On some sources of Sagang Sechen’s Teachings (1662)

Nine of the seventy-nine alliterative quatrains of Sagang Sechen’s great gnomic poem are revisited, their possible literary sources suggested, their interpretation revised. Seven of them go back, entirely or partially, to Sa-skya Paṇḍita’s Subhāṣitaratnanidhi, one to the Janapoṣanabindhu, one of Nāgārjuna’s nītiśāstras, and one uses a comparison known from the Secret History. Parallels are quoted from Sonom Gara’s and the Oirat Zaya Paṇḍita’s prose translations of the Subhāṣitaratnanidhi. Also discussed are the rare word küčigei and the possible identity of Sonom Gara and Suonanqilo.

Life and Works of Tsangpa Gyare (1161–1211), Founder of the Drukpa Kagyü School

Buddhism was introduced to Tibet in the 7th century and became the state religion of the Tibetan Empire in the 8th century, only to face a temporary all-out decline in the ensuing century. After Atiśa’s visit to Tibet in the 11th century, Buddhism revived there. Just after the Kadam school (Bka’ gdams pa) was founded by the followers of Atiśa, the Kagyü school (Bka’ brgyud pa) and the Sakya school (Sa skya pa) were also established, and so Tibetan Buddhism became rich in diversity. The Sakya school was ruled by the Khön family and remained mostly unitary. On the other hand, the Kagyü school developed the master–disciple relationship, producing many subschools established by the foremost students of famous teachers. Thus, four disciples of Gampopa (Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen or Dwags po lha rje, 1079–1153) founded the four primary subschools, and Phagmo Drupa (Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po, 1110–1170) established the eight secondary subschools. It is a well-known fact that the Karma Kagyü school (Karma bka’ brgyud) became the most prominent subschool among them. The second largest subschool regarding the number of followers was the Drukpa Kagyü school (’Brug pa bka’ brgyud). This school has been a state Buddhist school in Bhutan (or Druk Yul) since the establishment of the country by the 17th head abbot Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal (Zhabs drung Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, 1594–1651). Fortunately, modern Western researchers have provided us with a general outline of the history of the Drukpa Kagyü. However, some details remain unclear. Due to difficulties of accessing many of his works, the life and thoughts of Tsangpa Gyare (Gtsang pa rgya ras Ye shes rdo rje, 1161–1211), the founder of the Drukpa Kagyü school, have been insufficiently studied. Information about its founder is necessary to improve our understanding of the school. Thus, this article aims to re-examine Tsangpa Gyare’s life, integrating both philological and field information in an effort to provide a historical mapping of Tsangpa Gyare according to both his spiritual lineage of pre-reincarnations and dharma lineages (master and disciple relationship), and an examination of his life. In order to understand the life and personality of this figure, this article will examine Tsangpa Gyare’s own works as well as varied sources referring to him.

Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251)

The philosophical importance of Sa skya Paṇḍita (Sagya Paṇḍita) lies in his clarification of the tradition of logic and epistemology established by Dharmakīrti. He actively promoted the study of Dharmakīrti’s thought in Tibet as a propaedeutic to the study of other systems of Buddhist philosophy as well as to a Buddhist account of knowledge; knowledge is a crucial element in the Buddhist tradition, for ignorance is considered the main obstacle to liberation, the summum bonum of the tradition. Like Dharmakīrti, Sa skya Paṇḍita held that the only two types of knowledge are perception and inference. Perception presents us with real individual objects, while inference enables us to consider these individuals in a conceptual way, in terms of universals; however, it is a mistake to regard these universals as real.

Mahāmudrā in Tibet

The Tibetan term phyag rgya chen po (pronounced “chakya chenpo” in central Tibet, “chaja chenpo” in Kham) translates the Sanskrit mahāmudrā, usually rendered as the “great seal.” It is best known as a system of meditation on the nature of mind that is central to the Marpa Kagyü (Bka’ brgyud) order of Tibetan Buddhism, but it is important in other Tibetan traditions, too, including the Nyingma (Rnying ma), Shangpa Kagyü (Shangs pa bka’ brgyud), Kadam (Bka’ gdams), Zhijé (Zhi byed), Sakya (Sa skya), Jonang (Jo nang), and Geluk (Dge lugs). Mahāmudrā became a central topic of discourse during the so-called Tibetan renaissance (10th–13th centuries), when all these schools either originated or gained articulation. The term became important in Tibet because it was prominent in the literature transmitted from India at that time, especially that of the highly esoteric Mahāyoga and Yoginī tantras. See the companion Oxford Bibliographies article, Mahāmudrā in India. In Tibet, mahāmudrā inspired philosophical, meditative, ethical, and poetic creativity and often sparked intense debate. In Marpa Kagyü traditions, mahāmudrā could be based in the sutras, tantras, or both. Synonymous with buddha-nature, emptiness, great bliss, the connate (Sanskrit, sahaja), nonmentation (Sanskrit, amanasikāra), 6, and the dharma body of a buddha, it could be attained either suddenly or gradually, through a succession of yogas and/or “pointing-out instructions” from one’s guru. In Nyingma, mahāmudrā was considered a high tantric realization, but less profound than the Great Perfection, or Dzokchen (rdzogs chen). In Shangpa Kagyü, it was a contemplation conjoining bliss and the realization of emptiness, like two halves of an amulet box. In Zhijé, it involved realization of the nature of mind through severing ego clinging. In Kadam, its tantric sources were approached cautiously, but it formed part of the background of thought and practice. In Sakya, it was the buddhahood ensuing from tantric initiation. In Jonang, it was the realization of buddha-nature, empty of everything but its own intrinsic purity. In Geluk, it was a sutra- or tantra-based meditation leading, through philosophical analysis, to direct realization of the empty or clear-light nature of the mind. In the modern era, mahāmudrā meditation has attracted those who—rightly or wrongly—see its emphasis on formless meditation as a way to bypass the “cultural trappings” of complex tantric practices. Thus, scholarship on it has emerged from meditation centers as often as from universities, and some work on it lacks academic rigor. While the more scholarly studies are highlighted here, numerous less academic but still-useful works have been included, too, so the reader may consult as many reliable resources as possible for the study of mahāmudrā in premodern Tibet.