而 g
gi 七 o'phang) ． I58 The distinction among the three esoteric tantric systems issaid
to be based on their means of accessing self-occurring gnosi 严 as in the Sarma
t~~ic traditions, where "yuganaddha reality" (zung'jug gi don) is established by
~ the highest tantric systems, and yet a distinction can be made on the basis of
the 叩 ~citnes of, or e~phasis on, the "gnosis of the fourth initiation" (dbang bzhi
Pa'iye she) 四 Inshort, the difference is not real1yabout whether the ontological
xy 泗 gandh is taught at all but how x and y, which together constitute bothtli~
~ntologicaland gnoseological forms of yuganaddha, have been explicated, estab-
lished,-and realized, or on which pole (x or y) the accent Hes.
YUGANADDHA OP NATURE AND YUGANADDHA OF NURTURE
~~oth~r way of classifying the types of the yuganaddha concept identifiable in

Mip 琿 s writings would to be to divide it into the "
the `yuganaddha of nurture:• That is, in the former yuganaddha of nature" and
stitute theyuganaddhaare innate1yand essentially type, the x and y that con-
one, and the relation between
the Wo variables must be one defined bYtheir identicalit
Y and simultaneity.161The
DOR 」r WANGC H UK
290
is always mere conceptual or conventional 頲 d
separation of All
x and y in t 届 s case 1~
those discourses about x and y are thus mere means o fg 師噱
never actual. to xy-yuganaddha.I62 Inth e latter type, however, x and y may
a cognitive acce~
initially have differentorigin s or be two seParate entities, and hence the desked
xy-yuganadd11a:11~ Y
;0
h-a~e be acquired or nurtur ed th_rou~ effort and practice.1~
A recognition ofthe twotype s of xy-yuganaddha , one based on a natural relation-
artificial relationship, may help us subsume v 貊 ous
ship ~d ru1otherbas~d o~ an
kinds of xy-yuganaddha that can be traced in Buddhist sources. ~f the two types,
MiPamgenerallyseems to have held theyuganaddha ofnature - whichhe seemsto
identifywiththe metaPhysicalor ontologicalyuganaddha atthelevel oftheground
withwhich theviewislinked - tobePhilosoPhical1ysPeakingthemost significant.
He also tends to see the buddhologiCal yuganaddha at the level ofsPiritual goalas
yuganaddha of nature, inasmuchh a; as,, for him, buddhahood must have an identity of
totality and integrality ofsome kind. The yuganaddha at the level ofthe sPiritual
~-a-ths~ems to be~consideredyuganaddha .of nurture~inas~uch !s~ ~or instance, th~
yuganaddha of the two type~ of accumulation, n3?1ely, ?f ~enefid~ reTsources~d
~f gnosis, must be acquired or cultivated through spiritual_~racti~e. lmporta_n~y,
ho;ever, the preferenc~ for (or prominence of) the yuganad~ha of n~ture ~d the
yuganaddha ~f nurture seems to be determined by the type_of_soterio_logi~al model
pr;posed or presupposed. Accordingly, as Mipam ascends the hierarchical stairc~se
~f Buddhist doxographies, the concept of yuganaddha of nature seems to play for
him an increasingly important role, even as the concept of yuganaddha of nurture
retreats into the background.
ONTOLOGICAL YuGANADDHA AND GNOSEOLOGICAL YuGANADDHA
A careful observation of Mipam's use of the term yuganaddha in various contexts

reveals that he presupposes two kinds of genuine yuganaddha, namely, ontological
(or ontic) yuganaddha and gnoseologkal (or gnostic) yuganaddha, which together
would be coextensive with the ground , path, and goal yug 皿 adh we have seen ear-
lier. Ontological yuganaddha should be understood here as the ultimate true re 吐
ity, which has gnoseological yuganaddha as its ultimate cognitive subject, whereas
gnoseological yuganaddha as the direct meditative insight that has ontological,uga-
naddha as its direct cognitive object 罔 But although there is an object-subject rela-
tionship between the two, there is said to be no subject-object dichotom y involved.
In other words, ontic yuganaddha is said to be cogni zed by gnostic yuganaddl1a in
such a way that the two mingle into one singular point. The real fusion of the tw 。
can be said to happen at the buddhabhii mi, for which reason the goal yuganaddha
~salso _ch~racterized as "the to-be-attained indivisibility of grounl and goal" ('thob
bya g 加 ' b as r dbyer med). Importantl y, the yuganaddh ·a rel ; tionshp 一 the relation-
吁 o~. indivisibility. between x and y - u ~de-rlying gnoseological- yuganaddha is
to be d~s~.in~s hed from such a relation ship b~tw~e~ the x ;nd y · of ontological
yuganaddha. That is, x and y in an ontologic~ yuganaddha must b~ something like
WHERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET
291
n and "emptiness''following the "nvofold-reality mode" and thus must

..appearance subject-object relations 比 p, whereas the relationship between x and
not involve a
~~eologicalyu~anaddha see~s. to b~ ~wa~s _defined as an subject-object
in a gn
Y~~:!hio. th~ugh again never an subject-object dichotomy.
「 elationshp,
加 twokinds ofyuganaddha canbecomparable tothe one between what
called "ontological"_~. "gnose~logical" bodhicitta, 165 or, perhaps to
1 elsewhere
kinds of nir 両 a, namely, nrv 平 c~areizd by natural purity" (rang
theW0
bzhInmam daggyimyangUas) and `nirv 平 charteizd byfreedomfrom
adventitiousimpurities'(glo bu dribalgymnUs)6 一 SOtospeak,inrcly
purenirV 平 ande. 由 inscal1y Pureniv 亞－ Whic LambertSchmithausenonce
aptlydescribedas`nirv 平 as ametaphysicalentity" (dasNirvdna als metaphysische
硒） and `nirv 初 as sPirtualevn' （ dasNirv 而 a alsspirituelles Ereignis).lO
。 ther classifications, such as of the Yoga 函 a's "perfect nature" (parin 郡 an,
yongsgrub)intouunchanging pariniSPanna'' ( gyur medyongsgrub) and ùnerring
parini$panna"(phyin 9i ma log_~-a'i yangs g:ub),1~ ar~ also very much reminiscent
~f the classificationof yuganaddha in ontological and gnoseological terms.
SYNONYMS OF YUGANADDHA
Synonyms(ming gi rnam grangs) of ontological and gnoseological yuganaddha,

`b
whichfor Mipam always represent the genuine yuganaddha, may be discussed here
佤
briefly.In general, when talking about the synonyms of yuganaddha, it is particu-

larlyimportant to bear in mind that whether or not one and the same pertinent
technicalterm denotes the same semantic referent (tshig gi yul) is always to be
`` determinedcontextually and never mechanically . For example, whether a term y
onlystandsfor the quasi-ultimate true reality 一 whic is usually a mere absence or
¢4 氐' 況'§fC,
·
1 §.fn
r
It'
P ．
亻
r．
II
·
1
t:
A '．；
' ••
i J4
．
団
m DORJ1 \\ .ANG CHUK
naddha in itself can ne, ·er be di stinguished in terms of_i~s.nature (ngo_bo), it can
be. 、 r pre se d in var ious forms and terms on the basis of `'the proPertybearer (i.e.,
entity or reality ), which is the substrate of emptiness" (stong gzhi chos can) .173Thus,
according toMiPam , one speaksoftwokindsof truerea1ity(tath atd, debzhinnyid) ,
nam ely, ìntrinsicall y pure true rea1ity" ( rang bzhin rnam daggi de bzhin nyid) and
`` extrinsically pure true reality "(g lo bur bral dag g. de bzhin nyi4; or `` macu1ate
true reality,; (dri bcas kyi de bzhin nyid) and "imma_culate_true ~eality" (_~r~m~d kyi
de bzhin ~yid); or "tru~ reality [on the level of the] ontol_ogical_gro~~ •: (gzhi'i de
bzhin nyicl) and "true reality [on the level of the] soteriologic~ pa!~"--~lam_gyi de
bzhin nyid), and «true reality [on the level of the] soteriological goal"_(~bras bu'i de
bzhin ~yid) 严 or , the "nonessentiality of person[hood]"(gang zag gi bdag med pa)
and the "nonessentiality of phenomena " (chos kyi bdag med pa). 175One also speaks
of three or four means of salvific release (rnam thar sgo gsum or bzhi), correspond-
ing to the emptiness of the cause, result , and nature (rgyu 'bras ngo bo nyid gsum
stong pas cha nas), namely, the "signlessness of causes" (rgyu mtshan ma med pa),
the "aspirationlessness toward {any] resul 「 ('bras bu smon ma med pa), and the
"emptiness of essence" (ngo bo stong pa nyid), and "nonconditioned luminously pure
nature" (rang bzhin od gsal aus ma byas pa) . Similarly, the sixteen, four, eighteen, or
twenty kinds of emptiness are said to be distinguished not qualitatively but rather
in terms of the substrate of emptiness, which is the bearer of the property that is
emptiness (stong gzhi chos can).176Though not made explicit by Mipam, various
forms of xy-yuganaddha 177 seem to be distinguished or distinguishable on the basis
of the "prop~rty bearer, the substrate of emptiness" (stong gzhi chos can). That is,
xy-yugana_d~a is esta~~i~h_ed by usually taking x as the "property bearer" (chos can)
and~. as the "?roperty ".<chosor chos nyid), but should the -need be felt to "hypos-
tatize'' or attribute a real identityto true reality 一 to, as it were, "prapaficicize,; (i.e.,
turning true reality into a mental fabrication [pra 而 ca], which· actually is al 四）｀
-
ni5prapanca) any entity or reality canbe made a `ProPerty bearer, the substrate of
emPtiness'' (stong gzhi chos can) and its emPtiness canbe estab1ished. That would
explain why we have the concept of the "emptiness of emptiness" (sunyat 却 Un)` ＇＾
stong pa nyid stong pa nyid). The problem of regressus ad infinitum c~ be avoideJ
with th~ argu_mentthat a full conc~ptual 0 「 perctual penetration of ontl 預 Calor.
gnoseologicalxy-yuganaddha, which is i characterized b
prapanca), should be able to Iay all prapa.ficas to y ni~prapafica (an absence of
"cessation of [subjective / objective] manifoldness"complete rest, the result being a
(prapmicopasama, spros pa nyi
bar zhi ba).11aThus both x a~d
Y as substrates of emptiness (stong gzhir ~严 "as)
皿 d xy-yuganaddha,119
which can also b
y.I80ln the case ofthe Maha e represented as Y, a1waystranscend xand
yoga concept of what ls k· no 师呤 the "higher conven-
tional truth" (/1,ag pa'i ku,1 rdzob kyi bden
pa'i don dam bde~1pa), each of the · two is s~d pa) and..higher absolute-truth" (/hag
and emptiness (snang stong 'du bral med t~ exi~t ~separably as appearance_
appearanceand emptiness (snang ston parg,Ias) and thus as the yuganaddha ot
g zung'j ug).181
293
師 d, though quw.ta~vel! n:v~r coequal , yuganaddha
may he referred to
．學 ntermsoIlhbaifquc
~ per.son's gaining cognitive
`" t
access h to (gangzag giblo)ugpa 'i rim pa) yuganaddha , that '
f~ealization (rtogs tshul gyi dbang du byas). The classifi
is, in terms of the
叩血 ero cation ofthe abso-
uasi-absoluteness (rnam grangs pa'i don dam) or quasi-emptine ss (rnam
luteinto q
a'i stong nyid) and actual absoluteness (rnam ~;!~g s m~ yin pa 'i don dam)
grangsP
or actUalemPtiness(mamgrangs mayinpa'i stong nyid) is saidto meetthi s crite-
1 叮 t is ctlsodear that the ontological yuganaddh a expressed by the notion of
non.
the``fourphases ofth e nse [of ascertamment regarding ontologica1] madhyamaka' ,
(dbuma'itharrim bzhi) 183 -namely,StiùgdhWrp 函 ca,ndsmt
(nmyampa nyid) 一~ ?ee_nconceived not along the line of what is established but
~ther how it is established.
Fourth, as has been previously suggested, doxographical systems (siddhanta,
grubmtha'),vehicles, re~gio~s tr~ditions _(chos lugs), and personal predilections
;irectthe employment of and preference for individual terms standing for yuga-
naddha.Some terms may be. commonly used by many systems, whereas others are
uniqueto a certain system. Naturally, older and purportedly "lower" systems do
notcontain terms unique to later and purportedly "higher" systems. Whereas the
"higher"and later systems presuppose terms found in "lower" and older systems.
ForMipam,the one true reality has been, with respect to its emptine ss (stong pa
nyid kyi cha nas), referred to in the Prajfiaparamita scriptures as dharmadhatu ,
bhutakop, tathata, and so on. With respect to the presence of the appearance of
snl6
~odiesand gnosis (sku dang ye shes kyi snang ba dang bcas pa'i cha nas), it has
beenreferred to as buddha~~ature in -the Tathagatagarbha scriptures; and in the
t~tras, it has been referred to as the "p 「 imordal (ontological) ground m~4ala '.
化
~hara_cterized by the indivisibility of [th; two modes of reality] of appear~c.e and

`di.LA0c;,
A
~~ptinessand having the nature· of g;eat purity and equality" (snang s:?71_ K bde~_fa
此泛花謎＼
dbye rmeddagmnyamchenpo'i bdagnyidgdod magzhi'i dkyil ' khor) 巴 One ofthe

numeroussynonyms or near-synonyms ofyuganaddhL the term svayambhUjnarm
(selfoccurtradition. ring gnosis)185cam~ to be used profusely in the N~gm~
面 e idea ,;186understood by
~~~:~_too , of "emptiness endowed with all excelle?t feature.s:
p 痂 as ddha , plays aerucial
－研疵
n
t, role in h.is a ~~onym of ontological and gnoseological yugana
`h· philosophy of Yug~addhavaia.
011 if.J.
·: CONCLUSION
矗化
:rr.'
I
`
..
','J4
a Picture as possible
,.
；，'＾夕｀
.
or historicaJ-view of
，
that our synchronic

：』
｀，
d by way of condu-
y,
,y .
吟
·
in the tra dition that
；＄
'1.
U ,ngzompa and
`)4 DOR11 WAX GCHl t K
l.ongchcnpa, ~; in terms of a high degree of persistency and cons istency with which
he ru 、 ued his monistic agenda as his lifelong and overarching enterprise, we can
mdced speak of his innovation. Mipam's philosophy ofYugana ddhavada seems to be
based on the fundamental assumption that an Ansicht-based discord among various
persons and factions would only give way to Einsi~ht-?ased c~ncor d 188when they
gained insight into the ultimate true reality , namely, the ontological yuganaddh~.
It is only then and there that the ideological differences, and the conflicts based
on them , would come to be resolved and dissolved naturall y. That is why beings
such as buddhas and siddhas begin to think with one intent (dgongs pa gcig) and
speak 、 vith one voice (dbyangs gcig).
NOTES
1 would like to thank Philip Pierce who, despite having a long waiting list of editorial work,
corrected my English ai1d made valuable comments and suggestions.
1. Du 呔 worth, Mipam on Buddha -Nature.
2. Wangchuk, "Was Mipain a Dialectical Monist? 35.
3. A few technical notes may be warranted here. First, although it would have
been desirable to ex 邱 ìne Indian and early Tibetan sources that underlie Mipams monis-
tic and harmonistic ideas-mainly in order to observe the historical development of the
Yuganaddhavada philosophy-the emphas is has been laid not so much upon tracing and
explaining the history of his ideas as on determining his philosophy. In other words, the aim
has been not so much to provide a diachronic as a synchronic view of his Yuganaddhavada
philosophy. Second, although I occasionally do point out similar ideas found in some Indian
and early Tibetan (mainly Rongzm 邑） writngs, the focus has been on identifying more
than one parallel source in Mipam's writings so as to consolidate our understanding of his
positio11S.Third, with regard to the choice of sources, emphasis has been laid on primary
Tibetan sources, and mainly Mipam's own writings. For want of time, references to only one
version or edition of the sources have been given. A secondary source that may be mentione~
here is Broido, "Padma-dkar-po on Integration;'w hich is perhaps the only study devoted
exclusively to the idea of yuganaddha. Apparently, the idea of yuganaddha also played a ke!
role in Prajiiarasmi's alias Trengpo Terton Sherab Ozer's (1518..:_1584)nonsectari~n (ris med)
mode of thinking (for which see Deroche, Prajni 函 mi). Fourth, a general investigation of the
philosophy and histo 吖 of the idea of yugai1addha, taking into account various interpretatio~~
of yuganaddl1a by various Tibetan B~ddhist tradition s ~d scholars, though desirable, would
seem to be an immensely difficult task, and hence it appears to be sensible at this point to
可 to determine some particular Tibetan scholar's unde~standing of>'Ugandh 一 one whose
position is in general regarded as authoritative and representative by his order.
4. MiPam,'0dsnying256.3; comPare Rgyud bla'i mchan 73.6: dbyi"gs rig dbyerm 乩
k~i ~hams; Gnyug_semszur dpyad 277.6: d 妙 ings-~ a
dbyer med kyi gnas /~gs.·for discussio~
of the te~- zung'jug and its v 訌 ious renderings i~ E1~glish,see-B;oi<lo.'1>a<lma-dkar-pO on
Integration" 5-8.
s_._Mipa~,'Od snying_l 64.6-165.1: bdag gnyis kyis stong pa'i dbyings dang zun~~".
zhugs ~a'i snan~ ba_rnams; Dbu ma rgyan 如 l 37L2-3: thasnyad dang don dam pa'i bde"
pa gnyis zung du zhugs pa'i lam tshul.
~ ~ipam, Dbu ma rg?'an_grel 362.4: bden 韌 1yis zung du chud tshul; Rgyud bla~
mchan 27.4: snang stong zung du chud; Mngon rtogs rgya" 如/ 404.5, 417.5: bden gnyis z,1rtg
,m AND SIDDHAS MEET 29 5
\\THERE BUDDHAS
`
£Tel472.6: mnyam rjes dbyer med bden
/mn sgrubpa; Dbu ma rgyan gre
訌 1JP ì 鄩 '1 心
Sdu
' 如
19.4:bde" gnyiSZU, g duchudpa; Sdu 袒 el mdo sbyar 220.6:
泗七： ungd d, udpa;compare Stong th,msengge196.5.
祜 1g
：益 U ， u d ` dtha RongzomPaalso employs theexpression zung du'brelb,
7. Itmay 比 l;e te for 邙 ample,
」
hisRgyud spyi'i dngos po. Almogi,Rong-zom-pas
'·
se 、迢 0C 磾 0ns. ．／ thabs dangshesrab zung du'brel baì
369:sngagszhes bya ba _ni
on onB1,ddholog _11.
DL-CO:l 函 Lta 如 el (as cited !n Wangchuk, Resolveto Become a Buddha_1_32
邱 nyid la h'astc. mdor bsdu'nashes rab dang snying rje zung du'brel bab. He
160): b)-ang chub kyi sen` m toy the expression zung'jug or zung du'jugpatorefer to
ho"-ever, seemto emp1oy
如 not, addhabut instead prefers the synonymous expression dbyerm 严
;e ontlgica 泗皿 525.3-4: des na snga 硏 r ring lugs clir I gzhi lar_n'bras bu'i
8. Mip 皿 Nges sgron
卹 gmirtabdenyso / rgyachadphyogs lhung bral ba'Izung
益矼 la I rt~g
b mt 加 'skyong.Se also hisBstan rgyas 699.2:yod medphyogs rer zhenpa',
jugk],on~'i?':'
I mthar 岫 ltab'i Uzinstang [sic) drung nasphyung I gzhi lam'bras bu.s
硒 gtad zhig
國 snag tongzud'j I mtshokyerga (ba'i bstanpa; Rab gsal brtsad Ian 521.6-522.1:
汕 g caggilu 菸
la choskyidbyingszhespa med dgagphyang cha1 ts_am~n p~r.~n~n~st?ng
`ng 'jugan I 呻 mkunchoglda gyi stong nyid'n pas Igz hi lam'brasbu'i skabs kun
"l9Ì medpa'i 珈 yar ba nam yang mi clod.do.
.. ,,.
-· ·•
9.The~ressio~ thig le nyagg~igis employed by Mipam, for exam 西 in his :od
I
一｀ •• - 一
.-•
`
·、
叨 ing 173.3, 265~5,307.5;Bka'brgyad 602.2, 672.4; Sdud grel 60.6, ~1.2,99.6; ~tong thun
~gge 197.6,208.5;Gsungsgros916.6; Yeshes ral gri 480.2; Grub bsdu.s668.5; Gnyug sems
I.-` -
---·
~-·..
. '
··'· ~-".'.
：．一 `· - -v
呵 dpya
區加） being
277.4,325.4-6;Lta phrengmchan 如 el 43.5. For the idea of the object of cognition
fusedwiththe cognition(shespa), see, for instance, his Yegrub ut pal 496.6:
七
i.
t 、二 L. 尸} A
'
. 'w6
[:V.Y
',
．．
3
.6: mthar thug thc8 抨 8 C.1gS tong t/r'"' g, 'g g`` 194.3-6:
296 DORJl'NANGCHUK
\fng on rt ogs ~ran 11Ttl476.5-477.6; Rgyud bla'i mchan 94.2, where h

e also.illu<l
Suddhdnnapu rJ4ai 知 Sutra and.MahiiparinirviirJa Sutra; Sa skya'i dri Ian 600.2::;:u ~sto the
gsumsna tshogs theg pasbrtul l nges puì don du mthar thug theg gag bsta, ,`
COn`
;kayiltta is discus sed often in the conte~t of ~e ~uestion wh e ther 頲 vaks and e issueof
dh as realize or cognize the nonessentia.Iity ofphenomena (dharm,Iity 『 tye`
mcdpa) . For Mipam 's po sition on this is 、 ue, bee hisNges sgro,1 507.6-5O124;Dbu oskyIbdag
严 685.2 689.2; Zia ba'i zllal lung 218.2-223.4. For a discus sion of the ekayanatheo 呻 rgya1
Wangchuk, Resolve to Become a Buddha 111- 112. ✓- - "~ u,cury , Set
13. Rongzompa, Dkon rncliog grel 46.20 - 22:'di /tar'phags pa rtogs chen
phyag 唧
pa las I t/1eg pa 11igcig tu bas te I gnyis dang gsum du ma mchis so I zhes gsung~pa ltab11
stc / Ui ltaryarIgdag par rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas gcig kho nab. Cited in Wangchuk,Resol ve
to Become a Buddha 112 n. 30. Compa re his 1heg tshul 473.17- 474.8, where the Dzokche~
system is claimed to be the ``zcni th of all vehicles, " or rather, the `'best of all ways"(theg
pa thams cad kyi yang rtse) , with the argument that the "best way is that which [needs] n~
walking" (bgrod du med pa nyid lam gyi mchog).
14. Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature xi. Wangchuk, "Was Mipam a Dialectical
Monist?" 36.
15. The two different satyadvaya models (bden gnyis'iog tshul gnyis) have been men-
tioned (and discussed in varying detail) by Mipam in his (1) Dbu ma rgyan grel (366.3-368.5 ;
(2) Rab gsal brtsad lan 442.4-443.2; (3) Brag dkar brgal Ian 243.6-245.1; (4) Gzhi'ile,u \
tshig 如 l 753.2-6; (5) Gzhan stong seng ge 221.2-223.5; (6) Gsung sgros 785.1-786.6.The
discussion in the Gzhan stong seng ge is particularly useful, since it explains at lengththe
practical application of the second model, which is not always clear. To my knowledge(cf.
Phuntsho, Miphams Dialectics 114), these two models have not been explicated by Mipamin
his Nges sgron or Shes rab ral gri. Some of these sources have been provided also in Almogi ,
Rong-zmp 必 Discoure on Buddhology 199 n. 32.
16. Botrul in his Lta grub shan'byed fols. Sb6-6al employs the terms snang sto,,g
bden gnyis or snang stong chos kyi bden gnyis and gnas snang bden-gnyis or gnas snang cl,~s
kyi bden gnyis. See also Phuntsho, Miphams Dialectics 174. Inter;stingly, ~ven though_Je
Gendun Rinchen (1926-1997), adopts Botrul's expression gnas snang ch;s·kyi bden gnyis,~e
also employs the term snang stong rten'byung bden gnyis. See Schwe;k, Spiegelder Sichtweise
95-96. Note, however, that the expressions snang stong gi bden gnyis (Gzhan stong sengg~,
223.2; gSung sgros, 785.6) and gnas snang mthun mi mthun gyi dba~g du byas pa'i bden g 畊
or gn~ sn;ing gi dbang gis bden gnyis'jog tshul (Gsung sgros, 786~4, 797.2). are employed
by Mipam himself. The two satyadvaya models have been briefly presented in German in
Wangchuk, "Madhyamaka" 221-222.
17. See the,Z_lab~'i z~~l_lung68:2-72:2,.w~~re Mip~ justifies at length why the rela·
tion bet\veen ~ and y s~ould be_ngo_bo_gclg_la ~d?~pa _tha dad. In his M;,gon rtogs rgy 皿
grel 419.5-6, he states_tha~ on the ab~olu~e.lev~l ~don dam_du), x and y ar; beyo~d being
identical or _sep~~te. ~n _the conve?H~nal1!ev~l, the x: r~lationship is, one of ~go bo gcig
la ldog pa tha dad, and the x-xy rela~ionship is_one ~f gcig pa bkag pa'i tha -dad. See ;iso
比 sGung sgros 8O7.5-8U.5; Mkh 心 'jug52.-; and in addition hisNges sgron 526.2-3:
yang dag dypod pa'i shes rab ngor / snang dang stong pa Ui gnyis po des yod mnyam med
mnyam ngo bo gcigI ldog pa tha dad dbye bar Uod. In generaJ. MiPam's deliberation s on
the questIon..Whichofthe two modes of realjty is the prime? " ( bden pa gnyis las gang
;hig gtso) in his Nges sgron 524.2-529.2 can be seen as an attempt to dete;;;;'i~e-tlie6~~y
~
WHERE BUDDHAS AND S
IDDHA S MEET
297
iDpresupposed _in a n.atural }:1_gana_ddha.For Mipam's all
油 ti0lshp P usion to the idea found
SondhinirmocanaSUtrathat Positingtheabsolute and the
ill thecal(gcig)orseparate (tha dad)would have four unde sirable conventional to be either
consequences (skyonbzhi
idenn see hiS Ketaka45.4-5;Dbu margyn 如 l 371.l -3; Stong thun
bzl,idag), seng ge 195.3-4;
rtogsyan 怛 el 419.1-42O.1;Gnyug sems zurdpyad 239.l- 4;· G
J.fngo11 ; vnyug sems shan'byed
~Md; sde rgyan grel 101.3; compare Nges sgron 541.5-6
83.6-84·~; - : gnas snangphan tshul 及 al
;·bden gnyis t~a. ~ad sk~on bzhi'bab I gnas snang phan tshul
b°',a gzhan min na I bden
,. skyonbzhis gnod.
痧 isgcpaI
IS. ·Rongzompa has stated that of the Three Jewels (dkon mch
og gsum), buddha and
呵思 ha
are specifications .(by~ ~rag) of jfiana, while dharmas are? thei~--i
dharma is its?
dharmata.Inthiscontext, hedefu1es the relations 両 be_twnj 醯 na and dh armata by stating
;; 00 the mere co~vention~ level 5k_u~ rdzob tsam du), jfiana and dh armata-as relating
-
cproperty"(chos) to `propertybearer" (chos can) are essentially one (bdagnyidgcigpa) , but
;0 the absolute level (do~ _da~ pa~) they ar~ without duality(gnyis su med (pa)), inasmuch
as they are characterized by the absence of all subjective and objective m~oldness. See
his Dkon mchog 如 el 223.16-23.
19. Mipam, Bra! 1kar _b:gal lan 244.4: cli dag gi lugs la bden gnyis kyang gcig pa bkag
pa'i tha dad du bzhed do; Gzhan stong seng ge 223.1-3: de lta na don dam rang ngos n; 」
stongzer ba cli rnam pa kun tu bden gnyis phyi ma'i'iog tshul ltar byas te / bden pa gnyis
po gcigpa bkag pa'i tha dad du khas len pa la go dgos kyi I snang stong gi bden g 硒 ngo
bogdg la ldog pa tha dad kyi'iog tshul ltar go ba de gtan min no.
20. To explain the second satyadvaya model on the basis of the "pauper-prince" anal-
。 gy: if the citizen "pauper" (object) and the "misconception/ misperception" of him (subject)
werethe sa,rvrtisatya, the prince (object) and the cognition / recognition (subject) of him
as such would be the paramarthasatya . One can still posit a yuganaddha (zung 1ug) or
indivisibility(dbyer med) relationship between the s 呻叩函 tya and parmthsy 丶 "th
the argument that not only has our "(ruled) pauper" always been our "(ruling) prince," he
has even been in reality perceived without being recognized as such. This understanding
'
1- ~
OORJl WANGCHUK
.2.98
id; Sdud grcl mdo sbyar 302:1; Mngon. rt~gs rgyan 如 I 407. l
'rmynm IlyI , · AJlhough
encoun ter the term snid zhi zung'jug being used, for ex 叨 nple , by Pema
Karp0(Broid
`Ved 。
"Padma·dkar· po onInte grat ion" 33) , Mi Pam does not seem to em ploy it.
25. The 1dea of'khor Uas dbyer med, 'khor Uas mnyam nyId, or snd zhi mn
can be also traced in Rongzompa's works. See,for examp le,Dkon mchog 担 el 49. 7 7 园
`
nyon mO1Igspa daIIg rnam par byang ba dbyer medpa; Dkon m c hog 如 l 53.l 一 14·. Un 呣
·如 r ba
dar'g mya ngan las'das pa'i chos thams ca~ r~? rje lta.r ~byer ~e1 pa;_compare Dk on 吡 h og
grei"61.,24- 62.l: 'kf10r ba d_ang ~[a _n~an las'das pas bsdus pa '~ chos thams cad gdod
加 1n`
dbyer med pa ; Gsung thor bu 395-6: kun nas nyon ~-ong~ pa_dang rnam par~ iyangba'ichos
dbyer med pa; Grub mtha 'i brjed byang 208.14 - 15:'khor ha dang mya ngan las 袖 pa gnyis
su-med pa; Lta 妒 rel 338.1-3: kund nas nyon mongs pa'i chos'khor ba rgyu dang 'br~ bur
be 心 pa thams cad dang I rnam par byang ba'i chos mya ngan las cias pa'rgyu dang,,,;;
bur bcas pa thams cad dbyer myed.
26. See Mipam's Gzhan stong seng ge 229.4-223.1, where he explains the logicbehind
the concept of srid zhi mnyam nyid. The expression .also occurs in the Nges sgron 507.1;'Od
snying 157.1-2; rGyud bla'i mchan 95.6; Dbu ma rgyan 如 el 722.6; Mngon rtogs rgyangre1
407.1; Mkhas'jug 186.6; Sdom byang 368.5: srid zhi mnyam nyid zhing dag sbyor I.
27. Rongzompa , Lta grel 326.1-9; Dkon mchog 如 el 57.4- 8: de kho na nyid cespa m
I spyir don la phyin ci ma log pas de kho na nyid ces bya ste I de yang mi gyur ba dang
don la mi bslu bao I de la mi gyur ba'i sgo nas ni I chos thams cad kyi de bzhin nyid ni rtag
tu ji ltar ba bzhin nyid de I'di la gyur ba med pas de bzhin nyid ces byao I de rtogspa'i yt
shes kyang don dang mthun par skye ste I'di la bslu ba med pas de kho na nyid ces byao.
Compare this with the use of the expressions'bras bu don dam, ye shes don dam, and 吻
ings don dam in Mipam's'Od snying 125.2.
28. The following verses should show that Mipam was through and through a Pram 却
avadin (Shes rab ral gri, 440.2-3): tshad ma tshad min ma dpyad par / Jig rten mtl1ongba
tsam zhig gis I don dam nyid la'jig ce na I de /tar bkag pa med mod kyi / 'di las ~;'加 •ung
mthong ba ni I'jig rten pa yi mngon sum la I de rten don dpog rjes dpag phyir I ming mil
btags kyang don mi spong. See also Shes rab ral gri 445.3: tshad mar gyur pa rgyal ba'i gswrg
tshad ma dag gis grub pas na I tshad ma'i lam nas nges bskyed pas / tshad ma'i gsw1ggis bdtn
'bras mthong. See also the Dbu ma rgyan 如 el 614.3-615.4, where Mipam vehemently defenJs
the necessity of dngos po'i stobs zhugs kyi rigs pa (vastuba/anyaya) or dngos po stobs :hugs
(vastubalapravrtta) in general and particularly in Buddhist philosophy (adhy,itmk ·il~ 矗｀ i；
adhyatmavidya, nang rig pa).
29. Mipam, Ketaka 45.1- 2. Note that here he cites the famous Sutric verse that se 國遠
a locus classicus of the twofold truth, which is also cited twice by Can<lrakirti in his.'I, dh)'II· '
makvtrbh 邪 a, once indicating the Pitaputrasamagama S,i 而 (Madh>umkvtr·
bha~a. 70.5-9) as the source and once the Tattvanirdesastmuidlti Si 加 (ibd., 174.7-12}:
'jig rten mkhyen pas gzhan la ma gsan par I bden pa 祐 g,yI S ,wid kvis 如 n par md 迢 I
gang zhig ktm rdzob de bzlti11do11dam ste I bde11P" gsum _p~1 ~tll!~""'mchis so. Likewise
he cites there Madhyamakavatara 6.23: samyng111r?1idarsnn,,lt1b~J1t~bl1th•t1,!'riipadvayaf!1 bib-
hrati sarvabhdvah I samyagd#d m yo vi,ayoI.,sa tattwIm mF(I （極加 sm.n 叩 isaty,.;km
See a1so the Shes rab ral gri 434.2-3: Stmgs 珝 yas nmms kyb chos bstan pa / bden pa gnyiS
la yang dag brte,1 / 2jigrten kun rdzob bde'I pa d,mg I dam pa'i don gyi bde,, pab . This is
clearlyanadaPtationoftheTibetan translation ofthe MUlamadhyamakakdrika24.8: dvesatye
samupasritya ·buddha11ana,r1dharmadesana I !_ok ,is a, 「 1Vnisatym ea satyum ca pammdrthatah
/I. See a1so his Nges sgron 545.24: des na dbu ma'i lugs thams cad I bd 面 gnyis tsh~i·;;~
299
; bden pa 炒 'is. la ma brt~n1par I ztt~g ~u kh~~g du chud mi gyur / rgyal

ar 砒 ag
a yang/ bden pa gnyis la yang dag brten; Nges sgron 542.4:'.'5:med,,ces
層"' " SIlycdgsungsp ~ ·dang / yod ces s~ang c~a n~
b 必 J'
鉕 'sornyed'sto, g ngesp
pa gnyis I ~es'jog tshad ma gnyis kyis ni
don nam I mthongdon bden pagnyis zhes brjod; Mkhas)ug 147.1-6;
祛 oltshe38.2: kun rdzob dang ni don dam pa/ Ui ni bden pa gnyis su Uod.
sdom 妒 ng Ketaka 49.5-52.1; Dbu ma rgyan 如 l 629.6-633.4; Rab gsal brtsad lan
jo. MiparD,
522.6-524._3; Shes rab ral gri 434.3-4: bden pa gnyis kyi rang bzhin la / ma nor nges
31. Mipam,
I dri med tshad ma rnams gnyis kyi I mig bzang mchog tu bsgrub par bya;
a'i b/osJ 哆 'ta
'547. l: snang ba tha snyad tshad ma'i yul / stong pa don dam dpyod pa'i yuk
NgesSgron289.1-2;Mkhas'jug 305.5: bden pa gn 西 kyign 心 tshul la tshad ma gnyis; Sdom
Mkhas;ug
byang
p
404~3:bden gnyis dpyod pa'i ~shad ma gnyis; Bio'~'.al gri 4~1_.2-3: l!a: ~nang grags
/ ma brtags nyams dgar snang tsam pa I tha snyad lam rdzob bden pa dang
chosmamskun
/ dpyadna don la ma grub pa I gnas lugs don dam bden pa ste I tshad ma gnyis kyi gzhal
byabayi/ bden gnyis ma Ures so sor Jog.
32. Wangchuk,"Relativity Theory" 217-224.
33. Mipam,Shes rah ral gri 439.3-4: d?n ~am la y~ng_rnam grangs dang I rnam grangs
mmpa'i tshulkyis / de ]al don dam dpyod byedkyi / tshad ma de yang gnyC su 趴 yur.
34. Toe idea of bden pa gcig (or de bzhin nyid gcig) has been mentioned by Mipam
on severaloccasions. See, for examples, his Nges sgron 512.1: chos kun de nyid gcig yin cing;
Ngessgron532.4:gn~ /~gs b~~n gcig zun~'jugste;Nges sgron 532.4: mthar thug de kho na
nyidni /gcig las,nedphyir; Nges sgron 512.3: de bzhin nyid gcig de yin te; compare Nges
sgron535.3:snang stong zun~'jug d~7ings de_ni ~ mt~~r thug de kho n_~nyid yin;_Shes rab
r~lgri 440.5: mthar thug bden pa dbyer med pa'i I bden gcig myang'das yang dag mtha';
MkhasJug 237.4-6; Mkhas'jug 147.5-6: bden pa dang po gnyis su phye yang mthar thug so
sormtshannyid kyis grub pa med par bden pa gcig pu zung'jug mnyam pa chen por bstan
pa yin te I de ni don dam bden pa mthar pa chos kyi dbyings so; Ketaka 90.4, 131.4-132.2;
Dbuma rgyan grel 644.4: de kho na nyid nyag gcig (= chos kyi dbyings).
35. Some of the Indian sources cited are the Bodhisattvapitaka (cited in the Rab gsal
brtsadIan, 370.5, 448.4-5: gzhan yang bden pa ni I gcig pu I gnyis ma yin pa ste I'di lta ste
懶 ,g pa'i bden pao; Rtsa shes mchan 如 el 312.1: (citation) dge slong dag bden pa dam pa ni
~cigkho na ste I mi bslu ba'i chos can gyi mya ngan las'das pao; Yukti 惡呾 35 (cited in
the Rab gsa/ brtsad Jan, 449.4: mya ng~~ aas pa -bden gcig p~r I rgyal ba rnams kyis gang
~sungs _pa; Madhyantavibhaga (Mipam,'Od phreng 341.6): dam pa'i don ni gcig pub;* Adhisa,
Satyadyaydvatam(cited in the Rab gsal brtsad lan 384.5-6) : dam pa'i don ni gcig nyid de;
Dbuma rgyan grel (377.4, referring to the Madhym 粒 vatdrbh,). See also the Ketaka
132.1-2.
3~· See Almogi, Rong-zom-pas Discourses on Buddhology 14, 232, where a crucial dif-
ferencebetweenMipam's understanding of svay,rbhil; 」 na 缸 1d Rongzompa's understanding
of it has been observed.
37. The
clear] ~w that there is ultimately only "one valid cognition" (tshad ma gcig) is
y advanced bY Mipam in his Nges sgron 532.4-5, as has been pointed out in Almogi,
Rong-z 氚
｀節 DiSCOUrseon Buddhology 22O, and Wangchuk `` Relativity 1heory" 22l. See
eN 恋 S
de 竑 in n. ;gr~n~12.2-3: air ni zung Jug ye shes gang/ mthar thug gzigs pa de kho na I
iyidgcig de yin yi te I'phags kun de Ia gzhol zhing'bab .
38. Cand 沚泗
,Madhym 柚 vatrbh, (de La Vallee Poussin, Madhyama!'d~~tara
p`ndr 咖 ti
300.7-8: air ni mngon sum gcig nyid kho nar zad de gang thams cad mkhyen
I
DORJ 」 WANG C HUK

300
pa 'i y(' sl1CSSO; Madh yamak a vatdrcrTib. 6.2I4 (de La Vallt e Poussin, Madh
Uod I/ gzI'
5 m i mI 祠
"" "''
e j inodhk(1Ig
1y
'
c tmdrakrt i 337.4- 7): mam ku" nkl1yOI I1yid ye shes 1li / nmgon sum mtsha11,
; tshe ba 11yidkyis I mngon sum z 貽
Rumdralf 4.91bc (Hahn, N6gdrjuna5 Rat"dvali l28-l29 ): buddhmr a"yat pranu
dmI Ui lo m rgyal balas I lhngpa 'i tshad ma gzhan
byar mi aod d o. 、
ya n1 鹵
@mpare N·
顾
;; t̀ag`
` I
e`
su yod I
in the Rab g;al brtsad la11,513.3, cf. 578.3). 國
39. Aimogi , Rong-zom -pa ~ Discourses on Buddhology 232.
40. Dharmakirti, Prmnii1_1aviirttika3.la (as cited Prama,:,avarttikalmrikara,
169.lO, l!:
compare Wangchuk , "Relativity Theory" 220 n. 21): tnanar,1 dvividhar11 meyadvaividh yQ·t
;
gzlial bya gnyis pliyir tshad ma gnyis I (cf. Negi 1993- 2005: s.v. gzhal bya).
41. Dharmakirti, Pmma~1aviirttika 3.53d (as cited in the Prama,:,avarttika al 成 ar
212.28; Wangchuk, "Relativity lheory" 221 n. 22): meyarµ tv e 知 m sval 卸 anm. ranggi
mtshan nyid gcig gzhal bya I (cf. Negi, Tibetan -Sanskrit Dictionary: s.v. gzhal bya)• Analogous
to gzhalbya g,Iyis phyir tshad ma gnyis, gzhal byagcigphyir ts 加 d ma gcigcouldactually
a1so be proposed. Compare Mipam, Mkhas'jug 29.3: de'i phyir shes byed thams cad bloda;g
I shes bya thams cad dios su cluo.
42. See Mipam, Grub bsdus 656.2-6, where Tantric soteriology has been implied
accor~g tow 届 ch the skylike "basis to be purified" (sbyangs gzhi) (i.e., tathagatagarbha ,
~a ~zhin ~1_gsa_~ ba'i _sn1_ing po), cloud.like "to-be-purified" (sbyang bya; i.e.,'khor b;'i rang
~z~in), ~dlike "purifier" (sbyong byed; i.e., thabs zab mo), ~d,;re~ult of being purified ;
(sbyangs'bras; i.e., buddhahood) have been mentioned.
43: ~e ~ot~riological mo~eJ based on the concept of (1) "basis of separation or dis·
SOCIation'(bralgzhr; i.e ， svaymbh 」 fian or ye nas gn~s pa'i ;hos nyid zung'jug spros bra/
chen po) ,( 2) `` to-be-dissociated" (sgrib gnyis) ,( 3) <`resu1t of dissociation' ( bral ba'i'bras
bu / bral'bras; i.e., rang byung ye shes kyi sku) is suggested in Mipam's Dka'gnad ci rigs
738.4-739.2 and Gnyug sems shan'byed 157.3-6.
~- ~~ngc~uk, Resolve to Become Buddha 36-41.
45.Wangchuk `` Was Mipama Dia1ectical Monist?',
29-30; Wangch 吡 Resolv to
BecomeBuddha 39-41. The two soteriological
twokinds of cause (hetu,models and the underlying concePt ofthe
「 gyu) are mentioned b
437.6-438.2;Wangchuk, ｀＇ Was 汕 yMipam in his Rnam bshad pad dkar
pam a Dialectical Monist?" 30 n. 28; briefly suggested in
Wangchu 亡 Madhymk" 218) stating that these
Satra andVajrajnanasamuccaya Tantra. It is have beentaught in theMaprinvd 血
yet to be verified if h e was thinking of a certain
P~~age in the Mahaparinirviil'}a Sutra.
of the passage in Vajrajnana
h
~s for the second case, e must have been thinking
sa~u~caya Tantra T, fol. 269b5
~g cause,, (snang ba'i rgyu). In his,. G nyug sems zur
, containin g the term "manifest-
dpyad239.5
that the`denotationaJ exemplifyi -241.I, Mipam suggests
ng gnosis" （ mtshon 加 d dpet
cause"(gsalbyedkyi rgyu) of the `, ye shes) is the ìlluminating
to-be-denoted ac~al
gyi_ye shes I gnas lugs) 叨 d not its,;
appropriating cause" (nyer ~Jen g~~sis reality" (mtshon 妙 a don
to-be-denoted actual gnosis is the''effect of gyi gyu). Similarly, the
of 1:3aturation"(smin 1Jras). Th~ 硒 models
separation" (bra/
are also suggested b •~ras) rath~r ·than the,:~ffect
mchog 如 l. wangch 吡 Resolv to Become Buddha 41. y RongzomPa in his Dkon
46. Rongzompa, Bden gnyis'jog tshul (cited in
44 n. IO3): Ui ltar nyan thos kyi th wangchuk, Resolve to B
egpa n 心 gzhi bzung nas J ecome Buddha
gibar du I gang zhigyang dagpa'i don
~a yin la. For a discussi~n o~n·the b
' rdZOgspa chen
mtho, g na rnampargrol lo zhpo'imthar
es thun
thug
Become Buddha 43-44.as1S ofsomeIndian sources, see Wmong dugrags
angchuk , Resolve to
rgyu'bras dbyer med
1n mi mthun pa dang
as spang bar bya ba'i
in gyis dbyer med pa.
·「'．」 O '}'u
523.4:;ni mthun pa dang gnyen po dbyer myed pa; Dkon mchog 如 l 93.
seealso痂 gtshul / 96.9: mi mthun pa dang gnyen po dbyer med pa; Lta 如 el 340.11-12: mi
[)ko" ＇＂ chog a danggnyen 妒 po'gnyis su dbyer medpas / rang bzhin gyis mya ngan las Uas pab.
"'th 皿 49. P Mipam,Ngessgron 54l.6-542.1: tshul des sangsrgyas sems can kyangIgnas tshul
~j;ul ;am yin gyi I rgyu'bras nyid ~u clod pa ni I_theg fa c~ung ngu~ shes par by~
"' Rgyu
a',g
d.bla'imchan 23.6-24.1: des na sems dang snying po'i ye shes chos c~_ndan~ c~os 可 id
yin la san~s:gyas dang sems can kyang gnas tshul dang snang tshul gyi dbang du byas nas
;;~~-pa'i phyi~rgyu la'bras g~as sogs kyi rigs pa'i gnod pa ston pa ni phyogs ma go bar zad
do;Stongthun sengge 188.1-2.
so. Such as between samudayasatya and du 崮 asty, margasatya and nirodhasatya,
sa1?1vrtisatya and paramarthasatya, sa 加 ar Isa 祉硒 and nirvdrJa I vyavadana, sattva and
vajrasattva.
51. Guenther, Teachings of Padmasambhava 183 (rgyal bu dmangs su'khyams pa
bzhin).It is maintained that the system of the Dzokchen does not even distinguish between
an apparitionalmode (snang tshul) and an existential mode(gnas tshul), whence the exp res-
sion"withoutcolor being shifted or hair being transformed" (mdog ma rjes spu ma bsgyur).
See,for example,the Bka'brgyad 576.5-577.4. See also Rongzompa, Lta grel 339.21-24: de
yangtli'skad du I sems can'khrul pa'i dus na' 祜 or ba I ma' 祜 rul bar rtogs na byang chub
~ bsh~d_Pa~_i ~ rdzogs pa chen po'i gzhung du yang mi 硏 r te I theg pa og ma rnams
?ang_~e !~ar_clo~p~,~phyir ro I (cited and translated into German in W~gchltlc, "rDzogs-
chenMeditation"175).
52. See, fior ins_tan~e,Mip~'s b~autiful manifesto of aspirational wishes having Dzo-
kchenphilosophyas its theme, where he states (Rdo rje'i ranggdangs, 473.4) : shes bya'igzhi
'f<'ngbgrodpar byedpa'i lam I'thob bya'bras bu'i ch~s su btags pa yang I rang bzhin gshis
la nam mkha'igo,;,;, clra.
53. The idea that the grow1d(gzhi), path (lam), and goal ('bras bu) are indivisible
is put forward by Rongzompa in his Dk
on mc~og 如 l 201.24-202.3 (cited in Wangchuk,
R 邸 olve to BecomeBuddha 41
n~ 92); Dkon mchog 如 l 94.11-13; Mdo rgyas 344.16:345.6
(citedin Wangchuk,Resolve to Become Buddha 323 -n. 166).
54. R。 n_gzompa, Mdo rgyas 310.14: deb as na shes par bya ba'i chos kyang rang bzhin
nam chosnyid tsam-mo.
R
55.. Kongzompa, Mdo
rang bzhim_gyigtan tshig tsam~~mo. :g:...~ 310.15: de sgrub par byed pa'i gtan tshig {sic) kun kyang
56. Rongzompa, Mdo
祜
0 na tsam te I
「 -gyas 310.15-17: de bas na'brel baan g rang bzhin gyis'brel ba
「 'KJUbras kyi'brel b
par brtagspatsamdu zad d alta bubngdgospa'i skabs kyis rangbzhin nyid la rnam
57. Mipam, Shes rab ral 0-. For details, see Mdo rgyas 310.17~311.10.
nyidp 心 na / rigIgri436J-2:bya ba byed dang ltos pa yang I dngos po'i chos
Db rigsJpa'i mtha'ni 咖 s nyid la /
Umargyn 析 el64.2 3 thug nas rgyu mtshan tshol du med;
加 dltos- ： mngonsumde '
pag 邴 skyangdopich angchos nyid'ba'zhiglagtugsdgos te Ui ltar bya
des 血 os nyid yin pas chos nyid k
rigspa thamscad k· yi rigspakho nar Uu zhingI
la/ derth ylgros thaggcodcingzad sar skyel b
ug n 心 de phan chad thad anichosnyidk·. :y,rigs pa yin
pa gzhan sgrub dgos pa ma yin te I me tsha ba'i rgyu
--
WANGC"UK ,. mtha' thams cad
DORJIh ir rigspa!
3o2 Mkh¢'jug291.5-6: de'i p y d de / dngos po'i chos nyid
`
'tshol du rne
bshad du med pa bzhin no; u mtshan gzhan bzhi11no.
mtshmI la thug nas rgy du bsnyon mi nus pa ba can; l'v!kh 心） ug 295.1:
chos I1yI d b` 1asuskyang gzhandpagmngon sum rtsa in la; Dbu ma rgyan 霾
me'i tsha
58. Mip 缸 n,
Shesrab ral gr
i 437.3:rjes 'i rtsa ba can !
sum pai thug cing; Dbu ma rgyan 袒 el 61~.l-2:
· mthar mngonla
deyang nessu dpagp; ;;; ma\mtha'mngon sum u mtshan can gyt chos tshad m 心 bzung
498.6·dehngnes dpag de dpogs nus kyi rgy
ul lkoggyur ·d kyis nges / ma.k}lrul
rjes dpagskyangy la gtugsshing. sumrang rig nyI
mthar mngonsum294.5-6: de than1S
ba yin pas Shes rab ral grt. 437.3-4: mngon du med; Mkhas'jug
59. Mipam, b byed gzhan ba thams cad kyi mtha'
I thug nas s 护 ba yin zhing/ myong
blo yi nyamsmyonglaul mngonsummyong b byed gzhan mi dgospa ni l
cad shespas rangrangg y sum myong ba\ don la sgru hod pa yin pas
/ mngonba las the tshom C
rang ng pa la thug pa ste l du nyams sumyong Mkhas'jug 295.1: mngon sum
'khrul ba nyid rang gsasa yin no;b byedgzhan
rang blo ma cad ky! mtha'gtugla thug nas sgrU
'di ni tshad ma thams ;i blo-yi nyams myong
rang rig 'khrul pai
gyt mtha'rangriggis ngeste ma ba bzhin no. in his Dkon mchog 囧
bde sogsnyams su myong Rongzompa
btsal m1dgospa eshes rang ngpais employed by its counterpart sems rang
6O.1hetermy ·usti6ed,he does not seem to employ al self-representatio~
133.5,but,tl1oughits use is) henomena as being `cment
.f he does explaiIltic sa 呻 aric p self-representation" （ yes 犀
rig pa, even 1 henomenaasbeing' 'gnos
ba) and nirv 訒 ic _ p
`;
(semsrang snang Dkon mchog 袒 elathms 132.16-18. cad kyi rtsa ba mtlmr
~angsnang ba). See '<Trel 687.5: nyon mortgs P
61. Mipam, Dbu ma rgyan gre
1uvin te chos
thugni rmongspa tsa` .l316.7-9:dngossu na ye shes thams cad kyang 磾
gagy
kyang gcig>,jn
62. Rongzompa, a'i shes rab bo / nyon mongs pa. hams
thamscad la bdag medpar rtogsp, The entire passage contmning these lines is cited
te / Ui'ltar bdag tu rmongspa'i rtog pao.
his Dbu ma rgyan' 妒 l 685.2-687.4. I zab mo'i chos
by Mipamin395A-5: bden gnyis zung'jug rtogs tshul gyi
63. Mipam,sDom byang237.6-241.4; Mngon rtogs r 护 'I 妒 1
d. For, details, see his Mkhas'jug 536.4-10: snang sto11g
nyid rnam pa brg~a
579.5-582.6.Seealso the Rab gsal brtsad lan 571.3-573.2;Nges sgron i stong sogs
r;;~l-ba'i dkyil'khor du I srid pa stong_dang 1~1
'di la ngesshes na I bri gan~ kye; Gnyug sems zi~r 扉 d
chosnyid bsamgyls mi khyabla / zab mo'i bzodpa khong nas s y Shes rab nil 妒
322.4-5:zab mo brgyad ldan;Su 怛 el mdosbyar 297.4-3O1.6. Compare s11yi11g poi
444.2:bdengnyistshul la mkhas byaspa / bden gnyis zung'jug don mthong tslte
phyir duspun sel ltar / thabs kun de la gzhol bar shes.
64.'see,for example, Mipam'sRab gsal brtsad lan 504.2-5~5.2: ~a 嗯 SCt` ＂
' Ui, a mymg
io mmgpa1'i rdo
ma pa'i rdzogschen/ bka'brgyud pa'i phyag chen I sa skya p~'i la~''1;as ' J . tha11gn 必
nernal'byor sogssgrub'jug gi nyams le" zab mo du ma yod pa de dag rdo rF d de
brg;1u
'phagsyul gyi pan grub tshad ldan rnams dang bod kyi dam pa dag 伷 rim par
i drod rtags
dengs~nggi bar d~ 11ynms len gyi grrad dang man ngag mClchugs pas lan~ gyi
da,;gny;m~myongskyespa yod-la/ de thams md zlwl chams par spros pa dang bral ba'i de
kho na nyidsgompa'i plwgssu byedci11gmi rtog ye shes bsgompasha stag yin Pa la bsny011
'dingdu med bzhinI de thams cad ha shanggl lta ba dang I chad lta I sangs rgyas kyi bsta11
pa min pa dang I bdud kyI bstarIpab zhes smra bar spobspa'i snying kham can du ma zhig
mthongngoI rgya bod mkhasgrub de thams cad kyis gcig du bral sogs kyi rtags la brten nas
dgagbya bdengrub khegspai dgag rtog tsam mi mkhyen pa cang e srid na ste / bn 研 '1g
snyingkham can dag gis gong ltar smras ba ria / sky~ bo-phal,;;o che dag 汕 snyam
dIIl
de thams cad kyis mthar thug gi bsgom byar ma dgongs

,kit 必 g
「 'Ibche,1 po 缸 pa'di yang ci'dra zhig yin na zhe.sthe tshom skye
涇 ';,a m rtog las_m~
弓 f, ：';＂ '澄:『 n0 snyampa', dadpabla lhagtu'phel bar mi byedpa dag kyang mthong
' p迂 5 / dt/t` r)'phr&gtam du bgyispa'o.
on the f1awlessand f]awednotions ofyuganadclha should become
p 高
bzhi" 'stance
6,，叩皿 . ;: deliberation_ ~:;n-
on
the question: «Which [of the two} ~ews [determined respec-
佃 J1) his es of negation is one to propose?" (/ta ba dgag gnyis gang ltar smra).
泗菡 U'tbelw0 吶 50 4.6-507
, hSl\'gesSgro"fsangs
&. Mip 血 S
'Discourseso
~ discussiono
"
Buddhology
rgyaskyi sain hisMetogphr eng ba(Almogi, Rong-
383~386 [Tibetan text], 199-206 [English translation]
磾．＇ d5
~is clearly).
淖 ho` ｀ 67.A greaterpart of Mipam'sdeliberations on sunyata, ~~dh!~'?aka , prajfl~ 年面氐
and so on 一 from sutric and tantric, particularly Mahayogic and Atiyogic
磁己 tagrb ha , difficu1tiesthatheseesU1Positingonly Poley as theultimatetrue
IWes 一 coners
户 rs 严
¢Ity,thatis, in placeofthes~ xy-yuganaddha. It is beyond the scope of this contribution to
issues coherently and conveniently, but most of the sources
Ly.b' pm 、 idet 邙 tuaJ sourceson
tliatI citehere(e.g.,his Gsungsgros)do largely give us 皿 acurte picture of his concerns.
k
BR
Infact,oneo f di; main purposes of Mipam's Gnyug sems skor gsum (i.e., here our Gnyug
Ì 磾 5'odgsal,
/, Gnyugsemsshan'byed, 己 Gnyug s rdor phreng sems) is to identify faulty
転
~~ti~ns ~d positionsregardingxy-yuganad~a (e.g.,_rigs~ongz:mg'jug. gn!ug sern_s)~at

~~ach theaforementioned attributes to x and y to refute them. It is very obvious that for
転、 2 Mipam thereis muchat stake, because a misunderstandin~ or misinterpretation of the xy-
泗 andh doctrinewouldundermine the very essence of both the tantric and non-tantric
\1ah 培 na teachings.
68.Mipam,Ketaka74.5-75.1: bsam gyis mi khyab pa'i chos nyid ni skal dman rnantS
s~rag pa'ig 呻「 ab yin pas de'i tshul ni mi shes shing I dngos med du bstan na chad stong
dubz, ＇ gIs' 血 1g ~cas~" bstan na bden grub tu bzung I zung'jug ces brjod na tha gi, dka~
n(Ig b:grolb~_lta_bu'~d~n du bzung I bsam gyis mi khyab ce~ brjod n~ cang med~ci med
如 hang gi /ta ba /ta 加 zhig I 心 mi thar ba yin · te. See also the Gnyug sems zur dpyad
IOOi.15: sradbu dkar nag zung sgril /ta bu'i nyi tshogs zhig; Gnyug sems zur dpyad (1017.15:
，函 bu sgrilba /ta bu'i
tl'i zun~.Jug); Zia ba'i zhal lung 171.2: srad 如 dkar nai b 硏 ba ltar
(contraste
bsgrims
' pa /ta b
d with
sto,grten'byungzung'jug); Dbu ma rgyan 如 l 666.5: srad b~ dkar nag
u; Dam chosdogssel 748.4;ita mQ'ur j
mgitr grel pa 17.2-26.2; Gsung sgros 850.1-.2;
Rab gsalbrgallan 411.1-2.
69·Mipam,Ketaka I
J, uagcag
忭｀．，，＇
.i ~is.stong rten'byu
padOI/g /
!'. glanggi rwa yo,
吻 ings
J .,r'
., 芍 tar gi, ＇ gob'phl
skY 心／
,iitt,
nr ~nangba gal n
70.Mi
·i·1t,c,
,•• 即 brta
如 gpa
Ipam,Sto,1gthI
vs. yo,I tan me
I' '11. phyang chad
phreng b vs.stongpa
..
1,:. a in AJ
7l·M mog, Rong·
,,`,
r.'
｀" · :．
· 唧 m,G
72·M 咖 g se
serns 7,.:· :vi1pazn
'
;
,. ZU r d'Cnyugsems bdgsal 6.3,
, .. []
4,'
·d
.
,',' 4
376,4 · ; Rg;y; '?4.5;Stongthunsengge l],411.5;G,Iyugsemsshan'byed ll62.13;Gnyug
a-; mchan : st~ng_rkyang tsam; dKa'gnad ci rigs 374.5,
19.2-21.S• Note that
丛
gzhi bden pa dbyer med zung'jug gi don

_\V-t DO`· 矗｀＇· " WANGCHUK
·od snying
258_6-259 .l ) and chos dbyi11gs
med rkya,1g tsam (260.6-26 L2) . Compare ibid.
is contrast ed withs
s,1ang stong Ztmg'
l12 5.mdor
`
」 ug
na bden
t o" ［盡[ stong rkyangtsa m
('Od snying
dbyer med rang byung gl y
妒 y lugsmthar thug pa mm no.
(~/s hes su bstan pa'o; Gsu.ng sgros
l 643.2 -6 44.4.
770.1: stong rkyangtsam gnas · Dbu rna rgya n §re
504.6-5O5.2, rwa yod ltar zung'j ugG nyug
73. Mipam,Nges sgron rw~ med dang gnag gr
med zu ng 'jug lta bu); Gsung
74. Mkhas'jug 264.6: ri bong go od dang r i bong rwa
t0 33.l9-20: gnag rwa y
sems zur dpyad 3.5: snang stong r is su ma
sgros 774.3-6, 866A- 3. 114.l; compare Dbuma r ngya 怛 el 37
75. Mipam,'0d snyinga kun rdzob dang don dam zhes pa'i
12.1: snang ba dang stong P min pa'i don dam.
chadpa\ dbymgs, Sdu 袒 el'chos dbyings rnam grangs
is su med par gyur pa i dbyer med mthar dpyod pa'i tshad ma;
gnyt[s.chos th ams cad gnyis 4: bden gnyis
76 .Mipam,khs ' 」 ug 305.3-d u zhugs pa 'i rnam kun mchog ldan gyi
273.3-4: bden gnyis dbyer med zu~g a nyid nam mkha 'i dkyil lta bu'i
Mkhas' ) ugbden pa dbyer med mnyam p
stong nyid and snang stong dbyer med pa 'i gnad zab pa las shmg tu zab pa;
don; Rgyu d bla'i mchan 19.3- 4: bden _gny'.s Dbu ~a rgya n 'grel 412.1: _ka
l 750.3; compare
Rgyud bla1 mchan 20.5; Gzht le'u'i tshIg 怛 0 b dbyer med; Ye shes
Grub bsdus 669.l: ka dag lhun gru
dag lhun grub bden pa dbyer med; she; phyin dang lda ~ na ye
lugs mthar thug p~'i
rnam'byed 27L2; Sdu 及 rel 102.l-2:gnas u l can y in p a'i phyir ro;
Uu bral med de bden gnyis dbyer med pa'i y
shes de'i ngor thabs shes d:··-;b;el. ba stong ~yid snying rje snying po can
Sdu 袒 el mdo sbyar 218.5: thabs shes zung
gy1lam; ibid.305.5: stongnyd snyingrje zung du 'jug pa.
77. Mkhas'jug 458.3-7, where Mipam ~tates
ili~~ the Vastuva din s are only bei?g
are cont rad ictory, the
1 disputatious when they claim that sunyata and prati tyasamutpiida See also Mkhas ' 」 ug
Madhyamikas holding them to be semant ica1ly identical don gcig.
/,.;; i ;g-al ye shes yul yin p~yir.
454J ~ 1l; Ngessgron 533.3-4: dngos gcig steng gi bd~n pa gny_~s
for the expre ssions.
78~1t wo~ld be worthwhile to trace the earliest possible sour ce
"early schol-
Gorampa in his Lta ba'i shan 'byed employs the terms and a~i but:s th e:11_to
206-207.
ars" (s~gon gyi mkhas pa rnams). Cabez6n and Dargyay, Freedom fr o':'_ Extre~~s
See also Mipam, Grub bsdus 654.2- 3:gzhi dbu ma bdeng nyis / lam dbu ma tshog'yis l
'bras bu dbu ma sku gnyis zung'jug tu clod de. It woul d be quite legitima te to spec
ify the
is zung
first two expressions as gzhi dbu ma bden gnyis zung'jug and lam dbu ma tshogs ~ny
Gnad
'jug. See also Mipam's Sa skya'i dri Ian 603:5-6: la~ - dbu ma tshogs gnyis zung ;ug;
i tshul;
kyi me long 517.6:gzhi bden gnyis I lam tshogs gnyis I' br 心 bu sku gnyis zung'j ug gt
d, and
CO mpare Gzhi le'u'i t shig 如 l 750.4: gzhi bden pa dbyer med, lam 'khor'das dbyer _':'e
Note
t?ob 加 g~hi'bra dbyer med; Dbu ma rgyan 如 l 348.6:'bras bu sku gnyis zung' 」 ug.
don
~at, a~c~r~i~g to Broid~, "Padma-dkar-p~ on Ii1tegration" 47, Perna K~po, in his ~ge~
grub pa'i shmg rta, employs thefollowmgterms: gzhi dbu ma bden gnyis z ung ]ug, lam dbu
mat 加 bs shes zung'j ug, and'bras bu dbu ma sku gnyis zung'jug.
79. MiPam, Rabgsal brtsad lan 5O7.l -5 O8.5.
8O Perhaps ialksa-yuganaddha (slob pa'i zung)ug) and a 磾ai 伊－ yugand dh a (mi slob
pa'i zung 'jug should best be consid See, for
ered within the frame ofMantry 訕 a ~ sote : io l o 鉯 ca1
ex 細 pie, the 'Od snying 142.3- 144.3
`2
, where Mipam presents thefive Mantr ic soteriologi
~atl1Sin terms of gno~s
(l) dag mnyam bden (ye shes), lummos1ty (bd gsal), and 如 me bod ily form ( lhaS 砒 l
pa dbyer med kvi
tsam gyI'0dgsal, and mospa\ lhask y go yul tsam (gnosis is not applicab le here) ,
(mtshon byed)dpe',uye shes, and are attributed to the sambharamarga; ( 2) dpe'i b
(3) (mtshon byd) d~n rlungsems kyi lha sku are associated with th eprayogm 玘
gyi ye shes, (mtshon ku 芘
bya) don gyi od gsal, and od gsal gyi Iha s
vVHERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 305
'
1oar spangs·~ -·-·o: .. rtogs
_:: pa zung'jug): rtogs pa zung'jug dag pa'i sgyu lus
畊＇」守
ib 叭 dp
拉 Tshig
， " e "
h c o z d 1 tO
{s.v.
ku thugs su ngo bo gcig tu Urespa'i zung'jug ste slob pa'i zung
,· hdgsalgnyis s
doIIgy
廎 can 110.
]ug砌 ad t~'-~a~:~::tl chen mo
mdzod chen mo (s.v. zung Jug bzhi). Compare also Mipam's'Od snying
83.Tshig
284.34,where
" 1a11g
stongs
ku rdo rje, gsal stong gsung rdo r. 」 e, bde stong thugs rdo rje, and
linked with thefour mudras; namely, karmamudra, dharmamudra,
eshesrdorje are
rigst01Igy drd,andmahdmudrd, respectively.
汛血）了 1he slight1yabbreviatedformdbyingsye zung'jug is employed by Mipamin his
799.6;Sdu 担 el mdo sbyar 353.2.See also theMngon rtogs rgyan 及 rel 659.1:
sgros shesgnyissu medpa 'i ngo bonyidkyi sku;'0dsnying 124.1: sku bzhiye shes
Gsi111g
dbyings dangye
/nga'ibdag''>:;
dmi slobpa'i zung ;ug drug pa rdo rje chang chen po. ~ote _that the not~on
ofauyuganad dhaof[dharma]dhatu andjnana" has also been ProPosed by Rongzompa. See
~sMMt;han brjodgrelpa 261.8-9: dbyings dang ye shes zu_ngdu'1:"el ba; Theg tsh~l ~?2:15:
dbymgs dangyeshesgnyis su myed pa'i rig pa; Dkon mchog 担 el 143.2O, 15O.7-8: dbyings
d;ngye5~ gnyissu medpa (also noted in Almogi, Rong-zom-pas Discourses on Buddhol-
ogy232n. 144).
85.Nineexplicitxy-yuganaddhaterms used by Perna Karpo, reported in an appendix
inBroido, •'Padma-dkar-poon Integration" 32-39 are: (1)'khor Uas zung ;ug, (2) srid zhi
zung 1ug,(3)snangstongzung'jug, (4) rnam shes dang ye shes zung du ;ug pa , (5) gsal stong
k'
lm｀尸＇ UIg1lbetan
Jugbsgomtshul ex~r~sions occur in an outline (31): gzhi zung'jug rtogs
, and •bras bu zung'jug char tshul.
0 0 RJl WA NGC H U K
30 6
Tibetan- Sanskr it Dictionar y: s.v. gzhi.
88. See, for example, Negi: . called th e` `viewof th e indivi sibility ofb liss and
le, Anuyoga's view is
89. For exmnp e, ( 'Od snying, 126.3) ; Atiyoga's view is called
,;;ed kyi lta ba)
empt iness" ( bde stong dbyer 1ostic cognition and emptin ess (rig stonggnyugma'i
''view of the inn ate [ d n i 面 s l b i y t ] of ~ 255.1: rig stong gny ug ma spros bral rang
126.6). Comp are' Od sny ing
lta ba) ('Od snying,
byung gi ye she~. th e Tshig md zod chen mo .(s.v. gzhi lam'bras
9O. See, for example, th e expressmn m
the [sot~riological] basis (or starting pointf
gsum) : `èstablishment o f th e view, which is
. th e [soteriological] path through meditation" (larn
(gzh1lta ba gtan la phab pa ) , pra ctlC1ng f [the state of] awakening, which is the
sgom pas nyams su blangs pa) , and the "attainm ent o
[soteriologica1]goal" ( 'bras bu byang chubthob pa) .
the expression snang stong zung Jug
91. Some of th e sourc es that explicitly mention
'{Tfel620.6, 630.3, 626.4; Nges sgron
(or snang stong zung du'jug pa) are: Dbu ma rgyan we kyang pa'i dbyings; Gnyug
5O7.1; Gsungsgros 768.6, 775.5: snang stong zung 'jugvs. stongpa r
'b ed 1O8.6, U7 .4;Gnyug sems zurdpyad 23O.6;Lta
sems zur dpyad 231.6; Gnyug sems shan 'b~
725.3; Rab gsal brtsad lan 521.2-6;'Od_ snying
phreng m c h~n 袒 el 27.2, 44.4; Shel gyi me lon~
bral ba nyid yin pa'i phyir ro;
258.l-2:s emskyi gnas lugs snagto z ung 」 ug brjodpa dang
'Od snying 155.2: gnas lugs snang stong zung ,.
」 ug,
· Mngon rtogsyan 担 el 6O7.6: snangstong
zung du'jugpa\ chos nyid;'0d snying 632.6, 638.2: snang stong zung' 」 ug; Zia ba'i zhal lung
176.6;Ketaka 47A-5, 48.6, 78.2, l33 .6: snang stong zung [du) 'jug [paJ; Bka'brgyad 585.1,
6O1.3;Sdu 袒 el mdo sbyar 3O6.4, 324.1-2, 346.2, 349.4, 35O.5. For Pema Karpo's use of the
~~rm ·snang stong zung ~ug, see Broido, "Padma-dkar-po on In_tegration.18,. 49~
92. The expression stong rten'byung zung'jugoccurs, for examPle, in Mipam's Dbu
margyan 'grel634.3;Gnyug sems zurdpyad 275.5;Mngon rtogs rgyan 袒 el 468.2;Zla ba'i
zhal lung 45.1; Lta mgur 如 l pa 13.1-2:. stong dang rtin'byung zung'jug. stong nyi~ rte~
'byung z~ng ;ug; Gsu;g sg;os 850.2, 866.3; co~pare ita mgur 及 rel pa 770. 1: stong :te~'b[un~
ye nas zung 'jugym la; Sdu 严 21.6-3:'di yi dge bas skye -ba thams cad du .I ~b mo
stong dan£ rten 'byung zung ;ug don I legs rtogs rgyal ba dgyes pa'i lam bzang las I nam
yang gzhan du ldog par ma gyur cig.
93. Mipam ;~ploys the exp;ession snang stong dbyer med in his Dbu ma rgyan 霾
368.5, 401.6, 626.6, 643.6; Ngessgron 529.2; Gny~g se,;;s z~r dpyad 316.5-6; Lta phrengm chan
如 l 44.2, 48.6; Dka'gnad ci rigs 733.1; Rgyud bla'i mchan 21.3; Shes rab ral gri 438.4-5: gnas,
lugs don la stong gz 扣 dang / stong pa tha dad du med pas / snang stong dbyer med brjod
dang bral / so so rang gis rigbyab. The expression snang stonggnyis med occurs , too, as in
his Sdud grel mdo sbyar 322.6-323.1.
94: Mip~m, Dka' _?nad ci rigs 372.5; Gzhi'i le'u'i tshi g 如 l 755.1; compare Ketaka
75.4-\: to~g ~a,~grt: n, 'byu~g-ye nas c:iubral med pa 'i chos ;yid mnyam pa chen po.
95. For Mipam's use ofth e term snang stong mnyam pa nyid, see his' 0dsnying 170.1;
Dka'gna d ci rigs 733.5; S du 如 l mdos byar 3O2.2, 335.3- 4; Mngon rtogs rgyan 怛 el 468.2.
96. Mipam, Dbu ma rgyan 如 l 384.6: don gyi bden gnyis z ;m g' 」 u g rab tu mignaspa
dbyings;Dbu ma rgyan grel 401.6: 402.1: bde~ gnyis zung 'ju g gi dbu ma; Dbu ma rgyan 霾
63O.3-4;Dam chos dogs sel 749.5; Rgyud bla'i mchan 2O.3; Gsung sgros 78O.6- 781.1;Mkhas
Jug 192.4: bden gnyis zunR g ';」 u g rn a m kun mchog ldan gyi stongpa nyid; Sdom byang 402.6:
bden gnyiszung du'j ugpa ni / dbu ma'i lam .
gyis rtogs bya ste I ;,;ang ~tong gnyis med mnyat~
pa ~yid I chos kyi dbyings zhes mthar th
ug don I bsa~ brjod bral bade kh~ ~; / so so rang g'.s
rig byao; Stong thun se;;gge l 81.2
; Rab gsal brgal lan 348.3, 448.1; Yeshes rnam 'byed 245.1.
• WHERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 307
occurrencesof the ~pression. bde~ g~; ~br "!'ed,~ee Mipam's Gnyugsems

97.for
,ad293.2,296.4,318.6;Ltaphreng mchan 桓 el 27.2; Dka'gnadci rigs 731.6;'0d snying
缸 PY:,~;-481.3 Rgyud bla'i mchan 20.5; Gsungsgros 827.2, 918.1; Sdu 如 l 126.6;
:, Blo'i
1s1.6; l 127.5: bden pagnyis dbyer med pa; Sdu ral gr
如 1 180.7: bden gnyis dbyer med pa;
sdu 妒
~el,ndo sbyar 279.3: bden 約 iys dbyer med.
Sdudgr ression bden gnyis ro gcig occurs, for example, in Mipam'sDka' gnad ci
98. 加 exp
731.5,and bdengnyisro mnyamsimilarly in hlS Sdud grel mdo sbyar 294.5.
ngs 99.ForOCCurrences ofthe exPressiongsal stongzung'jug, see the Mngon rtogs rgyan
舺 45.;Mdo sde rgyan 囧 51.4;Gnyug semsshan'byed 142.4;Gnyug sems zurdpyad
237.3,258.1;Shelgyi me long725.5; comPare Blo1 ralgri 481.5. As notedin Broido,` Padrna-
dkar-poon Integra tion" 19, 49, the expression gsal stong zung Jug has been employed also
bypemaKarpo.
lOO.Mipam,Gnyugsems od gsal 40.1; Gzhi'i le'u'i tshig grol 756.6; Rgyud bla'i mchan
19.3-4. Compare the Gnyugsems bd gsal 12.2: gsal stong gnyis med.
101.It has alreadybeen pointed out that Mipam does not seem to criticize the Sakya
viewof gsalstongzung'jug or gsal stong dbyer med; that indeed he himself endorses it
Wangchuk, "WasMipam a Dialectical Monist?" 34. See also Mipam's Rgyud bla'i mchan
20.2-3;Gzhile'u'itshig 如 l 756.6.
102.Mipam,Shelgyi me long 725.5. Note that in his'Od snying 154.6-155.1, Mipam
treatsbdestongzung'iug as if it were interchangeable with dbyings rig zung Jug. See also
hisSngags kyiral gri 477.3-4: ma gag snang ba thabs kyi sku I rang bzhin med pa shes rab
yumI gnyismedzung Jug bde ba che I cii ni chos kun de bzhin nyid. An annotation, obvi-
ously bytheauthor,saysthat the reading must be kept as is, since these are the actual words
(quoted) froma tantric scripture.
103.Theterm bde stong dbyer med is employed, for example, in Mipam's Gnyugsems
zurdpyad198.6. See also his Bka'brgyad 640.4: bde stong gnyis su med pa.
104:Tshigmdzodchen mo (s.v. e warr zung'jug): rnam kun mchogldan gyi stong nyid
dangI mchogtumi 硏 r ba'i bde.chen gnyis dbyd-;;,~d zung du'jug p;o.
.'L
¢,'A
`,·
lO5.Tshigmdzodchen mo (s.v. rgyu'i rgyud).
106.Someof thee instances i where the expressions rig stong zung'jug occur are Mipam's
Shel ~yimelong726.1-5; Gnyugsems od gsal 8.3, 37.1, 43.1; Gnyug sems shan'byed 136.1,
`
·`r,
A
濁． 3; G
bzhipa'i dbanggi lam I
n~~gsems_zurdpyad 209.l, 261.6,-291.1, 309.5; compar~ Nges sgron 519.1:'bras bu
.t
¢d ' 冠 rig stong rang byungye shes nyid / kho na rtsal du bton gyur pa I
,
R
gsalrdo平ri rtse mo'i lugs I mthar thug theg pa'i skyelso yin; Me tog phreng ba in Almogi,
ong-zom-
l07.節 M Discou rses onBuddhology 384: rig stong zung du ]ugpa.
ipam,G
l08·Mnyug se 加 od gsal 291.1; Gnyug sems zur _dpyad :_20.2.
p 戌。血 Ipam,Nges hes sgron me522.5: kadag lhungrub zung)uggi /yes hes che"
yin;G
「心。 g s pa chen ~yugsems shan'byed 1219.10-11: ;nthar thug ka dag limn grub zung ;ug
dU'·
JUgpa' ; bypo; compare Lta phreng mchan 如 l 49.1: gzlt/ka dag-dang lhun grub zung
l09·Mangchubkyi sems.
dby ipam,G
èd Pa. nyug sems shan'byed 91.6; bKa'brgyad 574.2: ka dag dang lhun grub
比｝「臣吡 Cn
1Pam, yug sems od gsal 956.18-19, 987.7.
`｀血 ngbas / N 婷 Sgron 542.l-3: gnas tshulgangyinsgrib pa yis / bsgribsphyir nye
`` des na yu[
lamla'bad
d
par byed pa ni / :ang gzhan-gny-iskas'dodpa nyid;Nges
ang yul can r~am; / rang bzhinvgdod ;~ dag na yang I glo bur dri
\,VA NGC H U K
308 D ORJI
'bad par bya; Padma'i zhal lung 6.6-7 .1: b na lan,
mas bsgribspa'iphyr / dnm ·a sbyangla e shes de mthong phyir / J.1ltar gzugs ni 趼 y ur mm yang J mig
~:i ［扔＇i s) ci bya 1Ia / gshis ky y
sk)'on se1 ba'i sman bzhi11no. 735.3-5; Gny ug sems zur dpya d 280.4; 'Od snying 157.6:
U 2M lpaJn,Dka'gnad a ngs bcad p a'i dus nas kyang 'khor Uas dbyer
is sgro'd ogs
du 卹 gpo r thos bsam gy
sngags lam lta ba ma rmongs pa yin no.
med dag pa chen por lta bas na 'khor clas dbyer med. For the Nyingma
;,;ed kyi lta ba; lta b~
l13. 'khorUas dbyer is is the view of th e Dzokchen. See his
concern ed, it is
tradition, too, as far as Rongzompa is
Lta grel 337.20-338.15. sbrel;, brel pa. lta sgom ~~n~'j~g; sbrel; :~re!. See1 for
l 14. /ta sgom zung du 1ug;
603.6: lta sgom zung 'jug Jug (thab s shes zung ; ug).
example, Mipad s Sa skya'i ~ri,!an sbrel; 'brel pa . lta spyod zung 'jug; sbrel; 'brel. Compare
11s. lta spyod zung du 'Jug;
hor mkhan po 'i spyod pa dang I mtshungs med
Mipam, bsTan rgyas 689.2-3 : rmad byung za
dpal ldan klu yi /ta ba gnyis
i·;~~; ;br~l brgyud pa 'i bka's rol phyag rgyas btab I mtsho skyes
「 -gyal ba'i bstan pa.
116. Mip 缸 1, Mdo sde rgyan gre
'Qrel 599.l: zhi gnas dang lhag mthong zung _du'brel ha;
Rongzompa, Dkon mcho g 袒 e l 147.12:_zhi ~.nas
dang /hag mthong zung du'brel ba'i ~tingnge
'dzin; Theg tshul 537.U-1 2: zhignas dang lhag mthongzung du 'brel ba, a citation from the
Mahdparimrvdna Satra; 1hegt shul 543.24: zhi gnas danglhag mthong cha mnyam pa; Gsung
~h~~--b~..45.7: zhi gnas dan/lhag mthong zung du 'brel par gyur pa; Bka' brgyad 587.3: zhi
!hag zung du 'brel ba.
117. Mipam, Mngon rtogs rgyan grel 456.6: zhi lhag gam srid zhir mi lh~ng ba.
118. Fo; occurre~ces of the expression thabs shes zung'jug, see Mipam's Lta phreng
,l mchan grel 48.6; Sa skya'i dri Lan603.6: thabs shes zung'jug; Lta mgur 如 I pa 14.5: pha m(I
thabs shes zung'jug gi lta ba rin po che. Compare Lta phreng mchan grel 51.2: thabs shes
zung du 'brel ba; Mngon rtogs rgyan grel 456.6: thabs dang shes rab zung du 'brel ba'i lam;
Mngon rtogs rgyan 严 625.: thabs shes zung'jug sher phyin zab mo'i sbyor ba la mkhas
par byao; Mdo sde rgyan grel 19.4: thabs dang shes rab zung du 'brel ba; Mkhas'jug 151.3-4:
z~b pa'i shes rab dang rgya che ba'i thabs mkhas zung du'jug pa; Sdom byang 387.3-4: tliabs
shes zung 'jug_thams cad kun I lam gyi grogs gyur thabs mkh~s so; Sdo~ by~ng 368.4: thabs
~hes zung du 'j~g pa_~i. I_sher. phyin gdams ngag legs nos nas I nang gi yo~gs'dzin ldan par
bya;co mpare Rgyud bla'i mchan 94.2: stong nyid snying rje zung'jug; Sdu 严 6.1: st~ng
nyd rtogspa dangsny ingrj e'i sems zung du'jugpa; Sdu 及 rel 122.5-6, l23 .3: shes rab da"g
snying rje zung du'j
~ ~g P,a; compa~e ~~u1 grel 91.6: thabs dang shes rab ya ma bral ba'i /11111;
Sdu 如 I 114.3: thabs sh
~s.zu:1g du 'brel ba; Sdu 如 l 127.5: stong nyid snying rje gnyis su
~ed pa 'i sher phyin; S du 如 l 190.1
: r~~g bzhin med par rtogs pa'i shes rab dang snying rje
ch~n po zung du zhugs pa'i thabs; Sducl
grel mdo sbyar 336.6-33 7.1; Padma 'i zha l lung 5.3:
~i ltar mkha' la gshog-p; ni I
~ung med mkha'la bgrod mi nus / de bzhin thab s shes bral b<l'i
1~mI Y_a ng dag min -,;s rgyal b
dang shes rab zung du 'b~el ba.
'
asgsungs. See also Rongzompa , Dko" nchog §rel 49.U: thabs
See Broido, "Padma -dkar - po on Integration " 19, where the
Sanskrit terms prajtiopayayuganaddha and
ll9. See, for example, Mipam's M 御 y at ka rutJay ga nadh; [sic] are mentioned .
ng~n rt ogs rgyan grel 505.4- 5.
l2O. MiPam, Sdom byang 385.3: bsod
lam gy,s don kun yongs rdzogs byed. nam s dang mye shes tshogs gny's po / zung' 」 ug
l21. 「 orthecu r enc of th
663.2;'Od snying I 31.4; Bka'b e term bskyed rdzags zung'jug , see Mipam 's Grub bsdus
rgyad 560.6.
·~ WHERE BUDDHAS AND SIDDHAS MEET 309
Dbu ma rgyan grel 348.6:'bras bu sku gnyis zung'jug gi sangs rgyas; 'Od
122.Mipam,
'Od snying 104.3: bskyed rdzogs dbyer med. See also the Grub bsdus
I06.5, compai:e
s"ying he ba bskyed pa'i rimpa dang zab mo rdzogs pa'i rim pa gnyis; Bka'brgyad
98LlO:rgyadon C
bskyedrim and nges don rdzogs pa'i rim pa.
598.2:drang Gnyug sems zur dpyad 266.4-5: bden gnyis dbyer med kyi gnas lugs gdod
123.Mipam,
i bdgsal du byas nas/ de la sbyor byed lam gyi rim pa la / ring lam tshogs gnyIS
"1agzhiy ; theg pa / nye lam sgyu'od zung ;ug sngags kyi theg pa I mthar thug ka
zung1ug rpiu Y
lhungrubzung'jug rdzogs pa chen po gsum du byas nas thad pa spyi'i ching bla
dagdang
A similar statement can be found in his Gnyug sems shan'byed 149.2-4.
"°'ned pa yin no.
124.For Mipam's deliberations on bu~dholo~ ~nd the ~ssueso~ gnoseology and ontol-
linked with it, see his Me tog phreng ba; his catalogue of Rongzompa's writings
。群 tha are
havealreadybeen studied in Almogi, Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology 193-206 and
383_386, i~cluding a critical edition of the text. It is clear that f~r _h~m, the~~ay one perceives
~d conceivesof Mahayana ontology at the metaphysical(gzhi) level affects the way one
perceives and conceives of buddhology at the resultant_ ('b_ras b~) l~~eL See, for example, his
Sdudgrel mdo sbyar 350.4-351.4; Mngon rtogs rgyan grel 638.2-639.1.
125.Mipam, Nges sgron 529.2: lam de ji bzhin goms pa las I sku gnyis zung'jug ye shes
thob;Dbu ma rgyan grel 348.6; compare Dbu ma rgyan grel 730.6: sku gnyis zung du'jug pa.
126.See, for example, the 'Od snying 126.4, where the soteriological goal of the Anuy-
ogasystemis described as the mi slob pa'i zung Jug.
127.For Mipam, the ultimate -soteriological goal of the Mahy 訕 a, be it siitric or mant-
ric,isthe buddhabhumi, and he, like Rongzompa and Longchenpa , but unlike the Zurpa mas-
ters,positedthat there is no qualitative or hierarchical difference between the buddhabhumi
obtainedthrough sutric (i.e., non-mantric) Mahayana and buddhabhumi obtained through
m~tric Mahy 缸 a. See his bKa'brgyad 555.1-5; Rongzompa, Lta grel 344.17-345.16; Dkon
4'2J mchog 如 l 190.18-191.6, 247.11-248.8 .
J
·書，
.'· 12~.The expression gzhi'bras dbyer med occurs, for example, in Mipanis Gzhi'i le'u'i
``
,, tshg 析 ol75O.4, 756.4; '0dsnying 185.6, 2l0.6, 213.4; Gnyug sems shan'byed 161.5: Ui la
..' t,` ~samna gzhi'b「 as ngo bo dbyer med I tha snyad kyi dbyer yod yin no; Gnyug sems zur dpyad
281.2-~·
A· ' 3, Ltaphreng mchan 如 l 48.4. Note that the id;a of gzhi,bra; dbyer..,med is also· ;ug-
gestedb
A'
,4 ;/g!.~'bras dbyer med found, for example, in Rongzm 西 Dkon mchog 袒 el 49.2.
i
. · db l29. Mipam, Sdom byang 388.l-2: rigs ni bde bshegs snyingposte / sku dangye shes
'
yermeddby·
JUg184.L. ngs/rangbyungye shes Uus mabyas / kun khyab'po 椏 ur medpab; Mkhas
S 聞 'I
g;compareN
'
6,Ngessgron 547.5: e wam zung du zhugs pa yi / ra, gbyungye shes gnas med
I bsg;ub;·~::1f:,~~e~sgro~ 518.6: gzhi la ji ltar bzhugs pa /tar / bde stong lam gyi e Wat!'gyis
郎 tshe ai,;yid la yang I zung'jug'b ras bu mngon du gyur.
130.M
Fkyibdagnyld ip 皿 Mkhas'i '
}ug2O6.6-2O7.4: rnam pnthams cad mkhye,Ipa. ra, g bymggiye
u';btsan ~~n;Nges sgron 536.2: rtogs na kun kyang ro mnyam gyi I ngang du _'bras
sa azin I dus
l3l·Mgsum dus medgnyug ma'i klong I mng byImgye shes rgyal bar Zyur.
転 k. Ip 痂， y
ì
un rd egrub utpal496.2-3: ranggnasrangbyungyeshes kyis/lam Uir bgma'i
h0rb Zogs/ ye shes
sgomsby 幻 k rigpadang §al ba'I / mariggnye1I por Ui nyid che / lam gzhanji
溈 7 l32.M'da . yang / a· ng dgnos 及 al mi 硏 r b~s-I -sgru-bgnyis drung n~'joms mi nu.
MchogKrub lp 画 Czhi' le'u'i tshig 如 l 757.5-758. l; Stong thun seng ge 174.3, compare
油「 3paS/ sems ut pal 492. l:: de phyir de nyid ches zab cing / brling ba nyid kyis mthar
dPyad2572dpa'ch 幻 rna~s kyis kyang ni I ji bzhin rtogs par dka'bar gsungs; Gn(ug sems
•-':sangs rgyas kvi :Yiyul mth~r th;g ni sa bcu\ ;ems dpas kyang m 」 mthong ngo
~
DORT! WANGC H UK
310
/ de mgz 柘 dongyias lugs la sgrlb pa phra mos medp a sangs

Padma'1 Zhal lu11g6.4-5:thabs shes'du bral medpa y 1 / de bzhm r g 邡 kh 。吡
Yin
d by 加 g sa l z hes / n; ：!；
sa bcui sems dpa' chen pos kyang / mtshan ma 'i [mo 'ij gzugs ltar gshegspa'l
rtogge'i y ul mm ya11g/ thabs shes zung)uglam khyad kyis /
/ ye shespra pheb ISIC}lta bur snang; Rgyud bla'1 mchan 85.3 一 86. ；．「加 d 痂 su 即 b
gsPh;
133.Mipam, Nges sgron 532.4-5: mthar thug de kho na nyid ni p 勺
/ gcig las
kho na / mthong ba'i tshad ma gcig yin te I tshad ma gnyis pa mi
srid do ／吡 dp`
gcig zung Jug ste I tshad ma rang byung ye shes nyid ; spang bya ma · gn 怎 l Ugsh<leii
phyir rig dang ma rig tsam. See also his Db u ma rgyan 担 el 685.2 nggcigpuI% /
-689.2 , p arti~ul 國
de /ta bu'i phyir na rdo rje theg pa las I sangs rgyas dan
gyikhyadparro/zhesgsungspabngzabparshes
g serns can ni ri
nus la; Gsun ng dangm:rl 虞． l ：
rig ma rig gi khyad par yod pa tsam ste /'di'i phu th ag rdzogs gsgros94l.5· chen · d es na'kh` 「`
dgosso.See a1soRongzompa, Theg tshul 458.13-I6: de bas gy gzhungkh
na chos thams k' ｀齒
!
pa ~ang ma shes tsam /~ kun nas nyon mongs pa d
ang rnam par b,Yangbar y1 rang 坂 hi `
pa tsam magtogs pa / Uilabsal barbya ba'i rdzas sam / th asnyadbfa
bogangyangmyedde. Cited and tran slated in G gzhagpar bya ba'1rdzask §
erman in Wangchuk, (( y1ngo
tion" l73: bn kyang ma shespa'i dus na'kh rDzogs-chenMedita·
rul snang gi tshul de /tar
~34.Rongzompa, Theg tshul 493.l 5-496.11. See also Mi snang ba tsamym vi 加．
spang bya'i dri marnams kyang ni / Pam,Nges sgron535.6-5% .l:
rang gi ngo hos d ag pa las I logs sh~
pas I rang bzhin od gsal mnyam pa nyid. 'Kma dagp 面 n
135.Rongzompa, Dk~n mchoP-;
og gr~l 9~.4- 7: de yang gsan,
rigpa nyidye shes gsal / g sngags kyi tshul/tarna ／血
nyon mong sdug bsngal b
s~eI mi mthun pa d ,yang ~hub mchog I cesgsungspa /ta 加
anggnyenpo dbyer medpa'i don
sion ofRongzompa's `, gyC sangs rgyas pab. See thediscus.
special Mahy 細 a' ' U]
'Od snying I-27.6,.h
, he attributes the Wangchuk, '`Relativity Theory" 226-227.Inhis
emotionaJdefi1mntshlv 盂＼ ew that `<sutferingitself IS awakemng and mte11ectual.
bsngalnyid byang chub/ great gnosis th rough which release [ocurs]" 廩
n;:on mongs nyid
r~am grol gyi ye shes chen po) exclusively tothe
1.See, however,'0d
~ bden gyi ngo bor sha~ sny!ng 157.6-158 .2: de'i phyir ·kun'byungJdm 血
b
na rgyu'bras db ~s ~yon mongs pa ye shes dang sdugbs,,gal~
/de'1 db yer med du lta bas'bras bu'i thegpa dang / rdo 面
a~g gis phung khams skye mched laang rd~ ~je'imil:,gs 圄
-5: yang Jam
1ub rd 。 rje'i ~ar rnam par rol pa la sogs pa~ mdo ·las I nya~,m 嶸
gzhi l
加 dpal ags so / zhes pala sogspas nyon morlgst1)'id'
b
I ba ma rnarn par'phrulpasogs las/'khor ba bsal n0S, ＂邢＇，＄洲
`
' ,*
＼］ l；/n[ ＼／；［。丨
u bstan; ；]鈔 1 /'khorbar dmigspa nyd mya ngan lOS 曰 d0 瀉
ang. See also M ipam 's Sngags kyi ral gr i 477.4-5:II§
nyon rnongs nyid k
l rhtIIF＂況
gzompa§'l^JI yangye sheste / sdugbsngal rnamgr0 d
itive meanin st 叨 ce onthe much vexed issue ofwhicdtrj\ 祝
mantric systems differ in positing varying grades of certainty with

m 严 th a L:o?yugandh(be gnyis zung ]uggi tshul) . See his'0d snying124 .2.
鄗 d toh e Stongthunsengge174 .2-3:mdo dangsngags kyi chos kun gyignadgcig
} 37 ,.Mip 血 de kho na yin zhing; Rgyud bla'i mchan 19.2-28.4;
bde gshegs snyi~g-P~
．畑 'kh y ab l 758.2-4;Wangchuk, "Was Mipam a Dialectical Monist?" 33.
,U"' c0 mp 邱
Gzhi'i le'u'i tshig
/brls~
坪
Jan 506.5- 509.1, where Mipam explains that the yuganaddha
the Rab gsa
seealso both sUtric andm 缸 1tric Mahy 細 a.
is shared by distinguished what he calls "ex~lusive"_(thu~ m~ng ma ~i pa)
面｀ 138.Rongzom~a both its sutric and mantric forms, from the "common " (thun
which u1cludes
Mah 洵 a , die basis of the doctrine of the "indivisibility of the twofold reality"
Mahy 缸 a on
IIlOI'g) dbyermed; bdenpa rnampagnyis dbyer medpa) . To the group ofscriPtures of
(bden gnyis Mah 苹 na'belogscriPtu of definitive meatling (nItdrtha , nges pa'i don) ,
the"exclusive
the WmalaktrtinirdeiaSatra, Ratnagunasamcayagatha, and the `Guhyagarbha Tantra.
suchas
SeeWangchuk,"Relativity Theory" 226; Almogi, Rong-zom-pas Discourses_ on Budd~olog!
祀 70 and319-322.See a1so RongzomPa , Lta 桓 el 336.22-23: nges pa don gyi mdo sde
danggsangsngagsky ; tshul ni I bden pa gnyis dbyer myed par lta' zhing I phung po Inga
;'tlngsangsrgyassu /ta; Lta grel 341.9-12: de yang chos thams cad dond dam par ma skyes
'assoso mayinpa dang / kun rdzob sgyu ma'i mtshan nyid dusosoyin pa gnyis ni / theg
pa chen po'i thun mong ste I de phyir bden pa gnyis kyis skad kyis gzhag go I de gnyis dbyer
medpar rtogspa'ni thun mong ma yin pab.
139.Mipam, Dbu ma rgyan 如 1 350.3; Nges sgron 5 12.3-4. See also the Stong thun
sengge 181.5-6, 197.2, where he maintains that Nagarjuna, and Maitreya and As 疝 ga are
onein their intent (dgongspa gcig). See also his Mdo sde rgyan 如 l 104.5-6: dbu sems kyi
shi11g rta chenpo dag mthar thug gi dgongs pa mthun par bzung bar byao. For justifications,
~ ~e Mdo_sde rgyan grel 104.6-108.2. See also the Ye shes rnam'byed 246.3: dbu sems zung
Juggi tshul.
140..For ~pam, the distinction between Svatantrika -Mad hyamaka and Pra 画 gika
Madhyamakatraditionsdoesnotlie in what orwhether theyare bothable to establish the
natureofultimate true rea1ity (·i.e., yuganaddha)-they both do so-but rather how they
,4y
establishit. See hiis Ketaka 48.2-4.
,＇詹
`
...
．上．．．＇
.'
WANGCHUK
`
DoRJI
312 Lta,ngur §rel pa l2.6-l 3.1: stongpa mtshan
.Mip 琿 s
l44 See,for exaJnple, rdzogs sogs mmg tha dadk yang don du gagpa,1 nN
pabmI dbU,}1achenpobm I phyag
e sheslaguspab. Dialectical Monist?" 33-34; Wangchuk, （、
stongzung) 'jug gi y
chuk, "WasMipam a rN··
IIl•llla
145.W: 嶧
Interpretauons" 199-201.as danggrub thob dgongspa gcig 1Semployedby 洲圀
sangsrgy
146.The 邙 presion chen ;ems sde'i man ngag rer I mkhasgrub
522.6-523.1.rdzogs soso'in^
inhisNgessgron 'bras zhibyed dang/ zung)ug dbu ma chen po sogs/ mtshan gi
bzhespasI phyagchenlam / don la sems las'das pa yi / ye shes yin phyir kun kyangm 呼而
rnamgrangsso sor grags
b dgongspa ni / gcig ces mkhas kun mgrin gcig smra; Dbu ma rgyan 枷
I sangsrgyasgru
. Seea1soWangchuk,
•~fii11.rnaInterpretations" 2?1 n. ~05 where Sapan's Th~
414.6-415.l . referredto. wangchuk, `Was Mipama Dialectical Monist?"35.Seealso
(
padgongsgsalIS ~ Werk d~gestellt wird" 45-46, a~d ~angch?1<, "Defenceofthe

Wangchuk, `` Rongzompas
;~;87~288where Rongzompa'sposition that_the teaching~of the Buddha
Guhyagarbhatantra
areofa singletype(tshulgcigpa) and single savor (ro gcig pa) is presented.
147.~ For Mipam, the crud al difference between Svatantrika-Madhyamaka and
陌 sangik-Mdhym is thus not whether they both establish (or are capableof estab-
lislungand reallzing)yuganaddhabut how they do so. The former aPProachof` （ alo 血 g
each~fthe twomode;of realityto be applicable in its own right" (bden gnyissosorangsa
na ma nyamspar bzhagpa) is for a beginner (las dang po pa) more convenient(bdeba),
buttheconceptualseparationof the two modes of reality (bden gnyis so sor'dzinpa)must
'---- -.－一 ·I 一－- - Whet1a

ak 。 rP 「函 1gika - Madhy 皿 ak).
祀',.．／ Retrn~ ．- I I
酬
content aka,and only that SystemicMadhyamaka that establishesxy-yugmaddha
tMadh 严 or from the veryoutset (dangpo nas), is a Mega-Madhyamaka.Genuine
lRcferen
懿 tly
(thadkar) mtshan nyid pa) must be Yug 皿 adh - Madhymk (zung'jug dbu
aka (dbuma
迢 fadh 严 afic-Mdhymk(spro bral dbu ma) . Most ofthese terms can be found in
"la)orNi5Prap539.3-4,54O.6,544.6, 545.3, 546.2-5, 548.4-5. Seealso the Brag dkarbrgal
theN 『 6:O;lendagbcs pa'idbu mavs. khas lenthams cad bral ba'i dbu machenpo;
/anl 'jug sprospa dang bral ba'i dbu ma chen po.
鯽 ka48.3: zung 」 ug
152.Mipam,Ketaka49.2-3:kha cigUi sngags lamgyi sgomyin gyi / mdo'i min no
i';ih~'bzhi dang bral ba'i zung'jugdeyid dpyod kyis bsgompa dang/ thabs kyis
邾 r yang
btsanthabssu shar ba'i khyadpar tsam las chos kyi dbyings la mi clra ba yod pa min no;
'0dsnying 154.1-2:mdo yi lam gyis yid dpyod kyis sgom pa'i gnad kyang mthar gtug na
bde11 gny1s dbyermed la'bab kyang I las dang po pas bden gnyis zung'jug ro .mnyam du
ngespadangmyangbar dka'bas / mtha'rnams so so nas bkagpa'i stongpar zhen pa gtso
che~ing/ sngagssu zung'jug od gsal ba'i ye shes rang sar ston pa ste;'Od snying 180.3-5,
andparticularly: dangpo nas zung'jug bstan pa'i phyir gcig char ba'i bshad tshul yin la. The
sutric approachin accessingontological yuganaddha has been compared by Khenpo Jikme
Puntsok (1933-2004) (via personal communication) to the ascertairunent of the absence of
anelephant in a smallroom somewhere, and the m 皿 tric approach to the ascertainment of
theabsence of an elephanton one's palm. Ngessgron 548.1-2: mdo lam thabs dang shes rab
gnyis I gcigla gciggis rtsis zin par I byed kyi clir ni thabs shes nyid I 'clubral med par rtogs
~oms ~~id;Ngessgron548.3-4: on kyang mdo las zung'jug don I dpyad pas gtan la ph~b
panyd/ sngagssu ranggi rigdbyings su / thad kar myongs bas 妒 lb pa yin; Gsung sgros
782.1-783.1; Gnyugsems~ur dpydd 279.4-6.
153.In the ~~n~ext of discussingthe need to rely on nitartha instead of on neyartha in
hisShesrabralgri 442.2-443~2 , Mipam states that of the four Buddhist religio-philosophical
~Ystems (.grubmtha'bzhi) i) m~ ~edes of siitric and mmtric vehicles (theg pa'i ~im pa), "the
uncomprehended
.',` elementsof the lower systems" ( bg mas ma rtogs chagangyin) are seen
,` tobe"elucidatedb
gyurba'idgagbya thun
154.Mipam,Dbu ma
Y~e higher ones"(go~g mas gsal bar byas pa):
rgyan grel 404.2: de [tar bden gnyis so sor zhen pa'i cha de tha/
v mong min pa yin te.
i'J' 155.M
hachenPobstan. ipam,Ngessgron 5l8.3- 4: stong par zhen pa bzlog phyir du I sngags las bde
:SU0suggests that: ? also W:ngchuk,Resolve toBecome aBuddha 222-221 n. 1O8.Mipam
caus~,, Jn!naic view iis a "resultai1 己 Mantric view, whereas a prajnaic ~ew
sosordandsUtric. See his N
)ug'b pyodpayi/shgessgron 548.4-5: dephyir dbu ma zhespa yatIg / bden gnyis
「吣 bu'Ides rab lam gy dbu ma dang / des drangs bden gnyis ro gcigpa'i /z ung
la/ phy,,ha · ~ ma gnyisII
Yesheskho na yin.如 'bras mdo sngags lta ba -ste I snga-ma sl;es-r~b cha yi~
1s6.Ni
can ip 画 'Od
gongnas
gongdu , ~nying128.5-6: bden gnyis dbyer med la ngespa clrongstshul gyi yul
157 phagspa\ khyadpar.
痂 n ·Ron 卽 0m
．昞 th P,a,_Theg tshul 502.17-503.3. Compare his explanation of the expression
｀乃痂 s . cad kyi
egtshul476.2y- ;;;;;;: po as one of the attributes of the rdzogs pachen po'i tshul
WANGCHUK
DORJI
31 4
980.17-981.14.
Grub bsdus
158,JVfip 皿 d 555J: de lta bu'i rang byung gi ye shes nyId la
Bka' brgya
1s9.Mipam, ,, 'nan ngaggI cha nas bskyed rdzogs rdzogs chen gSUmdu 咖 d 吶 ci
chardu)ugpa1Ro
in
bz}mgpayf
'i thabskyngzompa, Mahayoga, Anuyoga, and AUyogaare
the menta1cap1ty
no.
thebasJSO
For 。 fthe
distn
yogins (rnal'byorpa rnams kyl blo rtsa0
「嗌
郡 is`
圀
the bodhicitta Par excellence (samantabhadram bodh· to 蜘贓

'
· whichiS lCi 加
bodhicittava;ra, from theMdo rgyas. Cited and translated in Wangchuk m) ．汶
the pertinentpassage Resol"b
;mea Buddha313.
G;~,bbsdus982.11-983.5:Accordin~ to ~e'Od snyinglOO.S-101.3
160.Mipam, .j, of 版
e esoterictantricsystems(i.e., pha rgyud, ma rgyud, and gnyis med kyi yz rgyud),th
, the systemof theKalacakraTantra) isconsidered the highest because of ltsemp e third
這
he'`gnosisofyuganaddha" (zung'jug gi ye shes) also described as "to be markedactual
gnosischaractenzed byyuganaddha''( mtshon bya dongiye shes zung)ug) ,`' gnosis
c?nsisting
f~·ili; ~~enessof efficientstrategiesand insight" (thabs shes gnyis su med pa'i yes 始），國
"gnosisof thefourthinitiation"(dbangbzhip~'i ye _she s), ~hich ~e obviouslyfor,himsynony.
1~ous. SeealsotheNgessgron521.4-522.l, where he explains why a distinctioncanbe 贓
behveenthethreeesotericor Niruttarayogasystems ofthe Nyingma. Ngessgron527.3-5294
l6l. Forexample,the xy-yuganaddhasuggested in the following verse can besaidto
be the "yuganaddha of nature?Ngessgron 526.l-2: de phyir snang dang stongpa dagi `
so'icham shesna yang/ don du nam yang dbye ba med / de phyir zung)ug cesbrJoddo,
l62.In hisDbuma rgyan§rel425.l-426.1,MiPam discusses the `cmeans-endre1ation .
(upa~opeyabhava~ sambandha~,thabs dang thabs la; b,yung ba'i'brel ba) betweenconven-
tionaltruth (vyavaharasatya, tha snyad kyi bden pa) and absol
solute truth (parmiths 哄
dondambdenpa) as expressedin Madh
upeyabhatam ~am~~avatara 6.80ab (upayabhiitatJ1-vyavaharasaty~m
paramarthasatyam);Mulamadhyamk 面 ika 24.lOab (vyahdrm 砸尹
p~ramartho na desyate).Ac~ordi ing to him, both the x and y that constitute the ontl
calxy-yuganadd.ha 匪
are subsumed under
as xy-yuganaddha can onl vyavaharasatyaand hence updyabhata, inasmu 出
Y be established on the basis of x and y, whereas the actualw-
yuganaddha or hereparamartha.satvai
hisYuganaddhavad~ :yais upeyabhttta.This explanati~n is key to underst 却 d ing
philosophy.
`` l63.It can reasonablyb
yuganaddhaof§amatha and e maintained that the kmd ofxy-yuganaddha exmphfi 磡
l64.In thetantri vipa§yand''(zhi lh.agzung'jug) is the `;}'ltganadd11a ofuu~~
byadongye ui sheszung'lpam c context, Mi
often employs the term z ung) iy 這＾＇ IL 、 h'
forhim 廛 and thabsshes )bwO ::§\
痂 0nymous.Se, f ~nyis su med pa'i ye shes, whicharc't
l65.wangchuk or example,his'0d
l66. F, Resolveto Become snying lOO.5- l0l.3.
dribral 0r theuse of th a Buddha I95-217.
霨 fang Uas,M eexp ressionsrangbzhm rnam dag 釖 "Iy°',g Hosdls',t ＇拉
Cf11nith IpanfSKetaka 6O.5·
NIrvd, .It1aisausen, `Ìch ; Sdud grel 114.1-5. l69lip
IIIetaphysische Und Erl6sun
如 u l68 Mpa 皿 C Crof1e,l62, 166, g im BuddhJSmus'' l 59, l61- l62, I65
Crub
"'/yldd皿 g/phyin rubbsd ci llS 640.3
l68 das Nirvdna als spirituel/esEreig/1I5` k
`tmal:yongsgrub lnbngg,Iy.is/ §yur medyorIgsgrIIbIli) 'tIh
告 {chos 奶 edbynr,g. Ogpa'lyongsgrub ROl 愿 °nr,l
pat 「 "(1 吡 k · yongSsug·ub yul can gyiye shes so. See a1so 玕
yeshesla bya}yI chos 「加 d la bya}pa la yanggnylS te / mI 鈔 ur baryongssUgrt
db),er,hed lpam
l69·MAlnIogi,
g 吡 lUg'S: ： 'On
｀呤
``
嶧 car' ，
na.
Ip hyin
a malogparyongs sugrub p°°.
5486~54]55dand 1338-1339,
ngos postong pa'ignas lugs dang. 郝'" }kl
yang don l bzlJ/Il
, f'
'bl{I/ll'l8
a ni I khyad par gnarn sa

l-
WHERE BuorHIAS AN 「 )S1JIA6 Ml .WI'
3 'I5
id chosdbyingsdang ~ slong nyld ◄ ~ ro ~ bra/ 炳 og pa'l mthu' / lkm dum lu

chosny
/ dt 阯 iùngs kyang/ mthar thugdang nI nyI 庫卹 I khyud pur chc phyIr,kul)$ 5O
森 5严 nas ma nor bshad bya ste / sendha pa IsamdhavaJyI sgru hzhI bzhIn no Al` `
函 1 向 7
,gyan~
/ 466.l-2.
'
`
妒記 17O.s~Rongzomp` 1heg tshul 476.5-9: Ui ltar cho3 rnamskyI do"" I sl01igzhing
卹 g/ran bzhin myedpadang /skye ba myedpa dang/ mnyampa nyldd,mg
鹵 mCdpa 毗 dpargtn la phab bo zhes shc par bya ste I sgra UI rnams kyangres La'm
gr,), ,ebragmyedparston I res Za'ni tshiggi sgoji lta babzhin dutshIggt yul5Omr
缸 g)'
tes 知 bs kyissbyar ro.
必 parston
' I7l.Wpam ，蒞 ges sgron543.l: mdo dang bstan bcosgzhungkun na / dgagsgrub mam
, Ia la don dam khas len te II la la kun rdzob dbang du gsungs.
· m 戶 1pa
P, l-2. see. for example,theDbu margyan Zrel366.3-368.5.
;7;: Mipam,Mkhas'jug 229.2-230~1;Sdom ?Y~ng394.6-395:2:'dus ~a byaspa'i rang
庫岫 in nyidkyi rnam grangs la I rang bzhin rnam par dag pa dang I glo bur bra/
氐 ingy
战 mapgnyis I de bzhin dri bcas dri med gnyis I chos dang gang zag bdag med gnyisII
户 lam'brs bu'ide nyidgsum /stong nyid mtshan medsmon medgsum.
174.Rongzompain his Dkon mchog grel 57.4-21 also employs and explains terms
蝨 as •causaltrue reality"(rgyu'i de kho na ny 磗｀「 esuJtan true reality" ('bras bu'i de kho
rJ 壼 'id), and..truerealitycharacterizedby the one savor of cause and result" (rgyu'bras ro
gdgpa'ide khona n 沮）． He considers the terms as "specificterminology of this scripture,
此 Guhytigarb Tantra(gzhung'di nyid kyi rang skad).
175.For Mipam pudgalanairatmya and dharmanairatmya, too, are distinguished
merely on the basis of "the substrate of emptiness, which is the bearer of the property"
(stong 祉 i choscan). Ketaka 85.5-6.
176.Thatvariouskinds of tathata, and contextually also s,~nyata,are differentiated
in termsof stonggzhi chos can is made clear in Mipam'sMkhas'jug 292.3; rab gsal brtsad
如 298.4-; Gnyz,gsems zur dpyad 304.5-6. Mipam explains that the sixteen kinds of
与 ta havebeen taught for therapeutic or didactic reasons. See his Ketaka 76.4: dngos
: 蚵 dngos med du zhen pa sna tshogs pa'i tshul bzlog pa'i phyir stong nyid bcu drng-tu
聶 id pa lta 加 ste.
t
,' li7. _S uch as snang stong zung'jug, gsal stong zung'jug, bde stong zung'jug or rig
勺 zung'j. Notethatithasbeen Pointedout thatfor Mipam, as suggested in hisNgcs
sgron 518.4-5 : snangdanggsal dang rig pa gsum I bde ba de yi rnam grangs yin; smmgstong
2ung]ug.gsal
stongzung'jug, bde stong zung'jug, and rig stong zung 1ug are syno1u 、
`ch`
M 抨 n considers
~as Mipama DialecticaJMonist?,;34 n. 36. i~his Shelgj,; ·,,,;long725.1-726.2,
stong zung'jug in Mahayoga;gsal stong zung'jug and bde stong zimg 1ug
in^nuyoga; and
ofi面［迫 i on.
rig stongzung in Atiyoga;as fo~r types of paths conetd 面 th four t)'P 心
178.lhe ideaof
蕊 ( ni 扣 rap 而 ca always presupposes that the "hvo extrm 丶 of manifold-
sprospa'i mtha'
gnyis) are de facto coextensive \\ith the''four extrm 、 of manifold-
`
`
(prospa'i
orlht1:;~:~~L ~t~a• bzhi), the "eight extremes of manifol<lncs-;"(sprospe1'imtha'b 珝 yad),
1rty•two
痧 mt 聶 s~pe_rimpositions" (sgro lfogsso gnyis). Compare the way the expression
Osbrgyadb
d mlor sgro Uogsso gnyis dang bral ba b used in theKetaka 47.3 and
區 ke 這了 7 49.1-7506andGyug sems zurdpyad 3O4.6-51 邱 1d Mngon rtogs
朊 l79·Mi p吡 N
nasston~- ~=~ ~g ~gron525.6-526.1:dngos dang dngos med gnyispo yang I stonggzhir
呃 dgosphyir/ snang kun btagspa tsam zhig la/ stongpaang bloyis btagspa tsam.
3 i6 DORJI WANGCHUK
180. It is only in this sense that snang. stong_.zung,'jug, gsal stong zung'i
,' and rigstong zung'jug can be said to be synonymous. Jug,
bde stong zung)Ug,
most important sources
for this idea is MUlamadhyamakakarika 25.13cd: asa\n; of 吡
See Miparn, Mkhas'jug 236.6 andsT namu
nirvdnam bhavabhdvauca sam 両 tau. ong thun seng 桴
185.6 and gSung sgros 908.3-909.3.
l8l. Mip 皿 '0dsnyig 125. -6
182. Mipam, Mkhas'jug 234.2-237 .4. Sdom byang 395.4: don dam rtogs tshul
ri`
las / rnam gra~gs rnam grangs min. gnt~
l83. Mipam, Dbu ma rgyan
~:0: 担 el 4O2.3-5. Thoughexplained, the exprsiondbu 面 i
'char r; 硒 is not usedin this instance. In his'0dsnying, too, the idea of dbu 血 t
bhar nm bzhi is implied, again without the collective expression, as a practice of the
kaysm 面 upasthn ~ccording to. th~ 1~ 皿 tnc system, 138.2-3: stong nyd spros bral mn 戶
p; che~ po, dang zung du 1ug pa'i _ts~ul la blo bzh~g pa,ni sem;. dra,n pa _nyebar bzhag 肛．
Dbu ma rgyan 袒 el 1-76.6-177.1:de ltar stong pa_ dang (z~n . g 」 ug da.ng_I spro_sbral d;~gj
mnyam p;-nyid -de de bzhi po snga ma snga "!a s~es pa la brte_n n~s phyi ma phyi ma'i tshul
la Jug gi / s~ga ma la nges pa ma rnyed bar du phyi ma gtan l~ pheb pa mi'byung ngo.For
fur-ther-discussion of Mip 皿 's dbu ma'i char rim bzhi, see also Phuntsho, Mipham'sDialectics
150, 274. See also Mipam's usage of the expression ye shes'char tshul gsum in the tantric
context,'Od snying 255.6: ye shes'char tshul la gsum ste I snang ba'i ye shes I stongpa'i yt
shes I zung'iug gi ye shes so.'Od snying 132.6: stong pa'i ye shes'od gsal I snang ba'iye shes
sgyu lus I de gnyis zung du'jug pa'i ye shes te gsum yod cing. Compare also the conceptof
"fourfold emptiness" (stong nyid bzhi sbyor) mentioned in the Gsung sgros 857.6-859.2 and
Rab gsal brtsad lan 535.1-537.1 and Zia ba'i zhal lung 176.6.
184. Mipain,'Od snying 113.4-114.6: gzhi rang bzhin lhun gyis grub pa'i dkyi l 如 r
I gnas lugs ngo bo nyid kyi gzhi. rgyu'i rgyud I chos kyi dbyings / yang dag pa'i mtha'I dt
bzhin nyid. de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po I snang stong bden pa dbyer med dag mnyamch 邙
po'i bdag nyid gdod ma gzhi'i dkyil'khor.
1e scriptural sources for the term and concept of svayr,bh 痂
1 the Buddhavatarr,saka Sutra, often cited under the Ga1J4a1,yi
d_in ~mogi, Rong-zom-pas Discourses on Buddhology 245-246
la d~g I ~sam gyis mi khyab tshig gyur kyang / na,;; mkha''.iiS
: ye shes de bzhin no. Almogi poi~ts out that- Rongzompa cites
:~sions,.n~ely, in his Theg t~hul, Sangs rgyas sa- chen mo, .I"
i~s, _an~.S~ang ba lhar sgr~b. Mip 血 ;iso.,~te this verse in
,le, in 坤 'Od gsa/ snying po. See~Almogi, Rong-zom-pa'.sD~~(
~ and M~~on rtogs rgyan 如 l 527.1- 己 GnyugsemhtI 'b ,
waropetd 如 nyat, rnampa kun gyi mchogdangldanpa'ist°'I``
,1gyistong nyid. The idea ofsarvdkpet 鈿 yot(i f()UIuli
頊 jugho5aNrendkitpsM 缸 ya§s,Svud"UIlth
p. 576.4-6) s.eems to have great ly. inspir~d Mip 皿 1:phungo
hing bzhin d u snyingpo med I rnam pa kun 也 'i mchog ldaIIp
'.l yin I (nyid B
, ni N; 2 出 a B,'gyur It is ~ited in su~1 w?; N).
叩－ 2 and Gzhan stong seng ge 233. l and Gnyug settis shmI i
ad 265.3, 322.6: ph ung po rnam dpyad and reflected in his ^
~abs kvi
yl rnam pa dang / ldan pa rnam kun mchog ldangyi / s
,̀
~ u... ~ngI ~han skyes ph
mnga'ba / sems Uas ye shes yag rgya chen po sogs / mtshan gyI` rnam 舺＇｀，
· khyab.N$cs
54.3 一 4:phung yin pa\ phyir/ rtogpa gzhan gyis bsam mI
O rnam dpyad ston F0 「
g pa nyid I d~g bya bca0dpa'i med dag tsarrl·
the expressjonsarv 厄 ravopeti sunyatii,see Wangchuk,Resolveto

ncesto
蕊印「 cf;,a 21On. 60.
oBU thisregard, Iwishto makefour POints.First,it has been argued that Rong-
秕£°'＂＇ t87.In and Mipam,whomI collectivelyrefer to as rong klong'ju gsum, have
cheopa,
班 1pa,
Longd theàrchetypicalintellectualmodels"ofthe Nyingma,and theirpositions on
conSI idere hilosophicalissue the authoritative and representative(i.e ，｀ ofica1 叮 posi-
芘 reJigO·P
詞 ' gven dition.Wangchuk,`rNih-ma InterPretations'' 173. The trio, in short, are icons
0OJl5°fth 囯 alism 己 mystic.W 缸 1gchuk , "Was Mipam a DialecticalMonist?`
ioteUectu
Ol •
f 、禪 ma Mipamsaw himself as the follower of Rongzompa and Longchenpa and as an
32.Second, ositions.Wangchuk,TNin-maInterpretations" 173 n. 6. Third, one can
f their P
認 ator?
vhetherand to what extent Mipam'spositions are in line with those of Rongzompa
uestion'
却 d Long
q chenpa.I(henpo Rinchen, a.k.a. Khenpo Triso R!nchen (1926-1985), who taught
mona,;ticseminary at Namdroling in Bylakuppe in Mysore, South India,
intheN 畑 gma ded that Mipam'sviews did not conform with those of Longchenpa,whose
。 rtedly conten
reporc~:';:~;; morein m line with Sakyaviews. An attempt has been made to clearly point out the
ìewsare d dissimilaritiesbetween Longchenpa, Jonang, Sakya, and Geluk positions on
s 己 aritesn
buddha-nature(and hence also on yuganaddha as the ultimate reality). Wang-
erop 血 es or
chuk,urNih-maInterpretations" 2Ol-2O3.Fourth and6nally,it wi1lhave to be conceded that
00 t\VO traditionsor scholars could possibly have had exactly identical views (Ansichten)on
every singleissue,己 thus Mipam'sconcerns, priotes, 己 views are neither identical with
nor 衄 am;tricly opposedto those of Rongzompa and Longchenpa. Wangchuk, "Was Mipam
a Dialectical Monist?"32-33. Had Mipam suggested or presupposed that the views of various
traditions andscholarsare identical in all respects, he would have seen no need to reconcile
andharmonize them. Had he seen these views as being totally antithetical to each other, he
could notpossiblyhaveharmonized them even if he had wanted to. For all the differences,he
sawa commonpivotalpoint in the idea of yuganaddha, on the basis of which he attempted
toreconcile seeminglydiametricallyopposed or jwctaposed views.Wangchuk, "rNin-ma Inter-
pretations" and Wangchuk,"Was Mipam a Dialectical Monist?" Philosophically speaking 己
mutatis mutandis,as already pointed out, the most important point of convergence among
Ro 荸） mpa, Longchenpa,and Mipam seems to be their understa11dingof the "groundless-
cum.roo tiess"(gzhimed rtsa bra[)ontology and the indivisibility of the two modes of reality.
~angc~uk, "WasMipama DialecticalMo~st?" 33. In particular: the ontology of "mere pha~-
~m ofnonexistence" (medpa gsal snang tsam) proposed by Longchenpa (the sigt1fc 皿 ce of
which hasbeenpointed out in Ehrhard, "Flugelschlagedes Garu 亟 '264-5 n. 5) 己 tha
deserves to b
e examinedclosey 一 sem to, through and through, conform to Rongzompa'
Sarvadh armapratisth ?!h~navadaontology and Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy.
188.TheAns~cht-Einsicht distinction presupposed by Tibetan Buddhist scholars, in my
如 (Ansicht)
BuddhUm.F, canbeveryusefu]in explaininga nurnber ofdoctrinalissues within Tibetan
叩 usiv 1v1sm b~ ~ attempt to explain th~ Geluk position on Substantialism and soteriological
Ymeans of this di-stinction, see Wangchuk, "Yogacara" 1321- 1323.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ìtS ources
｀成 1rti.Madh
6.) 一 6.97 yam 祛 ~arki. Skt. For the Sanskrit edition of Madhyamakavat~ra
竺 'seLi, ｀ Madh yamkvtr- 祏囧 3-14; Tib., see de La Vallee Poussin,
Yamakavatara.
~
318 D0RII WANGCHUK
See de La Vallee Poussin, Madh
Madhyamakavatarabha~ya. yamakiivatara.
Narendrakirti (or perhaps Mafijusriyasas). Svadars
M 疝 jugho 翳 ~namtod
dpe bsdur ma: 12Ovols. Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa'i dpe skrun kh eia. B
·b 嗌
vol. 42; N. sNar thang bstan gyur [TBRC-W22704], vol. pu,fols. 22 ang,l994`
-. Nagarjuna.Malamadhyamakakarikd. See de Jong,

Ratndvalf.See Hahn, Ndgrjuna5Rtvli
庫 lamdh yamakak
dri 圀。 fN· 螭·
a~52 ．亟，
`
Yuktisastikti. See Lindtner, Master of Wisdom 72-93 (Tibetan
.
lation), l74-l 75 (Sanskrit fragments) . textand EnglISh
吡
rajP 啤 argupt. Pramar;avd7!t'.·k~laf!l_~iir~. Se~ Sarikrtyayana, p ramar;ava
qrajnV 心 amucytnr. T (sTog bka 及 yur) 412. Number accord rtikabh 店 hy 吮
ing to Sk
logue of the sTogPalace Kanjur. 。 rupski
心油．
Tibetan Sources
Bod sprul M!o snga~s bs~ai1pa'i _nyima. Lta grub shan'byed gnad k
Y1sgronme.xylogr 咖
print. rDzogs chen shri si 呻 a, n.d. TBRC-WIOI98.
Go ram.P.: Bsod n~s s.eng ~e. Lt~ ba'i shan'byed theg mchog gnad k
and Dargyay, Freedomfrom Extremes. yl zlaer.SC 國
Krangdbyi sun, etal. Bodrgya tshigmdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi rigs dpeskr
Mi pham Rnam rgyal rgya mtsho . Bde bsheis snying po'i stong thun chen mo un khang,
l9'J3.
—
ro.In Mipham gsung'bum, vol. 15, 173-2l8. sengge'inR
-. Brgal Ian nyin byed snang ba. In Mi
pham gsung'bum, vol. 18, 161-273.
.Byang chub sems sgom pa'i thabs bl~
yi ral gri. In Mi pham gsung'bum,vol.i;,
481-483.
-, 1J,a rt:ol ku~ tu gcod pa ye shes ral gri. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol.17,479 纊
-. Chos dang chos nyid ~1 rnam par'byed pa'i tshig Ie'ur byas pa'i grelpa ye sJ 心血
ha rnam'byed. In Mt pham ph gsung'bum, vol. 15, 241-289 .
-. Dbu dang mtha'
rnam par'byedpa'i bstan bcos kyi 如 1 pa od zer'phrengba.In;\fi
pham gsung'bum, vol. 15,·297-413 .
-.Dbumala
加 ~!a'i grel pa zla ba'i zhal lung dri med shel phreng. fo Miphamgswt
'bum,vol. 13, l -277.
-.Dbuma
?~~n g~i _r_nar_nbshad Jam dbyangs bla ma dgyespa'i 珈 I l1111g. In.\Ii
pham gsung'bum, vol. l 3, 333-743.
-－一． Db u martsa ba'i ln` ＼ f1 户
gsung'bum, vol. 12 '!:.:ha.~ grel gnas lugs rab gsal klu dbang dgongsrgymi.
, 223-453.
````
--. `'
-.Dbuma
sogs gzhung spyi'i dka' gnad skorgyi gsung sgros sna tshogspln`
bsduspa rin po che'i
za ma tog. In Miphamgsung'bum, vol. 17, 765-975.4.l3 心
Don rnam par
--.Dpalsgrub ngespashes mb ralgrI. InM iphamgamg'bum, vol l7, F'I,
Mi pham gsung'bum, po bka'brgyadkyi rnam par bshadpa dIlg0SgrtIbs1
pa chen 1yI/1g
--vol. 23, 5 I 3-69. 祉
.. Gnyug sems ' brj 訌
nesnyingpo I odgsalgy don rgyal ba ng Uzin brgyudpai lung bzIII/l
--·Cnyugsemsn,Mipham gsung'bum, vol. 24, l-51. ,brasbu',
，加 dbl odgsalgyi
o gros snang ba.
don la dpyad pa rd;ogs pa chen po'i g 油 1 /arn
--·Gnyu In Miphamgsung'bum, vol. 24, 53-l79, ． w/JS 計
rdorje ri! sems zur dpyad skor gyi gsung sgros thor bu rnams Phyogsgog
phreng ba. In Ml pham gsung'bum, vol. 24, 18 一 385,
Po che'i
nying po. In Mi pham gsung
[Gangs can rig gzhung dpe

ban tshogsJ, 2007.
11 gsol ciebskyi rnam bshad padma dkar po. In Mi pham gsun
--- ，加 1n,
`,-
vo.L 24, 386-450.
15brtsad pa'i Jan mdor bsdus pa rigs lam rab gsal de nyid snang byed. In
---
--,
. Gzhangyts
Mipl,amgsung
'bum, vol. 18, 275-586.
khas len seng ge'i nga ro. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 15, 219-239.
--
. czJ1anstong
. Gzhilam bras bu'i shan'byed sangs rgyas padma'i zhal lung. In Mi pham gsung
--
'bum,vol.23, 1-:- 7.
. 1mndpalrdzogspachen po gzhi lam'bras bu dbyer med pa'i don la smon pa rig
stongrdorje'iranggdangs. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 24, 47l-475.
~: Kun rtog ~hingba gcod pa sngags kyi ral gri. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17,
475-480.
一·區 ng skyarot pa'i rdo rje'i lta ba'i mgur zab mo'i grel pa . In Mi pham gsung'bum,
vol.18,7-40.
一. Le'ubcobrgyadpa'i tshig 如 ol. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17, 749-763.
一. Mchog grubpa'i utpala. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17, 486-492.
— -.Mkhas'jug gi sdom byang.In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17, 359-405.

.Mkhaspa'i tshul la'jug pa'i sgo zhes bya ba'i bstan bcos. In Mi pham gsung'bum,
—
—
vol.17,1-317.
.Ngesshesrin po che'i sgron me. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17, 501-551.
.Rdogrubpa dam choszhespas gzhan gyi zer sgros bsdus nas mkhas su re ba'i'khyal
ngagde dagmi mkhasmtshangphud du kho rang nas bskul ba bzhin nyams mtshar du
bkodpa. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 13, 747-807.
~: ~gyudlungman ngaggi tshig don cung zad bshad pa dri med shel gyi me long. In
Miphamgsung'bum,vol. -23,723-736.
--:-· Rjebtsunsa skyapa'i lta grub kyi gnad ga'zhig la dri ba byung 齡 dogs sel. In Mi
phamgsung'bum:voi. 18, 599-611~
---:;_}~ud tel yum la Jug pa'i legs bshad las mdo dang bstan bcos sbyar tshul ma pham
--. zhallung.-In Mi pham Dh gsung'bum, vol. 14, 217-560.

Sherphyin_mngon;togs-rgyan gyi mchan grel pu 沖 ri ka'i do shal. In Mi pham
---: gsung'bum, vol. 14, 391-662.
-- ph; es rabkyi le'u'i tshig don gosla bar rnam par bshad pa nor bu ke ta ka. In Mi
gsung'bum, vol. 18, 41 一 159.
;-· _Slob dpon
gel norbu'i bpadma'b '}'Unggnas kyis mdzad pa'i man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba'i mchan
---·Snga'a
gsung'bu;
ng mdzod. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 23, I3-61.
gyurbstanpa rgyaspa'i smon lam ~hos rgyal dgyespa'i zhal lung. In Mi pham
• vol. 32, 695.=:100:
、 rtsi•'The
id
8Pa chenpo mdo sd
e rgyan gyi dgongsdon rnam par bshad pa theg mchogbdud
、 ga'sto n.
. Th In Mpham gsung'bum, vol. 16, I-8O7.
egPa chen
二［｀ · Tsh
po rgy~d bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi mchan grel mi pham zhal lung. In
gsung'bum,vol. 15, 1-171.
32,5 0 您 gnyi s zung'j
ls 一 518. 'jug gi nyams /en gnad kyi me long. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol.
、 . Yeshes
grubpa'i
utpala. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 17, 494-497.
320
DOR 」 r WANGCHUK ~
一－． Yid bzhlnmdzod kyi grub mth_a'. bsd~_s
pa. ln Mi pham gs_ung'burn
－一 : Yid bzhin rin po che'i mdzod kyi dka'g nad ci 嗪 gsal b'Vol.
ar byed l7
`?
```
gsung'bum, vol. !7, 6~3-,747; Pa. f
－一． Yon tan rin chen sdud pa'i g_relpa rgyal ba'i yum gyi dgongsd t;
par)ugpa'i legsbshad. In Mi pham gsung'bum, vol. 14, 1 一 215. 0n laphyinq
Rog Shes rab bd. Bla ma rog g1 ban dhe shes rab bd ky1Smdzad
bzhedgzhunggsal bar ston pa chos'byung grub mtha' chen mo·b pa'i grub
Bka'ma shin tu rgyas pa, 12Ovols, vol. l4, l0 5~315. [ Chengdu:stanpa'i如 n
'Jam dbyangs, I999]. 碼
Rong zom Chos k}'lbzang po. Dam tshig mdo rgyas chen mo. In Rn..,.__....., f'J
Rong zom
th 0g` h `
vol. 2, 241-3 89. gsung '
只
-. Gsungthor bu. In Rong zom gsung'bum, vol. 2, 27-130.
-. Lta ba dang grub mtha'sna tshogspa brjed b'Jang du bgyispa. 1
— 'bum, vol. 2, 197-23 1. n Ron g 蝠

加
.Man ngag lta phreng gi grel pa rong zom patJcjita chen
—
po choskvi
:Yibzang pos~
pa. In Rongzom gsung 'bum, vol. 1, 301-351.
—. .Mtshan yang dagpar br 」 od pa'i grel pa rnam gsum bshad

'bum,vol. l, 255-29O.
Rgyud rgyal gsang ha. snying po dkon cog
31-250.
pa.hI Rongzom
節 1. In Rong zom gsun'bm, 吡
評勺
—.
~- Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung'bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si kh
khang, 1999. ron mi rigsdpe 蛔
Thegpa chenpo'i tshul la'fjug pa zhes bya ba'i bstan bcos.In R
vol. 2, 415-555. ongzomgs1 '沄
Secondary Sou r ces
Alm~gi,_Orna. Rong-zom-pas Discourses on Buddhology:A Study of VariousCo11ceptio11S ti

Buddhahood in India~ s
ources_with Special Reference to the Co~troversy S11rroundingtlri
~xistenceof Gnosis(jntina: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Centu~ y Tibeta1 造
Rong-zomChos-kvi-b !~-bza~g-€0. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph .Series 24.fi 曲
International Institute for Buddh ist Studies, 2009.
-.`` Mayopamadvayavada
versus Sarvdhmpti~ 出 anvd: A LateIndia 、S 碴
sificationof Madh
y 細 ak 叨 d Its Reception in Tibet:;Journal oftheInternati on,dC 薳
for Postgraduate Buddhi~~
CC Studies 14 (2010): 135-212.
一 Yoga 函 a iin the W
~itings of the Eleventh-Century Rn)
ZOm Choskyi b
za~~ po.''_ In The Foundation for YogdPmc
Yogacrb 加 mi T
Ulrich Timme Kragh, re~tise and Its Adaptation in I~dia, East Asfr
1330-1361. Harvard Oriental Series 75.(.
?f South Asian Studi
ido, Michael M. " Jes, !:{arvard University, 2013.
0 打 he TIbetSPadma-dkar-po on Integration as Ground, Path
ociety 5 (1985): ·5_54_
ez6n, Jose J
gnacio, and Geshe Lobsru1g Dargyay. Freedomfron
"Distin'guishingth
)ng, JanWille Wews'' and the Polem1CSOfEmptiness.Bostor
iam, editor. Mulamadhyamakaka~ika~-of Nagarjun_a.
a Vall6e l)oussin, L
taine. Bibiiotheca Buddhi ouis, editor.Madhyamakdvatd ra parCandr6
de l'Aca
Sciences, I9I2 . JCa 9. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie
W1lfl1lI} l\u" ＂"^` ＇ \N I ) 、"＂＇＾ l · Muwr ;\ J,
1 「 I \ 1I, IWln,1"Kmi( `J`hmk lmgIn · " ＂＇，、 h" ＇＂ h hd n. 'I'IIwI,lhlHl ',WI):
1)`
l1\.,.,,:
Ì ^kIlC· \I/Il1IImIi( " 'IIII.\' IWIuIss""'` `'lr li` ＇＂ l 「 ,1 I' ＂＇'濯 (1 IIyII/\ IIm)r I d l,l/l" ' "l
"``\'/i', ·/,•.11'' '"''
，／／；胛'`"
l" ＇＂ I 「「'＇ · 、'＇＂ti '0I` "'' .,l) l I\,,/I'" '" `"' I (11, 「 1 l,\ /'" };It'I </(I/I Shr` ''' h
丶＇＂i',/',·'· IIlwI,
I\IS l'NI) l llr, \\' UIk` ""'/('"' hIlmIlumIu IlwItIIyIl1X,'" ' Sdmul' "' cl
l ^ hWJ.,IWIlI/ . l'l\l) tlw 、 l 丶 I \Il 枳 1`hl'I 'i Il hµw dC8 I·IiIUIONI1ud` ｀ I 沁 I ` ｀＇
l) Uk·k``\Il
` tl, /Us1111·1
Il`` h·1
\
IL
c ltclIµlCI1`` l( ) 1I.
tl\, I) III8lII.``'
`hIlr UI\IvC1
丶 M1/h"' ＇ "UIhu
sIty ul Nrw Ymk l',```)()() H,
NIIlIIIl':1Jw (hWIII/Il(,/ lhrN yItIk'"" ,'" ullII'"' ·
,\lh,111 y:•
" l lh·l''Nu l. "I:hI8rlv hliI, ｀ I' （仙；＂＇．，／ ··: UI'`'"' . '"'' lhlu ·,,krs(hlrhtIIrIu· /h·"' rrkuII•
Urdrrs"'""' l'"' S,lr ., rl).."``S (lmI. 'I'IlwIU1I UIul I,ul()' l'IIWlt1l\ Mud 匾．＼
Il`' hUl
"'
``.,,.
`'
IlwlmUIw rhWI 佃 Ilw 血 ltUIL` ·\lul l lIsImy () l hulI 、 mcl ' l ' Ilw, Unlvmlly () f l l,\InhurU·
SlulI8UI I: l1,Ì1W `chwr Vcr luR· I99( ),
IlcrhcrI.1lu·'li\IrhIIIgso/ IWl'""`"" 'hl/(/WI.I,cidO1: lt J. Urlll, I9% ,
(;ut•11th~·r,
llt1hn, Mlchucl. l Ndgmj'"'" k RuIIIdmh. Wl. l: 1Iu· /lush· 1kM.,(& 111 s/...r/f,'l'l/1£'1,w, Cl1incsr).
叫 lca cI 'l'IhcIicul, cdllulhy Michucl l InlII\, l\mm: IndIc<`cl'l1IwtIcu Vcrlug, l 982.
lltor."M:u.lhy1-,kv 、 \UI, ＼ k 、 \rlki.'C/1 ' J1lwtc>o:y I8, no. I (2012): I I6.
!.i, Xuwhu, u
Umltncr, Chr.,editor tUld t ransll1tor. M 叫(.'＇，fW/sdom: " WHI/ 8s oj lhc BuddhlsI Mus
Irr N 照 1 」 lI(1,'n· ＂＇ sl" ＇」°'＂ l Studi('s. l\cvi`cd cditI()I\, Yc 血 l )c l)ro)cct. l\crkclcy:
Dhnrmn,I997.
噚 J. s.,ct al.'l'ib<'ltw Smtskrlt Dlctlm111ry. 16 vuk Sarn.,th: Central Institute of IJighcr
TlbctnnStudies,Dictionary Unit, 1993 2005.
Phuntsho, Karma.Miplum1'sDlnlerlirs mu/ f/,c Del,att•s011Rmptlness: To lk, Nc,t to Be or
Neltl,er. Oxforc.l Centre for Uuddhi:.tStudies. London: RoutlcJgc Curzon, 2005.
Sa,krtyayana, Rahula, cditor. PrumuI./(wurItIkubluishyum or WrUkdlu" ＇ kdmh 。f
"
\
Prnjfldknrngupta ,
(BrUg o Commc"mry o, Dhurmukirtik Prum{ywdrtlkum). Patna:
KashiPrasadJayaswalResearch Institute, 1953.
Schm!thauscn, Lambert."Jch und Erlosung im Bu<ldhismus:•Zeitscltrlftfiir Mlssionswlssen
schaft1mdReliglo11swissr11sc/wft 53, no. 2 (1969): l 57- 170.
Skorupski, Tadcusz.A @tuloguc oj the s7b8 Poluce Km,jur. Ribliographia Philologica Bu<l
dl~ica SerlesMaior4. To.kyo:;Ihc lntc; ;1ationul Institute for B~1<l<lhistStudies: 1985.
Schwerk, Dagmar.SpIegcIdcr S/chtwelsc:Dic Krmpunktc [der Philosophicj dcs M/ttlerc"
{Wegesj(dBu m(1'ibsdusdo,1 ltu bu'i mc lo 邴 EinckurzAbhdmg iibcrdus Madhyu
mukarJedCe-Hun-rhchetIS (1926-1997), dcm 69. rjc mKlumpo von Bhuta1I.Magistcr
thesis.Ilamb
wangchukDorji.~-rg: "Ma<lh
University of l lamburg, 20 12.
c'cschicht yamaka aus <lcrSicht der rNying~ma Tradition." In B11ddfii.m111s ;,,
e und Ce~enwart4>2 l 1-233. l lamburg: University of l lamburg, 2000.
.--,"D i
e gro8cYollcndung wic sic in Rongzompa'sWerk dargcstcllt wir<l:'In 811clclhis
musin
--- CcschIchtc und CegmIwnrt5, 4I -53. Hamburg: UniversIty of Hamburg, 2OOl.
, UA n E l cvnth· 、
O/TlbetanCcntury Dcfcnccof thc Cuhy(lgurbhuttItItrn. " In 1hc Muny CutIO 「 lS
Brill,2O02.BuddhIsm,cdi tcd by1 lcImut Eimer and David Gcrmano, 265 29 l . Lcidcn:
、 ·"p ,migephU
c`chlch t (h0phiwhc Grundhgcn dcr rl)'ogs chcnMcditation." In BuddhismusitI
...e und G
, lherN · egcnwart8, l65- l8I. l·Iamburg:Univcrsity of Uamburg,2OO3.
d/eK' U1ma I ） tcrpaIOl 丶 ofthc 1hthug(ltug(lrbho1heory." Wie,IcrZcItschriflfl'ir
倉 UndeS
• IhCR asicns48(2OO4)·17I 213. [Appeared in 205 」
esolve
國三． to BccomeaBuddhu: A Study ofthe BodhIcIItuConrcpt IrI lmloTibrtmI
"'litul(:f Mudid l'hik ) l() gicalluddhiQ M() l1()8raphScrics 23.'lbkyo: ' lhc Intcrnauonal
or Buddhi~tStudi(.~s> 2007.
322 DORJI WANG CHUK
of Perception in Indo -Tibetan Bud-

一. "A Relativity Theory of the Purity and V~li.~ity
dhism." InYog1cPerception,Meditation, and Altered Statesof Consciousness, edited by
Eli Fr 皿 co and Dagmar Eigner, 215-237. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2009.
一. ~'W~; Mipam a DialecticalMonist? On a Recent Study of Mip~'s Interpretation of
V
the Buddha-Nature Theory:' Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2012): 15-38.

一. "On the Status of the Yog 這 ra School in Tibetan Buddhism:'In Foundation for
YogaPractitioners: Ihe Buddhist Yogacarabhumi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India,
East Asia, and Tibet, edited by Ulrich Timme Kragh, 1316-1328. Harvard Oriental
Series 75. Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, 2013.
Rethinking the Zhcnt~ng
Buddhist Discours c in Tibet
The Other
Emptiness
RIrrmNKING'l 'H1! 1/,IWN'I 'ONG

BuDlWIIS'rDISCOURSl l IN'I 'IBET
llditcd by
MlCHAHLlt SIIHHIIY and KLAUS·'l)IETHR MA"l'HES
面
Cover photograph by Mkhael R. Sheehy
Publi5hed by
State Univer sity of New York Press, Albany
© 2019 State Universily of New York
All rights re served
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever witho ut written
permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the pub lisher.
For information , contact State University of New York Press , Albany, NY

www.sunypress.edu
LIBRARY OP CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Names: Sheehy, Michael R, [date - ] editor. I Mathes , Klaus-Dieter, editor.

Title: The other emptiness : rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist discourse in Tibet I edited b\
Michael R. Sheehy and Klaus-Dieter Mathes.
De.s~r:~lion:_Firs_tedition. I Albany : Stale University of New York Press , 2020. I Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019037744 (prin t) I LCCN 2019037745 (ebok) 丨 ISBN 9-81438477572
~har<lc~v~ r) I ISBN 978 l 438477596 (ebook)
Sub 」 ects: LCSH:: Sunyata I Budhism 一 (h .,hina -T ibet Autonomous Region -Doc trin 蕊
Classification: LCC BQ4275
:~_} 58 2020 (pnnt) I l.C.C BQ4275 (ehook) I DDC 294.3/0 一 dc23
LC record available at h llps://lcc.n .lo(...gov/2019037744
LC ebook record available at I
`tp 、 .／ /lc. n.locgv /2 0193 7745
10987654321

Where Buddhas and Siddhas Meet Mipam S Y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where Buddhas and Siddhas Meet Mipam S Y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11

WhereBuddhasand Siddhas Meet

~ a r~centreview article on Douglas S. Duckworth's study of Mipam Namgyel

THE 1ERM YUGANADDHA

philosophy, ma y be required here . Whether specified or not, th

MIPAM'S YUGANADDHAVADA PHILOSOPHY

Mipam , as a Mahy 細 a philosopher , can be regarded as a Yuganaddhavadin par

a crucial role in his lifel~~g philos.o?hical -~

ectation that understanding the hermeneutical schemes underlying

TheTwo Models of Twofold Truth

Mipamproposed his theory of «two different satyadvaya models" (bden pa gnyis

~~ n ot be that o f `、 intr s i c idcntkali

philo soph y, work s accordingto the 6rst ``

UUthmodel," Mipam's model ofbden pa gcigitseIfcan be said to be oftwo types,

Two Types of Valid Cognitions

Two Types of Soteriological Models

Various Buddhist sources and systems seem to presuppose various soteriolog~c; al

u'bras) and abandonment-adoptio~_(spang blang)

Somephilosophical propositions underlying Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy

~so DORJI \VANG CHUK

Third, witl1 regard to soteriology, it may be stated that whatever i1s to be

SOME TACIT ASSUMPTIONS

Mipam's Yuganaddhavada philosophy is obviously based on some tacit assumptions,

\ VU ERI: BUDD II AS ANO ~ l DD HA S M l:.CT 28 i

FAULTY NOTIONS OF YUGANADDHA

EVIdenlh , ｀、 Up 皿 c on s iderc 詛 nou s ofyuganaddha th4 do n otme et the crit ena

TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGIES OF YUGANADDHA

Before proposing some typologi~s of the.~ganad~a concept, five different

th e Yuganaddhavada philoso~hy. Th~-forme:

zung'j)" 一 al~ng with a host of synonyms, such as ">'lJga naddha of emptiness

,-··.\ llhough its superfluousness

f the soteriologic al model followed by a competing

u.A"rb tion with cognitive (i.e., either

prajfi 甾 c or j 益 naic) access to it that ~ne properly

`.,' speaksof the "the view of the indivisibili

path of the indivisibility of

, .. ot s 年 ar and nirv 平？ I would

· thus contend that this i

quiescence"(srid zhit mnyam nyid).

；之． . .,. Thisbrings us to the fourth and final ooi

a dcfident Mal 面細 c path and hence _distant from the "resultant

~panis position on what I refer to as "goal yuganaddha" is inextricably ~e wi~

nosis does 庄 What he de facto maintains is

Yuganaddha of the Expressive Word

What we refer to as the "yuganaddha of the expressive word" may be discussed

proponents such as DolpPa. l45 一 ｀痘

`』 akingf0r at el 扇;；『 : s ~-'J_ tsan thab ss su

d for by the "higher,, systems. 153 That is, a subtle limita-

YUGANADDHA OP NATURE AND YUGANADDHA OF NURTURE

~~oth~r way of classifying the types of the yuganaddha concept identifiable in

ONTOLOGICAL YuGANADDHA AND GNOSEOLOGICAL YuGANADDHA

A careful observation of Mipam's use of the term yuganaddha in various contexts

n and "emptiness''following the "nvofold-reality mode" and thus must

Synonyms(ming gi rnam grangs) of ontological and gnoseological yuganaddha,

briefly.In general, when talking about the synonyms of yuganaddha, it is particu-

~hara_cterized by the indivisibility of [th; two modes of reality] of appear~c.e and

dbye rmeddagmnyamchenpo'i bdagnyidgdod magzhi'i dkyil ' khor) 巴 One ofthe

that our synchronic

\fng on rt ogs ~ran 11Ttl476.5-477.6; Rgyud bla'i mchan 94.2, where h

; bden pa 炒 'is. la ma brt~n1par I ztt~g ~u kh~~g du chud mi gyur / rgyal

DORJ 」 WANG C HUK

rgyu'bras dbyer med

de thams cad kyis mthar thug gi bsgom byar ma dgongs

proponents such as DolpPa. l45 一｀痘