Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
44 (2015)
44 (2015)
Herausgegeben von
Peter Schwieger
unter Mitarbeit von
Christoph Cüppers, Franz-Karl Ehrhard , Karl-Heinz Everding,
Dieter Schuh und Ines Stolpe
Ein besonderes Anliegen dieser Veröffentlichung ist es, unbekannte Texte und Materi-
alien zu erschließen und sie auch in Faksimilia zugänglich zu machen.
© IITBS GmbH, International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast
(Schweiz) 2015. ISBN: 978-3-03809-124-0. Homepage: www.Tibetinstitut.de
Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheber-
rechtlich geschützt.
Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne
Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfäl-
tigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung in
elektronische Systeme.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Teil 1 Sonderbeiträge
Contributors 15
Klaus-Dieter Mathes
Mind and its Co-emergent (sahaja) Nature in Advayavajra´s Commentary
on Saraha´s Dohākoṣa 17
Casey Kemp
Merging Ignorance and Luminosity in Early Bka’ brgyud Bsre ba Literature 35
David Higgins
The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s
gnas lugs phyag chen and ‘khrul lugs phyag chen 51
Roger R. Jackson
Did Tsongkhapa Teach Mahāmudrā? 79
Martina Draszczyk
A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos Grags
ye shes on the Hidden Meaning of Luminosity 99
Rolf Scheuermann
The Four Dharmas of Sgam po pa – A Brief Examination of Padma dkar po’s Famous
Dwags poʼi chos bzhiʼi rnam bshad skyes bu gsum gyi lam nyin mor byed pa 121
John Bray
A.H. Francke’s last visit to Ladakh: history, archaeology and the First
World War 147
Hartmut Walravens
Siberian Manuscripts and the Tibetan Jäschke Type 179
Hartmut Walravens
A note on early Kalmuck printing in St. Petersburg 193
Michael Knüppel
Zu den „Auslassungszeichen” in uigurischen Āgama-Texten 201
Wolfgang-E. Scharlipp
Die Angst der Nomaden vor der chinesischen Kultur 207
Besprechungen
Bettina Zeisler
L’épopée tibétaine de Gesar. Une version inédite par dBang chen nyi ma. Ma-
nuscrit Alexandra David-Néel, Musée Guimet BG54805. Présentée par Anne-
Marie Blondeau et Anne Chayet. (Patrimoine d'Orient.) Suilly-la-Tour: Editions
Findakly. Preface, Introduction, 2 maps, 18 colour, 6 black-and-white illustrati-
ons, 3 colour and 216 black-and-white manuscript reproductions, glossary,
index, appendices. ISBN: 978-2-86805-148-6. Paperback, 256 pages, 35 €. 217
Jeannine Bischoff
Czaja, Olaf, Medieval rule in Tibet: The Rlangs clan and the political and religious
history of the ruling house of Phag mo gru pa. With a study of the monastic art of Gdan
sa mthil (Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie, 20). Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 221
Volker Caumanns
Helmut Eimer, Sa skya legs bshad: Die Strophen zur Lebensklugheit von Sa skya
Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251). Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde, Heft 83. Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Stu-
dien, Universität Wien: 2014. 226
7
Teil 1
Sonderbeiträge
IATS 2013: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Seminar of the In-
ternational Association for Tibetan Studies, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 2013.
EDITED BY
KLAUS-DIETER MATHES
ZAS 44 (2015)
8
Table of Contents
Preface
Klaus-Dieter Mathes, David Higgins, and Martina Drszczyk
Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s gnas lugs phyag
chen and ’khrul lugs phyag chen
David Higgins
A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities: Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes on the
Hidden Meaning of Luminosity
Martina Draszczyk
ZAS 44 (2015)
9
PREFACE
ZAS 44 (2015)
10
Because this approach called into question the primacy of analytical investiga-
tion and the absolute dependence of Mahāmudrā realization on the complex
repertoire of tantric rituals and initiations, it eventually provoked
considerable debate in Tibet. Heated controversies arose with Sa skya Paṇḍita’s
(1182-1251) broad-based criticisms of non-tantric and non-gradual mahāmudrā
teachings in his Sdom gsum rab dbye and his Thub pa’i dgongs gsal. The Dge lugs
tradition as well, treating Mahāmudrā in the frameworks of both Sūtrayāna
and the secret Mantrayāna, explicitly rejected the practice of mental
nonengagement and non-analytical methods in the context of the sūtra path.
Such disputes have continued unabated throughout the history of
Tibetan Buddhism down to the present day. They concerned the authenticity,
application and effects of the respective Mahāmudrā practices as well as their
doctrinal support in the second and third dharmacakras. A central issue
concerned the question of whether Mahāmudrā must necessarily be linked
with the highest Buddhist tantras1. The debates also centered on questions of
whether analytical investigation is prerequisite to developing Mahāmudrā
practice, whether mental nonengagement is an appropriate approach, what
mental nonengagement in this context actually means2, and what conditions
are necessary for Mahāmudrā practice to be successful. This set of issues were
interwoven with questions as to whether the conventional and the ultimate
truths as well as their associated modes of cognition and emptiness are to be
regarded in terms of difference or unity and how these two opposing views
could be reconciled by determining the relevant contexts of each. A related
question was whether goal-realization entails merely the disclosure of
inherent enlightened qualities or rather the full development of potential qua-
lities.
In the history of Tibetan Buddhism, many outstanding scholars
contributed to discussions and debates concerning the various aspects of
Mahāmudrā and the path to its attainment. A notable characteristic of the
panel conducted at the IATS 2013 in Ulaanbaatar was that the presentations
covered studies on the Indian origin of Mahāmudrā, through investigations in
the context of the early days of pre-polemic Mahāmudrā transmission in Tibet,
through Tsong kha pa’s influential period, up till the highly polemical post-
classical period of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In short, some of the
1
In “Can sūtra mahāmudrā be justified on the basis of Maitrīpa’s Apratiṣṭhānavāda?”
Mathes has convincingly shown that the blending of the sūtras with the tantras was
not a Tibetan invention, even if the term of a sūtra mahāmudrā may have been coined
in Tibet only. (See Mathes 2007).
2
The meaning of mental nonengagement in this contemplative tradition has been
investigated in detail in “Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra”. (See Mathes 2009).
ZAS 44 (2015)
11
ZAS 44 (2015)
12
ZAS 44 (2015)
13
ZAS 44 (2015)
14
ZAS 44 (2015)
15
CONTRIBUTORS
ROGER JACKSON is John W. Nason Professor of Asian Studies and Religion at Car-
leton College (Minnesota, USA). His research focuses upon Indian and Tibetan
Buddhist traditions of religious poetry and meditative praxis, especially as
related to Mahāmudrā. Recent publications include, with Geshe Lhundup So-
pa, The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems: A Tibetan Study of Asian Religious
Thought (Boston 2009) and, with Matthew Kapstein, Mahāmudrā and the Bka’
brgyud Tradition (Andiast 2011). He is currently completing a book-length study
of Dge lugs pa traditions of Mahāmudrā.
ZAS 44 (2015)
16
ZAS 44 (2015)
17
Klaus-Dieter Mathes
1
Many thanks to Nirajan Kafle (Kathmandu) for carefully checking the passages from
the Dohākoṣa and its commentary quoted in this paper.
2
DKP 14821-22: “This commentary on the Dohākoṣa is completed. The number of granthas
in this [text] is eight hundred. This work is by the venerable Śrī-Advayavajra.”
(samāpteyaṃ dohākoṣasya pañjikā | granthapramāṇam aṣṭaśatam asya | kṛtir iyaṃ śrī-advaya-
vajrapādānām iti |). Unfortunately, this sentence is on the last, now missing folio 121, of
the only available manuscript (NGMPP reel no. A 932/4).
3
In DK 96, Saraha speaks of co-emergent joy and the fourth moment, but simply says
that they are one´s natural awareness: “In the explanation of the profound there is
neither other nor self. One fully knows that co-emergent joy and the fourth moment
are [one´s] natural awareness.” DKP 1421-2: gambhīraï uāharaṇeṃa ṇaü para ṇaü appāṇa |
sahajāṇandeṃb caüṭhṭhackkhaṇa ṇia samveaṇa jāṇa | )
a
N –rahale b EB sahajāndeṃ N sahajāṇanda c N caüṭṭha-.
Here, Advayavajra goes against the root text (whose reading is also supported by Vi-
bhūticandra´s Amṛtakaṇikoddyotanibandha, AKUN 6320) in that he puts “co-emergent
joy” in the instrumental and the “fourth joy” in the locative: “That [co-emergent],
which few people, [even] among those who have merit, know, destroys biasedness
immediately the profound is recollected as a result of having analyzed it. In this, the
supremely profound, all [distinctions between] the self and other do not exist at all.
For it (i.e., the profound) lacks them (i.e., self and other) in the first place. Through co-
emergent joy at the fourth moment, in the middle of which is [only] imagined by the
world, you [come to] know such naturally present awareness.” (DKP 1423-6: yat puṇyeṣu
viralā lokā jānanti tat gambhīrasya vicārabalena nirantarasmaraṇatayāa pakṣāpakṣaṃ niru-
ZAS 44 (2015)
18
Maitrīpa (986-1063), who also goes by the name Advayavajra (i.e., the author of
the Tattvaratnāvalī).4
Bagchi´s edition and revised edition of the Dohākoṣapañjikā5 are based on an old
Newar manuscript in a mid-13th-century bhujimogal script, a text printed by
Haraprasād Śāstrī, and a fragmentary manuscript of the Darbar Library.6 Cor-
rections in the margin show that the Newar manuscript is a copy of an older
one. There is no further information on Śāstrī´s source, but it is very likely that
he used the same Newar manuscript at a time when fewer folios were missing
and less damage had been done to the surviving ones. The colophons of the
Derge and Peking bsTan ´gyur Tibetan editions indicate that the translator was
Śrī-Vairocanavajra from the land of Kośala in South India.7 The colophon in the
commentary of the dPal spungs edition of the Indian mahāmudrā works states
that the Dohākoṣapañjikā was translated by Vairocanarakṣita of Kośala and the
Tibetan translator-monk Ba ri, i.e., Atiśa´s famous translator Bari Lo tsā ba Rin
dhyate | paramagambhīre tatra na paraṃ anātmanaḥb kiṃcid asti | ādāv eva rahitatvāt | īdṛśaṃ
sahajānandena caturthakṣaṇe lokacparikalpitamadhye nijasaṃvedanaṃ jānāsi |)
a
N -ṇayā b EB nātmanaḥ N anātmana c EB lokaḥ.
First translated in Mathes 2015:33-34.
This interpretation is clearly opposed to Maitrīpa´s presentation of the sequence of the
four moments and joys. Maitrīpa argues that it is possible to list the co-emergent in
the third position, for in treatises such as the Hevajratantra the correct sequence has
not been made explicit in order to confuse outsiders who do not rely on a guru. If
Maitrīpa himself had been the author of the commentary, he would have argued that
Saraha simply states here that the co-emergent joy and the fourth moment are one´s
natural awareness without entering into any technical discussion about the issue of
which moment the co-emergent is realized at. To be sure, like his teacher Ratnākara-
śānti, he clearly follows a tradition which claims that the moment of freedom from
defining characteristics and co-emergent joy are marked or recognized in the third
position (Mathes 2009:99-106). However, the majority of scholars—Kamalanātha, Ab-
hayākaragupta, Raviśrījñāna, Vibhūticandra, and others—put them in the fourth posi-
tion (Kvaerne 1986:34-35).
4
This finding and a preliminary introduction into Advayavajra´s commentary were
first communicated at the Sahaja Conference at Visva Bharati, Santiniketan, India on
Feb. 12, 2012 (see Mathes 2015:16-38).
5
NGMPP reel no. A 932/4, fols 17a4-102b5.
6
Bachi 1935:52.
7
The colophon in the Derge (2256, rgyud ´grel, vol. wi, fol. 207a7) and Peking bsTan
´gyur (3101, rgyud ´grel, vol. mi, fol. 231a4-5) reads as follows: “The Dohākoṣapañjikā,
composed by the great master Advayavajra, is completed. Translated by the great yo-
gin from the land of Kośala in South India, Śrī-Vairocanavajra.” (do ha mdzod kyi dka´
´grel slob dpon chen po dpal gnyis su med pa´i rdo rjes mdzad pa rdzogs so | rgya gar lho phyogs
yul ko sa lar sku ´khrungs pa´i rnal ´byor pa chen po śrī bai ro tsa na ba dzras bsgyur ba´o ||).
ZAS 44 (2015)
19
chen grags (1040 - ca. 1110).8 The same colophon mentions that later it was
corrected and finalized by Vairocanavajra.9 Schaeffer (2005:61) takes Vairoca-
navajra and Vairocanarakṣita to be one and the same person, who lived in the
11th/12th centuries. The Tibetan translation of the Dohākoṣapañjikā is unique in
that it deviates often from the Sanskrit—sometimes several sentences appear
not to have been translated at all or only summarized.10 It is hard to see how Ba
ri Lo tsā ba could have been involved in this. In his Phyag chen rgyal ba´i gan
mdzod, Padma dkar po (1527-96) questions the attribution of the commentary
to the famous Indian Advayavajra, i.e., Maitrīpa, and claims that
A similar doubt was raised by bCom ldan Rig pa´i ral gri (1227-1305), a famous
master from Narthang Monastery.12 In his Do ha rgyan gyi me tog (fol. 2b-3a) he
writes:
While it appears that [the commentary composed by] the so-called Ad-
vayavajra was translated by Vairocana, there is a writing that says that
[the work] was composed by Kor Nirūpa.13
8
Schaeffer 2005:61.
9
The colophon of the commentary in the dPal spungs edition (DKPT (B) 161a4-5) states:
“Translated by the great yogin from the land of Kośala in South India, Mar me mdzad ra
kṣi ta, and the Tibetan translator-monk Ba ri. Later it was corrected a bit and finalized by
Vairocanavajra.” (rgya gar lho phyogs kyi yul ko sa lar sku ´khrungs pa´i rnal ´byor pa
chen mar me mdzad ra kṣi ta dang | bod kyi lo tsā ba dge slong ba ris bsgyur ba | slad
kyi be ro tsa na ba dzras cung zad bcos te gtan la phab pa´o ||).
10
For example, nearly the entire refutation of the Śaivas (DKP 7810-814), which covers
more than three folios in the Newar manuscript, is not translated. It is possible, of
course, that the refutation is a later interpolation in the Sanskrit text.
11
Phyag chen rgyal ba´i gan mdzod, 2912-15: mai tri pa´i ´grel pa ni | mnga´ bdag gis
mdzad pa ma yin | de dang mtshan mthun pa bal po bha danta´i gcung po zhig kyang
byung ba lta bus | mtshan tsam snying po mi bya pa ṇḍi ta thar pa ´byung gnas kyis ´grel
pa legs so |.
12
Schaeffer 2005:10.
13
Quoted after Schaeffer 2005:66.
ZAS 44 (2015)
20
Kor Nirūpa travelled in his teens to Nepal after receiving monastic ordination
in Lhasa. In Nepal, where he was called Prajñāśrījñānakīrti (1062-1102), he
received teachings on the seven sections of accomplishment, the six works on
essential meaning, and the Dohākoṣa. Schaeffer thinks that he was the same as
Prajñāśrījñānakīrti mentioned as the translator of Advayavajra´s Mi zad pa´i
gter mdzod yongs su gang ba´i glu zhes bya ba gnyug ma´i de nyid rab tu ston pa´i rgya
cher bshad pa (Derge 2257), and reports that some Tibetan scholars accused
Prajñāśrījñānakīrti of being a forger of commentarial literature.14 Still, the
Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454-1506) included Advayavajra´s
commentary on Saraha´s Dohākoṣa in his collection of Indian mahāmudrā
works.15 The Nepalese (?) Advayavajra probably belonged to the circle of the
Indian Vajrapāṇi, one of Maitrīpa´s four heart disciples, who brought the Trea-
sure of Dohās to Nepal.16 In his Blue Annals ´Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-
1481) informs us that Vajrapāṇi (b. 1017) settled in Pātan in the Kathmandu
Valley in 1066, where he taught, besides the Dohās, the three cycles of
mahāmudrā works.17
14
Schaeffer 2005:66-67.
15
Phun tshogs rgyal mtshan (ed.): Phyag rgya chen po´i rgya gzhung, vol. āḥ, fols 121a4-
161a5.
16
Schaeffer 2005:62-63.
17
Roerich 1949-1953:855-57. The three cycles are (1) the seven sections of accomplish-
ment; (2) the six works on essential meaning; and (3) Maitrīpa´s amanasikāra works. For
a description of the three cycles see Mathes 2011:93-98.
18
RGVV on I.129 (6619 – 671): “It has been shown that the properties of the purity of
mind are inseparable [from it] throughout beginningless time and [thus] co-
emergent.” (anādicittavyavadānadharmasahajāvinirbhāgatā ca paridīpitā |). I thank David-
son (2002:55) for this reference.
ZAS 44 (2015)
21
19
Depending on the means they employ on the path (oral information from Thrangu
Rinpoche, Kathmandu, April 2008).
20
As Herbert Guenther (1993:22) explains, emergence (ja) must be understood, howev-
er, as the spontaneous and uncaused manifestation of the principle of complementari-
ty (saha).
21
DKP 723-4: “As I continuously pay devoted homage to the gurus, the protectors of the
world, [this] commentary on the treasure of songs (dohā) in the Sahaja tradition is
written.” (namaskṛtya jagannāthān gurūn satatam ādarāt | likhyate dohākoṣasya
sahajāmnāyapañjikā ||).
22
DKP 7213-14: atra tāvat ṣaḍ darśanāny ucyante | brahma-īśvara-arhanta-bauddha-lokāyata-
sāṃkhyāś ca | According to Nirajan Kafle (Kathmandu), ca at the end of the enumeration
is superfluous, and was probably put there on purpose to violate Sanskrit grammar in
order to be provocative.
23
Bagchi (1938:17 & DKP 858): “They who [try to] cultivate nirvāṇa after having neg-
lected the co-emergent—do not attain the ultimate, none of them.” (sahajaṃ parityajya
yena nirvāṇaṃ bhāvitam | (not available in DKP): ṇau paramattha ekka teṃ sāhiu |). Ad-
vayavajra (DKPT B 128a3-4; D 185a4-5; P 203b4-5; missing in the Sanskrit) comments: “The
co-emergent having been neglected, there is no other defining characteristic of nirvāṇa
[to fall back on]. Not knowing this, they (i.e., the Buddhists) run after the nirvāṇa of
others, confused by what are mere enumerations.” (ces gsungs te | lhan cig skyes pa bora
nas mya ngan las ´das pa´i mtshan nyid gzhan med do | | de (bni mib) shes pas ming gi rnam
ZAS 44 (2015)
22
Saraha (DK 21ab) then equates the co-emergent with the tantric concept of
great bliss, which can be realized through the natural blissful state of human
existence through the pith instructions of a genuine guru.26 This resembles the
grangs tsam gyi sgo nas ´khrul pa´i phyir gzhan gyi mya ngan las ´das pa la ´jug par ´gyur bas
|). First translated in Mathes 2015:27.
24
See Mathes 2015:26.
25
RGVV 761 reads upaneyaṃ instead of prakṣeptavyaṃ (N prakṣeptaṃ), but given the
overall positive description of the ultimate in the Dohākoṣa and its commentary, it
should be understood in line with tathāgatagarbha theory.
26
See Mathes 2012:200-201.
ZAS 44 (2015)
23
karmamudrā practice of the Caturmudrānvaya. Here the idea is, however, that
the co-emergent nature can shine through at any moment of one´s life, and
not only during the sequence of four joys experienced during union. The only
prerequisite is to be natural like a small child,27 because then it is possible for a
realized master to point out one´s own ultimate co-emergence which other-
wise cannot be defined or related to in any conceivable way.28
Just as the water in a river [is the river, so too] the very [river] itself is
a wave, and not anything else. Given the equal purity of [all] cyclic ex-
istence, [cyclic existence] has the nature of calmness, the nature of be-
ing like space, and nothing else. What is taught by this? Cyclic exis-
tence is precisely nirvāṇa. This is in accordance with the pith instruc-
27
See verse 57 (DKP 1183-4): “Having completely abandoned thought and no-thought,
one must abide in the [natural] way of a small child. Be firm in devotion to the teach-
ing of the guru! By it will arise the large wave of the co-emergent.” (cittācitta vi pariha-
rahua tima acchahu jima vālu |guruvaaṇeṃ diḍhabhatti karub hoi jaïc sahaja ulālu ||)
a
N parihara b N laru c N haï
It should be noted that DK 57 is also quoted in Atiśa´s Bodhipathapradīpa (Eimer
1978:183).
28
This is most clear from verse 36 (DKP 981-2): “The root of the mind [can]not be
marked [out]. In terms of the co-emergent, the three (i.e., the goal, mark, and marker)
are wrong [notions]. In this [co-emergent,] one lives and dies. Son, you must remain in
it!” (cittaha mūla ṇa lakkhiaü sahajeṃ tiṇṇaa vitattha | tahiṃb jīvaï vilaa jāïc vasiaü tahi phuta
ettha | iti |)
a
N tiṇṇi b N tahi tahi c N ja
First translated in Mathes 2015:29-30.
29
DKP 12815: aṇṇa taraṅga ki aṇṇa jalu bhavasama khasama sarūa (DK 72cd).
ZAS 44 (2015)
24
tions of the genuine guru for those who know. The ignorant ones do
not understand, and reify [the two as different] objects.30
In other words, cyclic existence and nirvāṇa are not ontologically different, any
more than the existence of ocean water is not affected when the flat surface of
the ocean is churned into waves, to use an oft-quoted example from the
Laṅkāvatārasūtra:
Advayavajra´s view on the relation between cyclic existence and the co-
emergent differs from that essential identity of cyclic existence and nirvāṇa,
the latter being only a conceptual construct and thus different from the actual
co-emergent. The co-emergent and cyclic existence are best compared with
buddha nature and its adventitious stains, as exemplified by the fourth simile
in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, namely a gold nugget that is immersed in excre-
ment.33 However, the two similes are different in that waves are always made
of water, while gold is not found in excrement. Nonetheless, most scholars
have applied Saraha´s simile of water and waves to mind and its co-emergent
nature. Saraha´s verses 102-106, however, shed a slightly different light on this
issue, especially against the backdrop of Advayavajra´s commentary:
30
DKP 12816-18: yathā nadyāṃ jalaṃ saiva taraṅgo nānyaḥ tathā bhavasamāvaśuddhitvāt
śāntirūpam eva khasamarūpaṃ nānyaḥ | etena kim uktaṃ syāt | yo bhavaḥ saiva nirvāṇaṃ
samyaggurūpadeśād iti jñāninām | ajñā na jānanti | viṣayaṃ yānti |
31
For a discussion of pariṇāmayati etc., see Schmithausen 1969:165f.
32
LAS 4615-16: udadheḥ ca taraṅgāṇāṃ yathā nāsti viśeṣaṇam | vijñānānāṃ tathā cittea
pariṇāmo na labhyate ||
a
According to all manuscripts. Nanjio suggests citteḥ.
33
See Takasaki 1966:272.
34
DKP 14414-15: jo bhava so ṇivvāṇa khalu sa u ṇa maṇṇahu aṇṇa | ekka sahāveṃ virahiaa
ṇimmala maïb paḍivaṇṇa | (DK 102)
a
N vevirahia b EB maïṃ
ZAS 44 (2015)
25
In this [verse it is taught] that you should not remain in your house or
go to other [places like a] forest. [This,] however, is certain: It is from
spending time at places [conducive] to duality that thoughts arise.
“How does this happen?” It is explained: Wherever you are, whatever
you do— whether walking or eating—you must look at the mind in
such situations! The mind is false. You must state this39 clearly. It has
been repudiated before because it had not been established. Therefore,
in the entire threefold world [mind] is established as being uninterrup-
35
PK V.2a: saṃsāro nirvṛtiś ceti
36
The Tibetan simply reads: “This is as stated in Ārya Nāgārjuna[´s Pañcakrama], in the
[chapter called] Yuganaddhakrama, starting with “saṃsāra and nirvāṇa” (i.e., PK V.2a).
Accordingly, the inseparability of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is non-duality and thus called
indivisible union.”
37
DKP 14416-1454: nāsti yogināṃ viśeṣād viśeṣaḥ sa]ṃkṣepataḥa | yathā yuganaddha-
krameṣūktam āryanāgārjunapādena bhavanirvāṇetyādinā ca | iha etad eva yat bhavanirvāṇaṃ
khalu sarveṣāṃ dvayaṃ dvayavacaneṣu | savijñeyayuganaddhābdvayaṃ tac ca bhedam anyaṃ
vijñeyād iti | kiṃ tarhy ekasvabhāvena | (cyad śāstreṣuc) siddhāntaṃ tat tasmād virahitamd
ekānekabhāvam | kiṃ tu advayo ´pi nirmalaḥ pratipannaḥ | paramādvayam iti bhāvaḥ | etad
eva spaṣṭhārtham āha |
a
EB –kṣepaḥ b EB –a- c EB yad advayaṃ sarvaśāstreṣu N ya ya śāstreṣu d EB avirahitam
38
DKP 1455-6: gharahi ma thakku ma jāhi vaṇe jahi tahi maṇa pariāṇa | saalu ṇirantara vohi-
ṭhiu kahiṃ bhava kahiṃ ṇivvāṇa |
39
Taking sa in the sense of tat.
ZAS 44 (2015)
26
40
DKP 1457-17: anena svagṛheṣu sthitiṃ mā kurvantua | vanāntaram api gamanaṃ mā kuru |
kiṃ tarhi niścitaṃ dvayasthāneṣu gamyād vikalpaṃ jāyate | kathaṃ kriyate ity ucyate | yasmin
yasmin sthitvā vā caṃkramaṇabhakṣādiṃ kṛtvā tatra manasya paribhāvanaṃ kuru | alīkaṃ
manaḥ | sa ca vijñaptiṃ kuru | tac ca pūrvaṃb nirākṛtam asiddhatvāt | tasmāt
sakalatraidhātukeṣu nirantarāvyavacchinnapravāhāt bodhisthitaṃ siddham | na kenacid
utpāditaṃ svayambhūtvāt | tad iha kudhībhiḥ mūḍhatvena parikalpitaṃ bhavanirvāṇayor
advayoḥ kenedaṃc na syāt uktanyāyād api | tasmin bhavaṃ tasmin nirvāṇaṃ na bhavati |
kutaḥ | yataḥ ādāv eva viśvasyotpādaṃ nāsti | tat kim iti dṛśyate | māyāvad iti bhrāntyā
pratibhāsamātram eveti | yathā darpaṇādiṣu pratibimbaṃ dṛśyate tadvicārān nopalabhyate |
tat bimbapiṇḍaparimāṇavattvādibhedanā(dsambhavam itid) | kasmād bhavanirvāṇayor asamb-
havam | tathā coktam |
a
EB kurvanti b EB pūrve c EB keneḍhaṃ d N –sa bhavati
41
DKP 14518-19: (asaṃsāraṃ caiva nirvāṇaṃa) manyante ´tattvadarśinaḥ | (bna saṃsāraṃb) na
nirvāṇaṃ manyante tattvadarśinaḥ || (YṢ 5)
a
EB nirvāṇaṃ caiva lokaṃ ca N ||| va lokañ ca b EBN naivaṃ lokaṃ
42
DKP 14520-21: nirvāṇaṃ ca bhavaś caiva dvayam etan na vidyate | parijñānaṃ bhavasyaiva
nirvāṇam iti kathyate ||
ZAS 44 (2015)
27
43
DKP 1461: tasmāt siddhaṃ paramādvayaṃ bodhirūpaṃ sa cāha |
44
Lit. “is based [on].”
45
DKP 1462-3: ṇau ghare ṇau vaṇeṃ bohi ṭhiu ehu pariāṇahu bheu | ṇiammalacittasahāvatāb
karahu avikala seu || (DK 104)
a
N ni- b N -ḍā
46
The feminine genitive does not fit into the syntax and is translated on the basis of
the Tibetan.
47
DKP 1464-9: (aiha uktalakṣaṇā yāa) na ghare na vaneṣu bodhiḥb sthitam | evaṃc bhedaṃ
parijānāsi sandhyābhāṣāntare ´pi gṛhaṃ śarīraṃ vanaṃ viśvaṃd ghaṭapaṭādiṣu tatra na
bodhiḥ | kutaḥ | sarve hy asambhavāt | evaṃ bhedaṃ yat dṛśyate lokādi tat sarvam
utpannavināśinaḥ | nedṛśī bodhir avinaṣṭatvāc ca | teneha nirmalacittasvabhavatāṃe kurvati |
yāf vikalpanā vikalpasi samastā saṅgatā tyajasīti vistaraḥ | tair bodhirūpam āyāti tad āha |
a
EB idam upalakṣaṇāyāṃ N iham uktalakṣaṇāyā b EBN bodhi- c N eva d EB omits e N –tā f
EBN yair
ZAS 44 (2015)
28
Do not confusedly make of self and other, which have one nature, two
different things! It is rather that the entire realm of sentient beings—
[everybody]—has always been a Buddha by nature.51 Being covered by
the limitless stains caused by concepts throughout beginningless time,
[sentient beings] do not cultivate their Buddha identity.52 Truly, in that
he is free from duality, the Buddha is by nature the stainless supreme
mind. [His] form is bodhicitta, free from an own-being.53
48
DKP 14610-11: ehu so appā ehu paru joa paribhāvaï kovi | teṃb viṇu vandheṃ veṭhṭhic kiu appa
vimukkaü tovi || (DK 105)
a
N jā b N te c N veḍhi
49
DKP 14612-14: idam ātmā nedaṃ paraḥ yena kenacid viparibhāvitaṃ tena vinā ba-ndhanena
ātmānaṃ viṭakitaṃ vikalīkṛtaṃ | mukto ´pi svabhāvayātaṃ tadā no muktaḥ | tasmāt svapara-
vibhāgaṃ na kriyata iti yāvat | tad iha |
50
DKP 14615-16: para appāṇa ma bhanti karu saala ṇirantara buddha | pahu se ṇimmala
paramapaü citta sahāveṃ suddha |
51
Bagchi reads śuddhaḥ instead of buddhaḥ (N is not available). The corresponding root
text has buddha, however, which is also supported by the Tibetan. It is interesting to
note here, that in a sūtra from the Anguttara-Nikāya titled Loke the word suddho in an
older or original version was replaced by buddho. See Rhys Davis 1933:910-11.
52
Lit.: “the Buddha-self.”
53
DKP 1471-4: paraṃ cātmānaṃa ca ekasvabhāvaṃ na dvayarūpeṇa bhrāntir kuru | kiṃ tarhi
sakalasattvadhāturb nirantarādāv eva svabhāvena buddhaḥc tadādāv eva paribhāvanayā-
anantakamalāvṛttā na buddhātmānaṃ paribhāvayanti | evaṃ dvayarahitena buddhaḥ so
nirmalaṃ paramacittaṃ svabhāvato rūpaṃ bodhicittaṃ svabhāvarahitatayā |
a
EB ātmadañ b EB -tu c EB śuddhaḥ
ZAS 44 (2015)
29
54
See Mathes 2007:330-331.
55
See Powers 2004:35-39.
56
DhDhVV 135-145: “The two, dharma and dharmatā, are taken to be neither identical
nor different. Why is that? Because there is both a difference and not a difference be-
tween the existent and non-existent.... The dharmatā exists, but the dharmas do not.
How things that differ in terms of existence and non-existence? ... [And] how is it that
they are not different? This is because it (i.e., the dharmatā) is not different from the
perceived object and so forth (i.e., the dharmas), the dharmatā being characterized by
the mere non-existence of [these] dharmas.” (gnyis po dag ces bya ba chos dang chos nyid
dag ni gcig pa nyid dang tha dad pa nyid du mi ´dod do | | de ci´i phyir zhe na | yod pa dang med
pa dag kyang khyad par yod pa dang khyad par med pa´i phyir ro | ... chos nyid yod pa yin la
chos ni med pa yin pas yod pa dang med pa khyad par can dag ci ltar gcig nyid du ´gyur | ... ji
ltar khyad par med ce na | chos nyid ni chos med pa tsam gyis rab tu phye ba yin pa´i phyir |
gzung ba la sogs pa´i khyad par med pa´i phyir ro |).
ZAS 44 (2015)
30
106. Of particular interest is the notion in the latter of these two verses that
everybody has always been a Buddha. Advayavajra glosses this with the adver-
bial determinant svabhāvena “by nature.” This “buddha nature,” or enlighten-
ment, fits much better our existent dharmatā in the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga,
while the dharmas include not only saṃsāra but also the conceptually con-
structed nirvāṇa. They are the same in their sharing the status of being a mere
mental construction and thus non-existent.
As for the relation between the mind and its co-emergent nature, it has be-
come clear by now that the co-emergent (sahaja) cannot simply be equated
with nirvāṇa, wherefore the relation of mind and sahaja cannot simply be de-
fined along the lines of the simile of the waves and the water in DK 72cd. Based
on DK 103 and YṢ 5-6, mind (or cyclic existence) and nirvāṇa are only identical
insofar as they both are only mental constructs. When looking for a fit candi-
date for sahaja in DK 102-106, our choice clearly falls on enlightenment, or
rather “Buddha by nature,” which defines the whole realm of sentient beings
(sattvadhātu). One could also argue that it is also Advayavajra´s real nirvāṇa
(i.e., sahaja), which is not a mental construct but part of the genuine realization
gained through pith instructions.
Conclusion
It could be shown, that, in the light of Advayavajra´s commentary, Saraha´s
dohās describe the relation between mind and its co-emergent nature along
the lines of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, wherein buddha nature and its adventi-
tious stains are illustrated by the simile of the gold nugget that has fallen into
excrement. This goes against the commonly held view that Saraha favours
essential identity suggested by the relation between waves and water (DK
72cd). Essential identity is restricted to their emptiness: both the mind and its
co-emergent nature are empty of a conceptually created true reality, just as
saṃsāra and nirvāṇa share the identity of being mere conceptual constructs.
Sahaja, on the other hand, is revealed as the true nature of everything, once all
mental constructs are overcome. It abides as an uncreated, genuine state.
ZAS 44 (2015)
31
Apa. Apabhraṃśa
NGMPP Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project
Skt. Sanskrit
Tib. Tibetan
AKUN: Amṛtakaṇikoddyotanibandha
Ed. by Banarsi Lal in: Āryamañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with Amṛtakaṇikā-
ṭippaṇī by Bhikṣu Raviśrījñāna and Amṛtakaṇikodyota-nibhandha (sic) of
Vibhūticandra (Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica 30). Sarnath, Varanasi: Central
Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1994.
DK: Dohākośa
Contained as pratīka in the DKP.
DKP: Dohākośapañjikā
— EB: Ed. by Prabodh Chandra Bagchi. Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. 25c
(1938), 72-148.
— N: NGMPP reel no. A 932/4.
DKPT (B): dPal spungs edition of the Phyag chen rgya gzhung, vol. āḥ, fols. 121a4-
161a5 (see Phun tshogs rgyal mtshan).
DKPT (D): Derge bsTan ´gyur (D), no. 2256, rgyud ´grel, vol. wi, fols. 180b3-
207a7.
DKPT (P): Peking bsTan ´gyur (P), no. 3101, rgyud ´grel, vol. mi, fols. 199a7-
231a5.
DhDhVV: Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti
Ed. by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. See Mathes 1996:69-98; Sanskrit fragment
of the DhDhVV: 99-103. [The numbers following the acronym DhDhVV
in the footnote refer to the line numbers of my edition.]
RGV: Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra
Ed. by Edward H. Johnston. Patna: The Bihar Research Society, 1950.
(Includes the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā).
RGVV: Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā
See RGV.
ZAS 44 (2015)
32
Phyag chen rgyal ba´i gan mdzod. Sarnath: Vajra Vidya Institute Library,
2005.
Phun tshogs rgyal mtshan (ed.)
——— Phyag rgya chen po´i rgya gzhung. 3 vols (oṃ, āḥ, hūṃ). Dpal spungs block
print. No date.
——— See also Zhwa dmar pa Mi pham chos kyi blo gros.
Zhwa dmar pa Mi pham chos kyi blo gros (ed.)
“Rgya gzhung”: “Phyag rgya chen po´i rgya gzhung.” In: Nges don phyag
rgya chen po´i khrid mdzod, vols. oṃ, āḥ and hūṃ. Tibetan Buddhist Re-
source Center, W 23447.
References
ZAS 44 (2015)
33
ZAS 44 (2015)
34
ZAS 44 (2015)