BRILL Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33

Were Sa-pal}.and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po

"Neoconservatives? "
brill.nl/iij
Utility and Futility of Source-Culture Alien Categories
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch
Asian Department, Copenhagen University
Abstract
In his influential Tibetan Renaissance (publ. 2005), Ronald Davidson categorizes
the two eminent masters of the late 12th and early 13th centuries, Sa-skya PaJ}9.ita
Kun-dga' -rgyal-mtshan and 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, as "neoconservatives,"
portraying them as having an un-Buddhist and inauthentic fixation on India,
and as working to suppress any deviation from their norms. This paper critically
investigates Davidson's general and specific interpretations of his categorization
and raises the question of methodology.
Koninklijke Brill NY, Leiden, 2010.
Keywords
Tibet, Buddhism, sa-skya-pa, 'bri-gung-pa
Introduction
Among the most important Buddhist masters of the late 12th and early
13th centuries are Sa-skya PaJ:!9.itaKun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan (1182-1251)
and thefounder of the,Bri-gung bKa'-brgyud-pa tradition, 'Jig-rten-mgon-
po (II43-1217). Sa-paJ:!is well known to a wider audience both as an
important figure in the history of Tibet and as one of its greatest schol-
ars. English translations of his Entrance Gate for the Wise,
1
A Clear Differ-
entiation of the Three Codes,2 and Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita's Trea-
sury of Good Advice
3
have been available for some time now, and his life
1) Gold (2007) andJackson (1987).
2) Rhoton (2002).
3) Thelatest translation isDavenport (2000).
Koninklijke Brill NY, LeiJen, 2010 DOl: 1O.[[63/0019724IOX12686674794376
24
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
and works have been explored by academics for decades. 'Jig-rten-mgon-
po, on the other hand, is much less well known, and only a few works
havevery recently become available in German translation.
4
To the expert,
these two have always been prominent protagonists of their times-and
certainly antagonists, asmany of the topics presented in Sa-paJis Clear Dif
ferentiation, for instance, appear (at least on first sight) to be direct replies
to some of the views expressed in 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's Same Intention.
5
Not
only dothey maintain innumerous instances opposed views, their strategies
of maintaining and transmitting the Dharma, too, are in sharp contrast.
6
It thus came as asurprise to find Sa-PalJ and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po grouped
into thesamecategory of "neoconservatives" in Ronald Davidson's Tibetan
Renaissance,! and the present note is an attempt to investigate the appro-
priateness and usefulness of such acharacterization in this particular case.
I end with abrief reflection on the general utility of such terminology.
Tibetan Neoconservatism in Tibetan Renaissance
The choice of the term "neoconservative" by a North-American author
publishing in 2005, i.e. in the middle of the second term of the 43rd pres-
ident of the United States, whose foreign policy was often described as
4) Seefor example Sobisch (2006) and Schmidt (2008).
5) TheTibetan titleof theSame Intention isDam chosdgongspa gcigpa. A direct link between
the Same Intention and the Clear Diffirentiation is chronologically difficult to establish.
According to the biography of Shes-rab-'byung-gnas, the nephew and chief disciple of 'Jig-
rten-mgon-po (published in the dGongs gcigyig cha, Bir: Tsondu Senghe, 1975), the uncle
had taught the topics of the Same Intention as aspecial teaching to his nephew in private
during the last period of his life. After the master's death in 1217, Shes-rab-'byung-gnas
went into along retreat at Ti-se and only returned to 'Bri-gung in 1225. In the winter of
the next year he is said to havevery briefly met Sa-palj in bSam-yas. In that summer he
taught the Same Intention for the first time in apublic teaching. The composition of Sa-
paJjs Clear Differentiation was, according to its colophon, finished sixyears later in 1232.
Wesimply don't knowwhen the first copies of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's work began to circulate,
but it appears to be unlikely that the Clear Diffirentiation was adirect reply to that text
(Sa-palj himself never identifies anopponent byname). I havefound, however, many of the
topics taught in the Same Intention formulated inmany other teachings of 'Jig-rten-mgon-
po, and it seems quite likely that Sa-palj had gained his knowledge through these earlier
teachings, which might havecirculated more openly or might havebeen reported to him.
For afewremarks on the Same Intention (dGongspa gcigpal seeMartin (1997), 263-
305, van der Kuijp (1987), 57-70, Uu (2002); Sobisch (2002), ch. 14. TheSame Intention
is now the focus of aresearch project by Khenpo Rangdrol and myself, seehttp://freenet-
homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/ .
6) Seemy reviewof Gold's book (forthcoming 2009a).
7) Davidson 205.
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
being under a neoconservative influence, is unlikely to be an accident. I
leave it to the judgment of the reader whether a term originally coined
for apolitical ideology of 20th century North-America isin general terms
applicable to 12/ 13th century Tibet. What I would like to do here is first
to establish how Davidson characterizes the neoconservatism he perceives
in Tibet, then investigate whether such characterizations arejustified and
what isgained by them. The term inquestion occurs several times through-
out Davidson's book.
- Page 8: The teachings of 'Phags-pa (Sa-paJ;l'snephew) aredescribed as
neoconservative, used here as a contrast to "actual shamanistic prac-
. "
tlce.
- Page 13: The term isused here incontrast to the "indigenous Tibetan
conservatives-who maintained the superiority of the older aristocratic
clans and the authority of the indigenous gods and looked for the
restoration of the monarchy and the resurrection of the imperium."
The neoconservatives instead "took as their standard authenticity the
feudalistic Buddhist monasteries in India." Their ideal was an "ortho-
dox curriculum, as well as an enlightened monastic and civil admin-
istration." Furthermore, "for them, anything un-Indian was by defini-
tion un-Buddhist, sothat all innovations (... ) [were] illegitimate." And
"even this was not enough," for some" castigated practices or ideas that
wereobservably Indian but not part of the curriculum of selected great
monasteries." Such condemned practices and ideas are exemplified by
Davidson through those of the Red Acarya and Pha-dam-pa Sangs-
rgyas. The neoconservatives were "not aspecific sociological formation
but an ideological voice appropriated by selected individuals."
- Page I54: The neoconservative position "represents agreatly restricted
image of the authentic Dharma," which is asan idea "only marginally
Buddhist, for Indians had always kept to the ideal of a canon with
indeterminate limits."
- Page 289: The thirteenth century saw a "neoconservative attempt to
align Gampopa's position with that of Heshang Moheyan ( ) collaps-
ing the distinctions between the Mahamudra and Chan ( )."
- Page334: The Same Intention of the ,Bri-gung-pa was "acombination
of synthetic philosophical vision and neoconservative comments." The
work criticizes "some of the sameprinciples that later came under Sakya
PaJ:l9.ita'sdisapproval" and "it attempted to paper over some of the
differences between the Sakyapa (... ) and the Mahamudra." This was
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
understandable "for both subscribed to the idea of the triple discipline
(trisamvara), and both considered the Sarma yogic systems to be the
pinnacle of the Buddha's dispensation. (... ) Unfortunately, precisely
because of their similarities, these Sarma systems came to occupy the
same religious niche, making the various Kagyiipa and Sakyapa lineages
competitors rather than partners."
- Page 375: The neoconservative movement, "including Drigung Jikten
Gonpo, Sakya PaJ;lqita, Chaglo Choje-pel, and others (... ) saw what
they understood as the Buddha's pure message being eroded within as
well aswithout, and the natural creativity of the Tibetan people embod-
ied in the work of Chapa, Gampopa, the Terma masters, and others was
perceived as heresy and doctrinal betrayal. Consequently, they worked
to suppress any deviation from the norm, criticizing the Buddhist activ-
ity that they understood to beun-Indian, and in doing so, they adopted
astandard that was atheoretical position rather than areal Indian con-
struct. Unknown to or unacknowledged by the neoconservatives, many
of the same behaviors and ideas that they criticized in early-thirteenth-
century Tibet had been found in India for many centuries."
Neoconservatives vs. Ancient Aristocracy
One of the central theses of Davidson's book is that the new translation
period supersedes the paradigm of the superiority of the ancient aristo-
cratic clans, with the new translators as (a kind of) new aristocracy. As
an overall observation, this is certainly worth discussing, yet the devil is
in the details. Davidson also characterizes neoconservatives, whose most
prominent members areaccording to him Sa-paJ;l and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, as
opposing the superiority of the older aristocratic clans (p. 13)-in contrast
to the "indigenous Tibetan conservatives." Sa-paJ;l, however, was amember
of the 'Khon clan, which traces itself back to Jo-bo 'Khon-par-skyes, begot
by a Tibetan woman and a demon. In their line we find 'Khon dPal-po-
che, who was aminister (nang blon) of king Khri-srong IDe-btsan. His third
son, 'Khon kLu'i-dbang-po-bsrung-ba was claimed to be the third of the
sixth of the "Seven Tested Men" (sad mi). 8As iswell known, the 'Khon clan
still exists today and the head of the Sa-skya-pas is its descendant. At one
point, A-mes-zhabs, one of the great throne holders of the 17th century,
8) Theroots of the 'Khon plan arebriefly described inthe Blue Annals, section 4.2.
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
27
gaveup his monk vows in order to produce male offspring for the clan.
9
In
short, there can be no doubt that the Sa-skya-pas hold their ancient roots
inhighest esteemand I haveseenno indication that Sa-paJ:!would make an
exception. 'Jig-rten-mgon-po was adescendant of the sKyu-ra clan, which
claimed itsdescent fromking Ral-pa-can (ruled 815-838). 'Jig-rten-mgon-
powanted to make amember of the clanthesuccessor to thethrone of'Bri-
gung, but his nephew declined. Mter afirst interim candidate followed a
member of the sKyu-ra clan. Until the 16th century the throne remained
hereditary among the clan with only very few exceptions. There can be
no doubt that the overall attitude towards the old aristocratic structures
changed after the loth century. But that Sa-paJ:land 'Jig-rten-mgon-po-
neoconservatives according to Davidson-were opposed to the idea that
their ancient clans had great authority must bedoubted. Davidson's claim
that neoconservatives such asSa-paJ:land 'Jig-rten-mgon-po were opposed
to the superiority of the older aristocratic clans also lacks concrete doc-
umentation. Given the fact that they also had agenuine appreciation of
their own ancient Tibetan roots, including their connection to some of the
great figures during the imperial period, the contrast that is built up by
Davidson appears to be in some respects much weaker than portrayed by
him. It remains to be seen how far such an opposition is sufficient as a
characterization of their supposed neoconservativeness.
Un-Indian, Un-Buddhist, and the Limits of the Canon
That the neoconservatives "took as their standard of authenticity the (... )
Buddhist monasteries in India" with their "orthodox curriculum" (p. 13)
appears to be by and large a fitting characterization of Sa-paJis schol-
arly program. But is for him "anything un-Indian (... ) by definition un-
Buddhist, sothat all innovations (... ) [are] illegitimate"? Sa-paJ:!wasindeed
suspicious of the bKa'-brgyud-pa's Great Seal (mahdmudrd) doctrine, call-
ing it "virtually [the same as] the Chinese religious system" (Clear Dif
ferentiation 3.175). But that does not mean that herefuted that Great Seal
teaching because it wasun-Indian and for that reason un-Buddhist. Instead
he identified some of its aspects as being similar to the teaching of the
Chinese Heshang Mahayana, whose doctrine was refuted by the Indian
master Kamalasila. It iscertainly true that Sa-paJ:lwas highly suspicious of
9) See Sobisch (207),16-18.
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
teachings that did not originate inIndia, for India wasnot only thecradleof
Buddhism but alsothe placewhere numerous truly great Buddhist scholars
and yogis had been active. Since Buddhism anywhere is deeply rooted in
Indian scholarship and yogic accomplishment, it is certainly obvious to
search there for authenticity. But Sa-paJ;lwas not an uncritical Indophile,
since he also rejected teachings of doubtlessly Indian origin. And Sa-paJ:!
was also not alone in this respect. It is certainly not wrong to say that
the majority of Tibetan masters would share both his appreciation for
Indian scholarship and accomplishments and his concern for authenticity.
In short, it isdifficult to seethese concerns asthe special characteristics of
aneoconservative.
'Jig-rten-mgon-po, on the other hand, can hardly besaid to have taken
as his standard authenticity the Buddhist monasteries in India. Although
his insistence on pure monastic discipline earned him a reputation as a
strict follower of the vinaya,10there is no indication that any scholarly
"orthodox curriculum" comparable to that of the great Indian monaster-
ies was adhered to in 'Bri-gung at any time. The abbatial history of 'Bri-
gung reports regular teachings ontheSame Intention, other profound Dhar-
mas (zab chos), and the Essence of the Mahayana Teachings, agradual teach-
ings text that functions as acommentary on the practice and conduct of
the vinaya, of the bodhisattvas and tantric adepts, and on mahamudra.
ll
Although I haven't been able to study all of the available teachings of 'Jig-
rten-mgon-po, I never found an instance where he condemned anything
10) Some of the biographies of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po report that when hegaveup the abbot's
seat at Phag-mo-gru, hedid sobecause, among other things, themonks there refusedtogive
up theuseof alcohol (e.g.'Bri gung gdan rabs gser phreng, Bod ljongs bod yigdpernying dpe
skrun khang, p. 78). C Karma-chags-med's statement (Ri chos, rTsib ri spar ma, p. 78),
according towhich the bKa'-brgyud-pa's areabit lenient with thevinayavowsbecausethey
followVibhiiticandra's viewof the superioriry of the mantra vowsover the pratimolq;a vows
-with the notable exception of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, who held that the higher vows were
evenmore rigid than the lower ones (calsoSame Intention, supplement no. 13).
11) Later, from the beginning of the 14th century onwards a camp was established in
the summer and instructions on the Fivefold Path of Mahamudra (phyag chen lnga ldan)
were bestowed. The monks remained in small tents for practice. For the winter teachings
they went up into the mountains, where the instructions of the sixyogas of Naropa were
bestowed. The monks practiced producing the heat of gtum mo, wearing merely a single
cotton shirt. A1; supporting teachings they received the profound teachings (zab chos) of
theEssence of the Mahayana Teachings (1heg chen bstan pa'i snying po) and the Same Intention
(Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa), together with theteachings of former masters andthenecessary
tantric initiations. Cf. the 'Bri gung gdan rabs gser phreng, pp. I26 , the biography ofbCu-
gnyis-pa Rin-po-che rDo-rje-rin-chen (1278-1314).
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
29
as being un-Indian and therefore un-Buddhist. To the contrary, I found
several instances where he criticized such an attitude in strong and explicit
terms. 12
Davidson (p. 13) also states that the neoconservatives "castigated prac-
tices or ideas that were observably Indian but not part of the curriculum
of selected great monasteries," identifying these practices and ideas asthose
of the Red Acarya and Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas. Having studied myself a
bit the nebulous figure of the Red Acarya and stories surrounding him, I
do not think that he-or better: the practices ascribed to him-were crit-
icized in Tibet because they were deemed un-Indian, but rather (if the
accusations were true) because they took literally what should have been
understood assecret language with ahidden meaning, and they encouraged
tantric adepts to abandon their vinaya VOWS.
13
That the neoconservatives
12) See 'Jig-nen-mgon-po, sDe snod gsum gyi nyams len bsil byed tsan dan gyi phreng ba
(Collected Works, Dehra Dun: Drikung KagyuInstitute), vol. I, p. 180: "Somedefame the
instructions of theTathagatas, sayingthings like'only this Dharma of mine isDharma, what
the others practice isnot Dharma,' 'the mantra of the rNying-ma-pas isnot Dharma,' 'the
practice ofVajrapalji isnot Dharma,' and 'mental inactivity (amanasiktira) isnot Dharma.'
They create attachment, aversion and delusion. Sincethe ripening [of such conduct] with
the result 'samsara' and 'lower realms' is pitiful, having seen and heard a great number
of scriptures of the Sugata with your eye of discriminating wisdom arising from study,
reflection and practice, you should never disparage (gang fa yang skur ba mi 'debs) [any
teaching]!"
13) Blue Annals, chapter 8.19: "In the loth century an Indian 'paljqita named Shes-rab-
gsang-ba (Prajfitigupta), who was also known by the name of AciiryaSham-thabs-dmar-
po, translated the Phyag chen thig le rgyud. Theeighteen Ar-tsho-ban-de werehis disciples,
according to some authors. The doctrine of the Eighteen Ar-tsho-ban-de consisted of a
corrupt formofTantric practices: they kidnapped women and men, and used to perform
human sacrificesduring Tantric feasts (ga1Jacakrapuja). It issaidthat their practices caused
the Tibetan kings of Guge to invite dPal Atisa."
TheRed Master's systemhasbeen described by Karma-chags-med (1613-1678), inthis
way (Ri chos, pp. 72): "[According to] his religious system, [all the vows were] taken
[successively], beginning with the vows of refuge, up to those of a monk. Each [set of
vows] wasmaintained for someyears [or] months according to the authoritative scriptures.
Thereafter, by receiving the [ritual of] the production of the resolve for awakening, the
pratimokia vows turned into the bodhisattva vows. After that, none of the Vinaya rules
had to bemaintained. Thetraining of theresolvefor awakening, the meditative exchangeof
oneself and others, wascultivated for someyears. Thereafter, byreceivingthefour initiations
of the Mantra, these bodhisatrva vows, too, turned into the vows of Mantra. After that,
the training of the bodhisatrva vows did not have to be maintained. Because one was a
practitioner of Mantra, onewasevenallowedtotakeawife, [and] eventhough onetook one,
the defect of having lost the [monastic] vowsdid not occur. Becausehis followers increased
greatly, householder monks (lit. "yellow householders") spread everywhere in mNga'-ris,
dBusand gTsang. All learned ones censureandrefute [thisdoctrine], callingit the"perverted
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
"castigated practices or ideas that were observably Indian" shows, to repeat,
that they were not uncritically accepting everything only because it was
Indian. It also had to be in accordance with the Buddhist teachings on
disciplined conduct (fila) and with aview that avoided extreme positions.
Interesting is also Davidson's remark (p. 154), according to which the
neoconservative position "represents a greatly restricted image of the au-
thentic Dharma." Why is it restricted? Because it does not subscribe "to
the ideal of acanon with indeterminate limits." This is one of Davidson's
many more or less obvious personal agendas to be found in his book. In
this case he seems to be in favor of an "open canon" to which new revela-
tions can beadded asauthentic Dharma. Such new revelations must not be
Indian, of course, because the un-Indian, as we can sense from his earlier
statements, must not necessarily be un-Buddhist (because that would be a
restricted image). Strange, however, is Davidson's afterthought, according
to which such arestricted image is an idea "only marginally Buddhist, for
Indians had always kept to the ideal of acanon with indeterminate limits."
Are we to understand from this that in order to be afully authentic Bud-
dhist, one has to be like the "Indians [who] had always kept to the ideal of
acanon with indeterminate limits"? In that case, Davidson himself seems
to have a "restricted image" of what the authentically Buddhist must be,
namely Indian.
Deception, Betrayal, and Heresy
With regard to the Same Intention of the 'Bri-gung-pa, Davidson remarks
that the work criticizes "some of the same principles that later came under
Sakya PaJ;l9.ita'sdisapproval." This is a very interesting observation, but
unfortunately the author doesn't provide concrete examples. My hunch is
that this might refer to 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's and Sa-paJ;l'semphasis on strict
disciplined conduct that ismost visible in their attempts to revalue the role
of the pratimo~a vows. This attitude, however, goes back in the Sa-skya-
pa's case (at least) to Sa-paJ;l'suncle Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan and in 'Jig-rten-
mgon-po's case (at least) to his guru Phag-mo-gru-pa.
14
But Davidson seems
to have other things in mind aswell, when he states that the Same Intention
doctrine of the Red Master." For some examples of how the hidden language of the tantras
isto beunderstood according to 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, seeSobisch (2002), 373ff.
14) Aspects of the Sa-skya-pa's and the 'Bri-gung-pa's view regarding disciplined conduct
havebeen documented and analyzed in Sobisch (2002).
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
3
1
"attempted to paper over some of the differences between the Sakyapa (... )
and the Mahamudra." Apart from the unfortunate choice of the term "to
paper over," which implies ahalfhearted and hardly honest attempt to make
problems invisible, I wonder whether this is the caseat all, at least in the
unspecified and general sense. On the other hand, I have also noticed on
several occasions that despite their differences interminology and doctrinal
presentation, Sa-paJ;l and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po in fact do not seemto always
bevery far apart. 15 I believethat Davidson could bequite right when hesays
that "precisely because of their similarities, these Sarma systems came to
occupy the same religious niche, making the various Kagyiipa and Sakyapa
lineages competitors rather than partners." We need, however, alot more
casestudy in order to substantiate such an assessment.
In the conclusion of his book, Davidson states that it was the agenda of
the neoconservative movement that they saw the "Buddha's pure message
being eroded within aswell aswithout." I wonder why Davidson perceives
here a"movement" at work. The evidence presented in his book is far too
little and not concrete enough to postulate a whole movement, and he
himself has stated (p. 14) that the neoconservatives were "not a specific
sociological formation but an ideological voice appropriated by selected
individuals." And to seethe "Buddha's pure message being eroded" is, in
my mind, not acommon agenda, but rather a topos of Tibetan religious
literature (and certainly also of Indian literature) well known to all who
read widely (which Davidson certainly does). Davidson continues that
"the natural creativity of the Tibetan people embodied in the work of
Chapa, Gampopa, the Terma masters, and others was perceived [by the
neoconservatives] as heresy and doctrinal betrayal." Again I perceive a
term such as "creativity" in this context as an unfortunate choice, since
it does neither refer to creativity inwriting (asin "creative writing") nor to
the creative ways of exposition, but rather implies doctrinal inventiveness
(hence "heresy and doctrinal betrayal"). What actually ishappening here is
that Davidson seems to mix up his personal preference for Gampopa and
the Terma masters with the way he perceives such people as Sa-paJ:!and
'Jig-rten-mgon-po. At least in the caseof the latter, documented evidence
that he condemned any Buddhist master as a heretic and fraud is totally
lacking in Davidson's book. Where did 'Jig-rten-mgon-po "work [... ] to
suppress any deviation from the norm, criticizing [... ] Buddhist activity"?
15) For some remarks on Sa-paJjs and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's positions on Mahamudra and
their closeness despite terminological differences, seeSobisch (forthcoming 2009b).
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
Methodological Considerations
This brings me to alast, more general point. Davidson's invention of the
category "neoconservative" introduces aculture- and author-alien concept
into the discussion. One of the many questions that arise is, whether all
or only some of the above mentioned characterizations arenecessary to be
a neoconservative. If all characterizations would be necessary, we would
have a monothetic group. But since many of those characterizations are
doubtful and arguably not fitting, especially not to the 'Bri-gung-pa, we
rather seem to have a polythetic group, i.e. one in which none of its ele-
ments are essential or alone sufficient to make someone amember of that
group.16 In this case, however, there is the real danger that the category
"neoconservative" lacks significance and that membership in that group
has practically no meaning. In other words: the value of such an etic cate-
gory ishighly questionable. AsSeyfort Ruegg has once formulated, wefirst
have to strive to understand the categories and terminologies of the source
culture itself, and how these categories relate to one another systemically
and structurally. This will then become asolid foundation upon which we
may carry out more generalizing and comparative investigations, avoiding
thereby the superimposing of extraneous modes of thinking and interpre-
tative gridsY
References
Davenport, John (2000) Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita's Treasury of Good Advice,
Wisdom Publications.
Davidson, Ronald (2005) Tibetan Renaissance: Ttmtric Buddhism in the Rebirth of
Tibetan Culture, New York: Columbia University Press.
Gold, Jonathan (2007) The Dharma's Gatekeepers: Sakya PalJt.lita on Buddhist Schol-
arship in Tibet, Albany, N..: State University of New York Press.
Jackson, David P. (1987) The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa-skya
PalJt.lita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of PramalJa and Philosophical Debate,
(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 17), Vienna: Arbeits-
kreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien.
16) Fora discussion of mono and polythetic groups, seeNeedham (1972) and (1975).1hese
were, to thebest of myknowledge, first introduced into thediscussion inour fieldbyDavid
Seyfoft Ruegg.
17) For an interesting discussion of such ascholarly approach, seeSeyfoft Ruegg (1995),
156 If.
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33
33
van der Kuijp, Leonard (1987) "An Early Tibetan View of the Soteriology of
Buddhist Epistemology: The Case of 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten-mgon-po," Journal of
Indian Philosophy, 15 1 I: 57-70.
Liu, Kuo-wei (2002) "'Jig-rten-mgon-po and the 'Single Intention' (Dgongs gcig):
His view on Bodhisattva vows and its influence on Medieval Tibetan Bud-
dhism," PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Martin, Dan (1997) "Beyond Acceptance and Rejection? The Anti-Bon Polemic
included in the Thirteenth-Century Single Intention (Dgongs-gcig Yig-cha) and
Its Background in Tibetan Religious History," Journal of Indian Philosophy,
25 /3: 263-305 .
Needham, Rodney (1972) Belief, language, and experience, Oxford: Blackwell.
--, (1975) "Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences," Man,
New Series, 10/3: 349-369.
Rhoton, Jarred (2002) A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinc-
tions Among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Ttmtric Systems: the
Sdom Gsum Rab Dbye and Six Letters, Albany, N..: State University of New
York Press.
Schmidt, Susanne (2008) Gongchig: Das einzige Ansinnen, der wahrhafte Dharma,
Mit dem Kommentar Die Lampe, die die Dunkelheit beseitigt von Rigdzin
Chokyi Dragpa, Miinchen: Otter Verlag.
Seyfort Ruegg, David (1995) "Some Reflections on the Place of Philosophy in the
Study of Buddhism," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
18/2: 145 -181.
Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich (2002) Three-vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism: A Compar-
ative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth Through Nineteenth Centuries,
(Contributions to Tibetan Studies I), Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
--, (2006) Licht, das die Dunkelheit durchbricht: Einfuhrung in die "angeborene
Einheit" von Drikung Kyobpa Jigten Gonpo, (Introduction, Edition and Transla-
tion), Miinchen: Otter Verlag.
--, (2007) Life, Transmissions, and WOrks of A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'...
bsod-nams, the Great I7th Century Sa-skya-pa Bibliophile, Hartmut-Ortwin
Feistel (ed.), (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland,
VOHD, Supplementband 38), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
--, (forthcoming 2oo9a) Review of Gold 2007, to appear in theJournal of the
American Oriental Society.
--, (forthcoming 2009b) "Guru-Devotion in the bKa' brgyud pa Tradition:
The Single Means to Realisation," Tibetan Studies IO, Proceedings of the Seminar
of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Bonn, 2006.