Contents

Project description

1. Scholarly aspects
1.1. Aims.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Scope of research ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Current state of research ........................................................................................................... 10
1.4. Research parameters ................................................................................................................. 12
1.5. Aims, Methodology, and Work .................................................................................................. 14
1.6. Work plan and time plan............................................................................................................ 16
1.7. Dissemination............................................................................................................................. 17
1.8. Cooperation ............................................................................................................................... 17

2. Human Resources
2.1. Scholarly qualifications of the project participants ................................................................... 17
2.2. Importance of the project for the career of the project participants........................................ 19

3. Expected additional impact .............................................................................................................. 19

4. Financial aspects
4.1. Information on the research institution .................................................................................... 19
4.2. Information on the applied funds
4.2.1. Personnel ................................................................................................................................ 19
4.2.1. Required material ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1. Travel costs ............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1. Contracts for work .................................................................................................................. 20
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Project description

Buddha nature Reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the

post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Project Leader: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes

1. Scholarly aspects

1.1. Aims

The objective of the proposed project “Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the
post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates” is to examine the mahāmudrā-based buddha
nature views of the Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507-1554) in the context of post-
classical tathāgatagarbha debates in order to assess his vast and varied contributions to Indo-
Tibetan buddha nature theory in light of antecedent Indian Buddhist traditions and parallel or
rival developments by other influential Tibetan Buddhist exegetes.1

Our current research into the impact of gzhan stong views and related buddha nature theories on
Bka’ brgyud mahāmudrā exegesis in the post-classical era has determined the extent to which
specific formulations of such theories allowed their proponents to [1] synthesize and systematize
the representative doctrines and practices of their religio-philosophical traditions, [2]
demonstrate the continuity of these formulations with authoritative antecedent Indian Buddhist
discourses, and [3] thereby verify their authenticity and establish their precedence over rival
Tibetan theories. Because such theories served in this way as powerful interpretive paradigms for
both defining and validating the doctrinal and sectarian identities of the major Tibetan Buddhist
schools, their scholarly analysis opens a window onto some of the key epistemological and
soteriological views and inter-sectarian polemics that have shaped Tibet’s intellectual history.
Moreover, because buddha nature theories in Tibet have typically crystallized the central

1
Seyfort Ruegg 1969 remains the locus classicus on the development of tathāgatagarbha doctrine in India
and beyond.
1
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

philosophical aims and presuppositions of their respective traditions, they offer particularly
valuable avenues for comparative research.

Our project initially focused on hitherto untranslated Mahāmudrā writings by three renowned
Tibetan Buddhist masters—Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456-1539), Shākya mchog
ldan (1423-1507), and ‘Brug chen IV Padma dkar po (1527-92). We soon recognized the need to
broaden the scope of our study to include the writings of the Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje
(1507-1554), a towering figure in the post-classical intellectual world whose contributions
remain poorly understood. The recently published twenty-six volume edition of Mi bskyod rdo
rje’s Collected Writings 2 reveals a prolific author and prodigious philosopher who critically
engaged with many of the leading Tibetan Buddhist thinkers of his time on a wide range of
philosophical and soteriological issues. A cursory survey of his oeuvre showed that his many and
diverse expositions of buddha nature theory and criticisms of rival theories provide an especially
fruitful basis not only for gaining a better understanding of his thinking but also for improving
our still fragmentary picture of the philosophical hermeneutics and inter-sectarian debates that
defined Tibet’s post-classical era. In addition, our analysis and translation of a number of his
treatments of subjects directly related to our project—debates over gzhan stong and rang stong
positions, the relationship between Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka views, the status of buddha
nature and its qualities, and the nature and relative efficacy of conceptual knowledge and
nonconceptual awareness—revealed to us the exceedingly broad range of views, both Indian and
Tibetan, that he had managed to summarize and critically assess in his writings. 3

Born in 1507 in what is today the Chab mdo prefecture of Eastern Tibet in the vicinity of the
Ngom chu river and rising early to prominence in his diverse roles as a Karma Bka’ brgyud
lineage holder, a Buddhist philosopher, and spiritual preceptor, Mi bskyod rdo rje’s short life
exemplified many of the cultural currents that defined his age: the consolidation of sectarian
identities around increasingly powerful monastic institutions sponsored by aristocratic clans, the
synthesis and systematization of their representative doctrines, and the vigorous culture of
intellectual exchange and intersectarian debate that would soon give way to the hardening of
sectarian lines and entrenchment in representative positions that has continued down to the
present day. The portrait we can assemble from biographical and historical sources as well as his

2
On the two editions of his Collected Works (gsung ’bum), see Bibiography. The Lhasa 2004 edition (26
vols.) is hereafter referred to by the abbreviation MKsb.
3
An added benefit of the Karmapa’s critical assessments of Tibetan views is that he almost always
mentions their proponents by name, unlike the majority of Tibetan authors who followed the unwritten
rule of decorum of using indefinite pronouns (e.g., kha cig, ‘someone’) to refer to adherents of rival views.
2
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

own varied Instructions (man ngag), Replies to Questions (dris lan), and Spiritual Memoirs
(spyad rabs) 4 is of a socially-engaged teacher who was constantly on the move, expounding
Buddhist teachings, philosophical clarifications, and spiritual counsel to people from many
traditions and walks of life. From his many polemical tracts and the responses they provoked, we
can envisage a formidable and often uncompromising opponent of other scholars’ views who did
not hesitate to tackle the most powerful adversaries or the thorniest philosophical issues. Both in
the scope and scrupulousness of his critical engagements, he must surely rank among the most
outstanding, and also polemically engaged, thinkers in the history of Buddhist thought.

1.2. Scope of research

To give a better sense of the importance of the Eighth Karmapa for our understanding of post-
classical Tibetan scholasticism, and buddha nature theory in particular, it is necessary to sketch
in broad strokes the doctrinal background out of which his views developed. A key finding in our
research was that the key figures in post-classical Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā exegesis, despite the
general atmosphere of sectarian and doctrinal discord 5, shared a common concern to reconcile
two basic models of truth or reality (satya) that had long been discussed and debated in Buddhist
circles: [1] a differentiation model based on robust distinctions between conventional (kun rdzob)
and ultimate (don dam) truths and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness, and [2] an
identification or unity (zung ’jug : yuganaddha) model of these truths and their modalities.
Whereas the differentiation model was typically aligned with a strongly innatist view of the
ultimate (buddha nature, the nature of mind, or the nature of reality) which underscored its
‘sublime otherness’ (gzhan mchog) from all that is conventional and adventitious, the
identification model, predicated on the view of a common ground uniting all conditioned and
unconditioned phenomena, emphasized the pervasiveness of the ultimate and its immanence
within the conventional in order to indicate how the ultimate permeates the mind-streams of
individuals in bondage. A central aim of this project will be to consider and compare how Mi
bskyod rdo rje and his coreligionists sought to synthesize and reconcile these two models within
pertinent traditional Buddhist theoretical contexts such as buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha), the

4
Mi bskyod rdo rje’i spyad pa’i rabs, in MKsb, vol. 1, 353-390. Works designated as Spyad pa[’i] rabs
belong to a little-studied Tibetan autobiographical genre in which an author recounts his or her deeds
(spyad) in chronological succession (rabs).
5
A letter by Padma dkar po we discovered entitled Bshes gnyen rnam rgyal grags pa’i dris lan, Padma
dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 12, 491-508, provides an important source for understanding the at times strained
relationships between the ’Brug pa and Karma bka’ brgyud schools in the post-classical era. On the
general atmosphere of sectarian rivalry during this time, see Shakabpa 2010: 274-5 and Sørensen and
Hazod, 2007, 508.
3
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

two truths (satyadvaya), the three natures (trisvabhāva), the two modes of emptiness (rang stong
and gzhan stong), and the hermeneutics of the three turnings of the dharmacakra.

A highly influential example of the differentiation model was Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha

I.45-48 6 where the author drew a clear distinction between supramundane mind (lokottaracitta)
and ālayavijñāna, thereby specifying a concurrent mode of cognition that is prior to and a
precondition of the eight modes of consciousness as elaborated in the Yogācāra philosophy of
mind. By contrast, prominent examples of the identification model which are met with in the
Laṅkāvatāra and Ghanavyūha sūtras explicitly identify buddha nature with the ālayavijñāna. 7 In
the context of Buddhist soteriology, the tension between these two models had its counterpart in
a longstanding dialectic between two views on the nature of goal-realization. One frames it as a
developmental process of accumulating merits and knowledge which serve as causes and
conditions leading to awakening, whereas the other framed it as a disclosive process of directly
recognizing and becoming increasingly familiar with an unconditioned mode of being as the
mind’s reifications and their obscuring effects subside. 8

Faced with the task of reconciling these seemingly incommensurable paradigms, leading post-
classical Bka’ brgyud thinkers adopted different versions of soteriological contextualism, a term
we have coined to describe the view that the sense, relevance and efficacy of soteriological
models can only be understood relative to the context(s) in which they are used. 9 On this view,
the differentiation and identification models with their contrasting categories and metaphorics—
the first positing a basic difference between conventional and ultimate and comparing it to the

6
Davidson 1985, 215 and Mathes 2008, 58. Sthiramati draws a similar distinction between ālayavijñāna
and the supramundane gnosis (lokottarajñāna : jigs rten las ’das pa’i ye shes) which fundamentally
transforms or sublates (parāvṛtti) it in his commentary on Triṃśikā 29-30. See Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi (Levi
1925), 44; Davidson 1985, 218 and n. 28. On replacement and elimination models of fundamental
transformation āśrayaparivṛtti see Sakuma 1990.
7
On this interpretation and some of its Tibetan adherents such as the bKa’ brgyud scholars ’Gos lo tsā ba
Gzhon nu dpal and ’Ba’ ra ba rgyal mtshan dpal bzang, see Mathes 2008, 18, 117 and 464 n. 612. On the
basis of this identification of the ālayavijñāna with the tathāgatagarbha, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets
āśrayaparāvṛtti as the transformation or purification of the seventh consciousness (manas) which liberates
the pure ālayavijñāna. See Lai 1977, 67 f.. In a similar vein, the Ghanavyūhasūtra states (Peking Kanjur
no. 778, 62b1): “The Tathāgata taught *sugatagarbha using the term ālaya[vijñāna].” bde gshegs snying po
dge’ang | | snying po la kun gzhi sgras | de bzhin gshegs pa ston pa mdzad |
8
In a similar vein, see the landmark comparative study of Seyfort Ruegg 1989 which investigates the dual
themes of “‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ in the twin realms of soteriology and gnoseology, a pair of topics that
call for examination in terms of the notions of ‘innatism’, ‘spontaneism’ and ‘simultaneism’ as contrasted
with graded acquisition and reinforcement through progressive cultivation.” (p. 3)
9
For a general account of contextualist views, which have been gaining popularity in contemporary
philosophy, see Price, A. W. Contextuality in Practical Reason, Oxford University Press, 2008.
4
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

sky and its clouds, the second positing their essential equality as illustrated by the ocean and its
waves—came to be seen not as contradictory but as complementary, relating as they do to
different contexts of salvific theory and praxis.

A key objective of our research will be to determine how Mi bskyod rdo rje could be at once an
advocate of strong soteriological distinctions and a proponent of the Madhyamaka and
Mahāmudrā view of the unity (zung ‘jug) or inseparability (dbyer med) of truth/reality. Indeed, in
his late commentary on Karma pakshi’s Direct Introduction to the Three Kāyas, he defends the
view that the two truths have a single essence (bden gnyis ngo bo gcig) since all phenomena,
conventional and ultimate, have always been free from discursive elaboration (spros bral). 10 He
maintains that the “single essence of the two truths” is a shared cornerstone of Mahāmudrā and
Madhyamaka, having been upheld by a long line of masters such as Saraha, Śavaripa, Nāgārjuna,
Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti, Maitrīpa, Atiśa, and the Rnying ma pa Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po
(1042-1136). 11 Interestingly, the reconciliation of differentiation and identification models was
for many post-classical Mahāmudrā exegetes accompanied by an attempt to chart a middle
course, using Madhyamaka canons of dialectical reasoning, between the polarized gzhan stong
and rang stong positions that had deeply divided most Tibetan schools since the 14th century,
particularly the Jo nang pas 12 and Dge lugs pas. They sought, on the one hand, to avoid the type
of eternalist view (rtag lta) of existence (yod pa) that had become associated in the minds of
many Tibetans with Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan’s (1292-1361) Empty of other (gzhan
stong) doctrine which had posited the ultimate as an eternal, transcendental truth above and
beyond the causal complex of conventional truth/reality and described the two truths as two
“great kingdoms” (rgyal khams chen po) “having nothing to do with each other”. 13 On the other
hand, they wished to avoid the kind of “nihilist view of existence” that they associated with
Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa’s (1357-1419) Empty of own-nature (rang stong) doctrine

10
Sku gsum ngo sprod, MKsb vol. 21, 1484-5.
11
Ibid., 1443 f. Toward the end of his life, Mi bskyod rdo rje evidently became a strong advocate of Rong
zom pa’s Apratiṣṭhānavāda-Madhyamaka views and especially those based on “classical texts maintaining
the inseparability of the two aspects of reality” (bden pa rnam pa gnyis dbyer med par ’dod pa’i gzhung).
On Rong zom’s Apratiṣṭhānavāda and the “inseparability of truth/reality” view which he termed “special
Mahāyāna,” see Almogi 2009, 39-42.
12
For a survey of the history and doctrines of this school and an analysis of Dge lugs pa criticisms of it,
see Seyfort Ruegg 1963.
13
See for example Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho, Pecing 1998, 4184 f.; Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa rang ’grel, Paro
1984, vol. 1, 5996, 6125 et passim. In the words of Padma dkar po: “It is said [by Jo nang pas] that there is
an immense dichotomy between the two truths, and between the pairs ‘saṃsāra and nirvāṇa’ and
‘consciousness and wisdom’, together with their respective self-manifestations.” Phyag chen gan mdzod,
Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 21, 1764-5.
5
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

which had rejected positive appraisals of reality in favor of a purely negative account
characterizing the ultimate exclusively in terms of a nonaffirming negation (med dgag).

It is against this backdrop that Padma dkar po had alternately criticized the Jo nang gzhan stong
pas for adopting an eternalist view of the ultimate and nihilistic view of the conventional 14 and
the Dge lugs rang stong pas for adopting an eternalist view of the conventional and nihilistic
view of the ultimate. 15 This view helps us to understand Padma dkar po’s assertion that “my
tradition is rang stong” (bdag gi lugs ni rang stong) in contraposition to the views of “those who
have fallen into a one-sided position known as gzhan stong” which he equates with views of
opponents criticized by Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā who falsely imagine composite things
to be empty—i.e., non-existent—while “falsely imagin[ing] an intrinsic essence (svabhāva) of
things for the purpose of [establishing] a locus of that [emptiness].” 16 Given that Padma dkar po
had moreover identified gzhan stong with Cittamātra, specifically the Alīkākāravāda strand, and
that Cittamātra schools were rejected root and branch by the Apratiṣṭhāna-Mādhyamikas, his
endorsement of a rang stong view begins to appear all but inevitable.

All this also helps to explain why Mi bskyod rdo rje, who was partisan to the same Madhyamaka
traditions as Padma dkar po, became increasingly reluctant to side with polarized views of
emptiness and instead ends up being as critical of the gzhan stong views of Dol po pa and Shākya
mchog ldan as he is of the rang stong views of Tsong kha pa and his disciples. This tone of
reticence is conspicuous in the Karmapa’s lengthy response 17 to Paṇ chen Rdo rgyal, a student of
Shākya mchog ldan, who had asked him about the role of gzhan stong in the composure state:

When it was explained [by Dol po pa] that the gzhan stong of a permanent entity (rtag
dngos gzhan stong) is superior whereas the rang stong of freedom from elaboration
(spros bral rang stong) is inferior, regarding such conceptual differentiations themselves,

14
Phyag chen gan mdzod, Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 21, 1882-3: “This doctrinal position of yours has
assumed a nihilist view vis-à-vis all that is [held to be] self-empty (rang stong) or conventional (kun rdzob)
[but] an eternalist view in accepting all that is ultimate to be something real.”
15
Ibid., 1052-4: “[For] Dge ldan pas, ‘without nature’ (rang bzhin med pa) means that [1] ultimately there is
nothing at all, like a barren woman’s son, and that [2] conventionally all entities never become non-
existent. For that reason, [the Dge ldan pas] say that ‘the extreme of existence is eliminated by appearance
and the extreme of non-existence by emptiness.’ In that regard, they have fallen to one-sided positions of
eternalism and nihilism. They have succumbed to an eternalist view regarding the ultimate and a nihilist
view regarding the conventional.”
16
See Chos ’khor rim pa gsum gyi dogs gcod, Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 7, 3303-5.
17
This reply may match a dialogue reported to have taken place between the Karmapa and Paṇ chen dor
rgyal in 1536 at ’Bri khung monastery in Central Tibet (dbus) when the former was twenty-nine years old.
See Rheingans 2008, 137-38.
6
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

these distinctions [pertain] to the phase of distinction in the post-composure state (rjes
thob) but not to the phase of transcendence in the composure state (mnyam bzhag).
[Now,] when the phase of transcendence in the composure state was not [properly]
investigated, then the profound permanent entity of your gzhan stong [was deemed]
consistent with [post hoc] explanations of what was experienced by meditators. [But] by
whom among them would [this] permanent [nature] constitute transcendence? 18

The author goes on to explain that “in the composure state when there is transcendence and
[unmediated] experience, no such distinctions between rang stong and gzhan stong are actually
found” because this state not only uproots the stains to be relinquished but also severs all
discursive elaborations, leaving behind no ‘indispensables’ (nyer mkho) (i.e., no ontological
commitments). It is therefore a mistake, in his eyes, to ontologize such post hoc observations by
embedding them in the nature of things and using them to support a dualist ontology. The
Karmapa ends a detailed criticism of opposing gzhan stong and rang stong positions by saying
“as for me, I don’t subscribe to these extreme positions and [therefore] don’t proclaim either
rang stong or gzhan stong.” 19 He concludes with an aspiration to follow the advice of his root
teacher Bkra shis dpal ’byor (1457-1525) “to relinquish views and destroy all tenets in line with
the illustrious Dwags po Bka’ brgyud lineage.” 20

In general, post-classical Mahāmudrā exegetes viewed the rapprochement between Mahāmudrā

and anti-foundationalist strains of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy—specifically, the *Prāsaṅgika
and Apratiṣṭhānavāda systems—as critical to their philosophical aims. Many framed this
synthesis in terms of the reconciliation of affirmative (cataphatic) and negative (apophantic) 21
styles of thought and discourse. In the words of Mi bskyod rdo rje: “It is said that the instructions
of Nāgārjuna were taught from a negational orientation (bkag phyogs) whereas those by Saraha
were taught from an affirmative orientation (sgrub phyogs).” 22 In their attempts to mediate
between these contrasting discursive modes, these scholars charted a philosophical middle course
between the eternalistic and nihilistic currents of Buddhist thought. If this meant avoiding the
imputation of a permanent metaphysical reality, a view they linked with the Jo nang school, it

18
Paṇ chen rdo rgyal ba’i legs bshad, MKsb vol. 3, 2523-5.
19
Ibid., 2564-5.
20
Ibid., 2571-2.
21
For an adaptation of these western philosophical-theological terms to the description of the two currents
of Buddhist thought that Schmithausen 1981 (214 ff.) has distinguished as “positive-mystical” and
“negative-intellectualist”, see Seyfort Ruegg 1989, 8 et passim.
22
Glo bur gyi dri ma tha mal gyi shes par bshad pa’i nor pa spang ba, MKsb vol. 15, 10745-10752.
7
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

also meant circumventing the kind of unwarranted depreciation of human reality that they saw as
the undesirable result of taking as the view of the ultimate an exclusive or sheer emptiness (stong
pa rkyang pa)—a complete absence of anything whatsoever—that was the scope of a non-
affirming negation (med dgag), a view that they associated mainly with the Dge lugs pa school.

In the current project we have identified the tension between such opposing Buddhist views of
reality and emptiness as a driving force behind the development of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s theories
of mind and buddha nature. His early buddha nature treatises build upon a set of thematically
interwoven philosophical distinctions between the modes of being of buddhas and sentient beings
that he employs in various doctrinal contexts to articulate a view of Buddhist soteriology
emphasizing the radically disclosive nature of goal-realization. Examples are his differentiations
between the quintessence versus chaff (snying po / shun pa) and tathāgatagarbha versus
ālayavijñāna in the context of discussing buddha nature theories, wisdom versus consciousness
(ye shes / rnam shes) and genuine mind versus adventitious mind (gnyug ma’i sems / glo bur gyi
sems) in the context of Mahāmudrā instructions on recognizing the nature of mind, and
phenomena versus the nature or expanse of phenomena (chos [can] / chos nyid or chos dbyings)
in describing the nature of reality. 23

A key source for the Eighth Karmapa’s endorsement of robust distinctions was the above-
mentioned Mahāyānasaṃgraha passage distinguishing the supramundane mind (lokottaracitta)
from substratum consciousness (ālayavijñāna). This had provided the Third Karmapa Rang
byung rdo rje (1284-1339) with scriptural support for his crucial distinction between pure
supramundane mind, which he identified with buddha nature, and impure mundane mind—i.e.,
the ālayavijñāna which was equated with impure mind. This distinction was delineated both in
his Dharmadhātustava commentary to stanza 46ab where Rang byung rdo rje stated that “mind is
observed to have two aspects, the mundane and transmundane” 24 and in his Profound Inner
Meaning (Zab mo nang don) auto-commentary 25 with reference to Mahāyānasaṃgraha 1.45-4826.
Mi bskyod rdo rje’s espousal of this distinction is attested in a short text written in reply to a

23
The author’s discussions of these distinctions and their sources will be documented in the proposed
study.
24
Chos dbyings bstod pa’i ’grel pa, Rang byung rdo rje gsung ‘bum, vol. 7, 611 ff. which comments on
Dharmadhātustava 46ab.
25
Zab mo nang don rang ’grel, MKsb vol. 7, 3822-3: “[Mind] is explained in many ways among the tantras
and treatises. It is described as that which possesses purity. In describing the impure as ‘mind’, it is what is
called ālayavijñāna.”
26
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi (Levi 1925), p. 44; Davidson 1985, 215, 218 and n. 28, and Mathes 2008, 58.
8
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

query by Bla ma Khams pa 27 as to whether there are “two minds in one person” (mi gcig sems
gnyis). There he quotes the Third Karmapa’s above-noted distinction between pure and impure
minds as well as the famous passage in Ratnagotravibhāga I.47 distinguishing three phases in the
progressive purification of the adventitious stains that obscure buddha nature in order to validate
his own distinction between genuine mind (gnyug ma’i sems) and adventitious mind (glo bur gyi
sems). 28

As well as providing hermeneutical schemata for Mi bskyod rdo rje’s buddha nature exegesis,
such distinctions formed the basis for his criticisms of rival buddha nature theories. In his eyes,
the indebtedness of such theories to identification models had led to a blurring of the crucial
distinctions between the conventional and ultimate truths and their associated modes of being and
cognition. A striking early example of such criticism is his treatise Nerve Tonic for the Elderly
(Rtan po’i rlung sman) 29 in which he takes issue with the tantric buddha nature theories of ’Gos
lo tsā ba and Shākya mchog ldan for failing to adequately differentiate between buddha nature
(bde gshegs snying po) and its adventitious stains (glo bur gyi dri ma) and wisdom (ye shes) and
consciousness (rnam shes), respectively. The Karmapa argues that buddha nature should be fully
equated with ‘buddha[hood]’ (sangs rgyas), since it is simply the latter in its obscured state,
whereas adventitious stains are equivalent to ‘sentient being’ (sems can), which he takes as a
cover term for the totality of adventitious factors to be removed in order for buddhahood to be
fully revealed. 30 This raises an important research question: does the Karmapa’s endorsement of
a full equation between buddha nature and buddhahood not commit him to the type of belief in a
permanent metaphysical entity that he accuses the Jo nang tradition of maintaining?

To address this question, it will be necessary to look closely at the author’s views on the proper
function of language and concepts in Buddhist soteriology. Already in his Tonic, he argues that
from the standpoint of linguistic convention, understanding ‘buddha’ as referring to something
other or more than buddha nature and ‘sentient being’ as referring to something other or more

27
The identity of the Bla ma khams pa remains unknown, the colophon mentioning only that the text was
composed in reply to a question by Bla ru bla ma, uncle and nephew (bla ru bla ma khu dbon). See
Rheingans 2008, 219 n. 9.
28
Bla ma khams pa’i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis, MKsb vol. 3, 219-23.
29
This text is hereafter referred to by the abbreviated title Tonic. On this text, see below p. 12 n. 44.
30
See Rtan po’i rlung sman (9781 f.) where he defends the thesis that ‘sentient beings’ qua chaff (shun pa)
do not exist whereas buddha nature ([bde gshegs] snying po) does exist against ’Gos lo tsā ba’s criticism
that such a view absurdly presupposes the existence of something real within something unreal, like a vase
within a hare’s horn. The Eighth Karmapa’s lengthy rebuttal is based on the following two-pronged
argument: [1] In positing the quintessence, the existence of the chaff is unnecessary. [2] If [we refer to] the
“quintessence of something (x)”, it is unnecessary [and unwarranted] that x = the quintessence of x.
9
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

than adventitious stains reflect, in both cases, an inadequate understanding of the conditions
sufficient or necessary for the application of such terms. The same logic applies to the
identification of ālayavijñāna and buddha nature. The result of such mixing of levels of discourse
is to increase rather than reduce the semantic indeterminacy of the terms in question. This
eventually devolves into a state of affairs which the Karmapa characterizes as the “collapse of all
terminological conventions” 31 wherein words no longer serve their intended soteriological
purpose, viz., to distinguish what is to be realized from what is to be relinquished.

The foregoing overview broadly defines the thematic parameters within which our investigation
of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s buddha nature discourses can proceed. More specifically, we will address
the following questions. How does he attempt to reconcile [1] identification and differentiation
models of buddha nature, [2] rang stong and gzhan stong views of emptiness, [3] developmental
and disclosive paradigms of goal-realization, and [4] conceptual and non-conceptual modes of
liberating knowledge? [5] How were these themes and tensions developed in his buddha nature
writings during his lifetime as he weighed the relative merits and weaknesses of multiple points
of view? [6] What antecedent and contemporary buddha nature views most strongly influenced
his own? [7] And finally, how did his own buddha nature views develop in reaction to the many
rival buddha nature theories he addresses such as those of Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan
(1292-1361), Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375), Red mda’ ba Gzhon nu blo
gros (1349-1412), Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419), Rgyal tshab rje Dar ma rin
chen (1364-1432), Mkhas grub rje Dge legs dpal bzang (1385-1438), Bo dong pa Phyogs las
rnam rgyal (1376-1451), ’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481), and Gser mdog paṇ chen
Shākya mchog ldan (1428-1507)?

1.3. Current state of research

The Eighth Karmapa’s notable aptitude as a Buddhist thinker was first brought to the attention of
the scholarly community via two pioneering articles by Paul Williams (1983) and David Seyfort
Ruegg (1988). 32 Both were focused on the introductory section (spyi don) of the author’s
Madhyamakāvatāra commentary entitled Chariot of the Dwags po Siddhas (Dwags brgyud grub

31
Rtan po’i rlung sman, MKsb vol. 15, 9803-4: “[W]ere it necessary, in positing a quintessence and chaff to
[include] them in the same class, then it would also be necessary [to include] medicine and poison in the
same class. As a consequence, all terminological conventions would collapse.”
32
See Williams 1983 and Seyfort Ruegg 1984.
10
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

pa’i shing rta) 33. Williams provided a cursory treatment of the author’s critique of Dge lugs pa
positions, whereas Seyfort Ruegg offered a more substantial doxographical analysis of different
Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka views and their sūtric and tantric lines of transmission, focusing on
the first few folia of this commentary. Subsequent doctrinal research on the Eighth Karmapa has
largely confined itself to this opening portion of the introduction 34 and the sixth chapter 35 of this
commentary, as well as his early and influential Abhisamayālaṃkāra commentary which was
recently examined and partially translated by Karl Brunnhölzl as part of his wide-ranging study
of Bka’ brgyud and Rnying ma commentaries on this śāstra 36. This study contains some useful
material on the Eighth Karmapa’s interpretations of the buddha nature gotra theory in the śāstra.
Mention must also be made of a Ph.D. dissertation on Mi bskyod rdo rje by Jim Rheingans
(2008) that offers the first systematic biographical study of the Eighth Karmapa based on careful
analysis of a wide range of primary historical and biographical sources. 37

In short, the current understanding of the Eighth Karmapa’s philosophical views, including his
treatments of buddha nature, are based almost exclusively on portions of two early non-tantric
Mahāyāna commentaries 38, leaving the vast majority of his Collected Works which contain his
extensive exegesis and interpretations of the tantras and Mahāmudrā systems a veritable terra
incognita for future research. These lacunae are noteworthy when one considers the
preponderance of tantric over non-tantric interpretations both in Mi bskyod rdo rje’s exegesis of
buddha nature and in his criticisms of rival theories. The result is that the vast majority of his
work on buddha nature has received no scholarly attention, and none at all has been devoted to
his tantric buddha nature views or to his innovative efforts to relate sūtric and tantric buddha
nature interpretations to Dwags po Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā views and practices. It can be
anticipated that a systematic study of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s major contributions to a core Buddhist
soteriological theory will greatly improve our knowledge not only of this remarkable Tibetan
savant but also of the still little-known intellectual climate of his age.

33
Full title: Dbu ma la 'jug pa’i rnam bshad Dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung Dwags brgyud grub
pa’i shing rta. Seattle: Nitartha international, 1996. (733 p.)
34
See Broido 1985 and Brunnhölzl 2004.
35
See Goldfield et al. 2005. We are told that four translators each translated “key portions” of Mi bskyod
rdo rje’s commentary on the sixth chapter of MAV according to their own “individual translation styles
and choice of terms” under the guidance of Mkhan po Tshul khrims rgya mtsho (b. 1934).
36
For the Karma Bka’ brgyud commentaries, see Brunnhölzl 2010.
37
See Rheingans 2008.
38
Of these, Mi bskyod rdo rje’s many digressions on buddha nature doctrine in his Madhyamakāvatāra
commentary have received no attention.
11
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

1.4. Research parameters

The project participants will undertake a comparative analysis of all of the Eighth Karmapa’s
extant writings on buddha nature as they are preserved in the two available editions of his
Collected Works 39, as well as independent collections such as the Miscellaneous Writings 40, the
four volume Commentary on Yoga Tantra and Other [Works] 41, the four volume Commentary on
the Introduction to the Three Kāyas 42, and in independently published single works. The author’s
writings on buddha nature are as varied as they are voluminous. Our preliminary research has
identified a number of important works that will merit close analysis. His early views on buddha
nature are well-represented by two early treatises which we have edited and translated: A Lamp
that Eloquently Elucidates the Tradition of the Gzhan stong Madhyamaka Proponents43 and A
Nerve Tonic for the Elderly: An Analysis of both “The Secrets of the Three Continua” by Rje Yid
bzang rtse ba and “A Commentary on the Cakrasaṃvara” by Paṇ chen Shākya mchog [ldan]44.
While the Lamp clarifies what buddha nature is, the Tonic explains what it is not. In terms of
content, the Lamp is primarily an exposition and defence of buddha nature views according to the
tradition of Asaṅga and Maitreya, while the Tonic comprises a critical review of the buddha
nature theories as presented in two tantric commentaries that were composed shortly before the
author’s lifetime and which the author saw as having misrepresented in crucial ways their Indian
sources: the Secrets of the Three Continua (Rgyud gsum gsang ba) 45—a Kālacakratantra
commentary by ’Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481)—and the Cakrasaṃvara Commentary

39
See Bibliography.
40
Karma pa brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje'i gsung 'bum thor bu. Hand written manuscript copy. No date; no
author.
41
Full title: Rgyal dbang karma pa sku 'phreng brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje'i Rnal 'byor rgyud kyi rnam
bshad sogs. 4 vols. A treatise on yogatantra and related texts by the 8th Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje.
Scanned from block prints. Thimpu: Kunsang topgyel, 1979.
42
Full title: Sku gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha' dag gi e wam phyag
rgya. Gangtok: Gonpo tseten, 1978. 4 vols.
43
Dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me. Rumtek Monastery: 1972. The same
edition is included in: Dbu ma gzhan stong skor bstan bcos phyogs bsdus deb dang po, 13-48. Rumtek:
Karma Shri Nalanda Institute 1990. The work is hereafter referred to by the abbreviated title Lamp.
44
We here adopt the ornamental title Rtan po’i rlung sman that was used by the author himself in a
bibliography of his own works he included in his Spiritual Memoirs (spyad pa’i rabs) composed at the age
of forty, i.e., six to seven years before his death. The three editions to be consulted in this project bear the
ammended ornamental title Sublime Fragrance of Nectar (bdud rtsi’i dri mchog). See Bibliography.
45
The ’Bras spungs dkar chag (vol. 1, p. 3, phyi ka, no. 12) lists the work Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i rgyud
bshad pa la ’jug pa rgyud gsum gyi gsang ba rnam par phye ba. This work unfortunately remains
unavailable at present.
12
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

(Bde mchog rnam bshad) 46 by Shākya mchog ldan (1423-1507). The colophon of the Tonic notes
that the work was composed at Zing po ’bum pa sgang 47 (zing po ’bum pa sgang) in Kong yul
(i.e., Kong po, a region in southeastern Tibet) when the author was 26 years of age (1533). 48 The
text is listed among the Karmapa’s own bibliography of his works included in his Spiritual
Memoirs which he composed at age 40 (1547) 49, seven years before his death. The Lamp is
undated but was said to have been written at the behest of his student and biographer Sangs rgyas
Dpal grub (b. 16th c.) in an area called Phrag yul zu ru gdong. Given the gzhan stong style of
exegesis, which he later abandoned, and the fact that the Karmapa is said by his biographer A
khu a khrag (16th c.) to have averted a military conflict in this region in 1534 50, the work can
tentatively be assigned to this early period. The project will include our critical editions and
translations of these two treatises based on a careful philological analysis of all the extant
editions and provide a philosophical analysis. These, together with presentations of his buddha
nature views in his early commentaries on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra and Abhidharmakośa and
some of his Replies to Queries (dris lan) will provide the necessary foundation for assessing his
early views on buddha nature in the context of buddha nature debates at this time.

An ideal starting point for determining the Eighth Karmapa’s later views on buddha nature is his
commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra entitled Chariot of the Dwags po Siddhas 51 which was
composed during 1544-45 when the author was 39 years old. Not only does this work contain
extended disquisitions on the subject, it also features important refutations of the buddha nature
theories of his coreligionists such as Tsong kha pa, Shākya mchog ldan and Dol po pa. Also
important for understanding his later contributions to buddha nature doctrine is the compilation
of eight works on the Single Intent (Dgongs pa gcig pa) doctrine of the ’Bri gung founder ’Jig

46
The text referred to is the 'Khor lo sdom pa la rgyun chags kyi sdeb sbyor gyi sgo nas bstod pa dang | |
Bde mchog rnam bshad dpal dang po'i sangs rgyas rab tu grub pa. See Bibliography.
47
Zing po is south of modern Lha sa. Zing po ’bum pa sgang is also named as a place where Dpa’ bo II
Gtsug lag phreng ba at age 29 received teachings from the eighth Karmapa which coincides with the date
of the composition of the Tonic.
48
Rtan po’i rlung sman, MKsb vol. 15, 10244: mi bskyod rdo rjes rang lo nyer drug pa la kong yul zing po
'bum pa sgang du sbyar bas 'gro ba thams cad 'khrul med kyi rtogs par gyur cig |
49
Mi bskyod rdo rje’i spyad pa’i rabs, MKsb, vol. 1, 3872: karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje zhes bgyi bas rang
lo bzhi bcu yan du rnam dkar dang ’brel ba’i bya ba las brtsams …
50
Situ Paṇ chen relates that the Karmapa defused the situation by counselling that “there is no difference
between harming a small dGe lugs establishment and cutting [one's] throat.” As noted by Rheingans 2008:
137. A khu mentions that the Karmapa had previously reconciled hostile parties in Kong po in 1523.
Rheingans 2008, 127.
51
Full title: Dbu ma la 'jug pa’i rnam bshad Dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung Dwags brgyud grub
pa’i shing rta. Seattle: Nitartha international, 1996.
13
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

rten gsum mgon (1143-1217) which was composed in stages between 1536 and 1545 52 and his
four volume commentary on the Second Karmapa Karma Pakshi’s (1204-1283) Direct
Introduction to the Three Kāyas (Sku gsum ngo sprod) composed in 1548-49. Both of these
monumental works are better viewed as compilations of essays on selected doctrinal topics
suggested by themes in the root texts than as conventional commentaries. Both contain extensive
material on buddha nature theories of Mi bskyod rdo rje and his coreligionists.

We have seen that the range of buddha nature theories discussed by the author is extensive,
covering major representatives of at least four Gsar ma schools: Dge lugs, Sa skya pa, Bka’
brgyud and Bo dong. Among Tibetan masters Mi bskyod rdo rje cites as primary influences for
his own buddha nature views are Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po (1110-1170), the Third
Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339), and the Eighth Karmapa’s own teachers Chos grub
seng ge (b. 15th c.) and Karma phrin las pa (1456-1539). In fact, Karma phrin las pa included in
his commentary on Rang byung rdo rje’s Profound Inner Meaning (Zab mo nang gi don) a
concise historical survey of buddha nature theories in India and Tibet 53 which provides valuable
historical and doctrinal background for the proposed study. This together with Rtse le Sna tshogs
rang grol’s (b. 1608) useful historical overview of Mahāmudrā traditions in India and Tibet 54 will
help us to contextualize the often complex relationships between the Tathāgatagarbha and
Mahāmudrā exegetical traditions to which Tibetans were heir.

1.5. Aims, Methodology, and Work

The groundwork for our project will consist in the collection and comparative analysis of extant
editions of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s aforementioned works that will include the two early buddha
nature treatises as well as relevant short texts and sections representative of his later views.
Given the abundance of material at our disposal, our methodological principle of selection will
be to focus on materials of notable originality and influence. Critical editions and annotated
translations of selected materials will be prepared following the established methodologies of
classical philology. Quotations of canonical works in these materials will be identified, critically
edited, and compared to Indian originals (where available). On this basis, we will then proceed

52
See Rheingans 2008, 138. We have discovered several inter-textual references between the author’s
Dgongs gcig works and Madhyamakāvatāra commentary (each citing the other) which will have to be
carefully analyzed and documented in our research.
53
Zab mo nang don rnam bshad snying po gsal bar byed pa’i nyin byed ’od kyi phreng ba, 331-384. The
relevant section is entitled “A Delimitation of Buddha Nature [Theories]” (bde gshegs pa’i snying po’i
mtha’ bcad pa).
54
Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam, 842-86.
14
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

with the more difficult task of philosophical reconstruction of the author’s views on buddha
nature that assesses his contributions in relation to the Indian sūtric and tantric tathāgatagarbha
traditions he deemed authoritative well as the many positions of exegetes close to him in time
and place which he reviews in his works.55 Important Indic sources for gaining a clear picture of
the author’s own buddha nature exegesis are the Ratnagotravibhāga and certain Higher Yoga
tantras such as the Kālacakra and Cakrasaṃvara.

This stage of comparative analysis will be guided by specific doctrinal questions relating to the
development of buddha nature theory in India and its assimilation by Tibetan schools: [1] How
do the authors characterize the relationships between buddha nature and: (A) suchness (tathatā),
(B) adventitious stains, (C) sentient beings (sattva), (D) the substratum consciousness
(ālayavijñāna), and (E) dharmakāya? [2] How do they attempt to reconcile Indian causal (hetu)
and fruition (phala) aspects of buddha nature with their corresponding ‘nurture’ and ‘nature’
models of goal-realization? [3] And what are their related views on the status of buddha qualities
and the nature of the naturally present potential (prakṛtisthagotra) and the developed potential
(paripuṣṭagotra)? [4] How do they integrate their buddha nature views with related constellations
of core soteriological ideas on the nature of mind, nature of reality and emptiness? [5] How do
they relate buddha nature discourses to the hermeneutics of the three turnings of the Wheel of
Dharma (dharmacakra) and the varying classification of these in terms of provisional (neyartha)
and definitive meaning (nītārtha)? In sum, the project will seek to determine what antecedent
doctrines and ideas shaped the Karmapa’s view of buddha nature and how he developed these in
relation to the views of other leading Tibetan masters.

In addressing such questions, our aim is not only to clarify the author’s buddha nature views vis-
à-vis those of his predecessors and contemporaries but also to bring into sharper focus some of
the motivating issues, interests and questions that animated Indo-Tibetan buddha nature
discourses and debates during the post-classical era.

55
Thus, the propsed project represents a chronogical extension of Mathes 2008, a detailed study of ’Gos
lo’s tathāgatagarbha doctrine which focused on classical (13th-14th c.) buddha nature theories.
15
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

1.6. Work plan and time plan

First year:
• Selecting the relevant passages from the various collections of Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo
rje’s texts along with the associated references from those authors he relates to.
• Preparation of a critical edition of selected passages.
• First travel to India, Nepal and Tibet scheduled for approx. one month.
Since Mi bskyod rdo rje’s views have not yet been systematically researched, consultation with
Tibetan scholars who are part of this living tradition are essential. Mkhan po Blo bzang of
Thrangu Monastery in Bodhnath, Nepal, and Mkhan po Tshul khrims rgya mtsho of the Karmapa
International Buddhist Institute in New Delhi, India, have proved very helpful in the current
research-project and are both pleased to be of assistance for the proposed project. In addition, the
collaboration with Mkhan po Dkon mchog bstan ’phel of the Songtsen Library in Dehradun,
India, will be of particular benefit to our research on the Single Intent (dgongs gcig)
commentaries by Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje since he is a representative of the ’Bri gung
tradition from which these teachings originated. Since the Vajra Vidya Institute Library in
Sarnath, India, possesses the only copy of a hand written version of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s
Collected Works, important texts selected for inclusion in our project will have to be
xylographically or photographically reproduced so that a carefully edited critical edition of the
relevant materials, based on comparison with the 26 volume Collected Works, can be prepared.
It is for these reasons that travels to India and/or Nepal, scheduled for approx. one month per
year, are indispensable to the successful completion of the project.
Second year:
• Quotations of canonical works have to be identified, critically edited, and compared to
their Indian original in case these are available. Preparation of a first translation of the
selected passages and consultation of secondary literature.
• Second travel to India, Nepal and Tibet scheduled for approx. one month. Upon return,
the information will be incorporated; the texts will be further analyzed and translated.
• Preparation of the expositions and of the historical-philosophical annotations of the
translations.
Third year:
• Third travel to India, Nepal and Tibet if required for further consultation with scholars
and masters of the Mahāmudrā tradition; scheduled for approx. one month. Upon return
revision and completion of the critical edition and the translation.

16
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

• Finalizing the exposition and the historical-philosophical annotations based on the

translation and the exposition.
• Final preparations of monograph for publication.

1.7. Dissemination

Results of the project will be presented in lectures and in articles for peer-reviewed journals as
well as in monographs. The research will benefit students of the Dept. of South Asian, Tibetan
and Buddhist Studies at the U. of Vienna via seminars and lectures given by the research team.
Results of the project will be presented at the 14th Congress of the International Association of
Tibetan Studies (IATS, 2016) in Oslo, Norway. As the project has relevance not only for the
field of Tibetan studies but also for Buddhist studies at large, a presentation is also planned for
the 13th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 2017 in Toronto, Canada.

1.8. Cooperation

We will consult with Prof. Akiro Saito (University of Tokyo, Japan), a widely renowned
Madhyamaka specialist, for translational issues and philosophical clarifications. Prof. Tom
Tillemanns, an expert on Madhyamaka and epistemology (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
will be consulted for clarification of epistemological issues. Mkhan po Blo bzang (Educational
Institutes at Namo Buddha, Nepal), Mkhan po Dkon mchog bstan ’phel, (Songtsen Library,
Center for Tibetan and Himalayan Studies, Dehradun, India), expert on the Dgongs gcig
literature, and Mkhan po Tshul khrims rgya mtsho, (Karmapa International Buddhist Institute,
New Delhi, India), expert in the field of Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje, will be consulted on topics
relating to their areas of expertise.

2. Human resources

2.1. Scholarly qualification of the project participants

Project leader: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes is the head of the Department of Tibetan and
Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. He is specialized in the study of Indo-Tibetan
Mahāyāna-Buddhism. His habilitation thesis was on ’Gos Lo tsā ba’s mahāmudrā interpretation
of the Ratnagotravibhāga (“A Direct Path to the Buddha Within”), and some other of his
publications are substantially related to the topic of the project. Both research assistants have
been working with me during the last three years on my project “Emptiness of Other (Gzhan
stong) in the Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions of the 15th and 16th Centuries” and are thus already
highly specialized in this field of Mahāmudrā based traditions of this period.

17
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

(1) Dr. Martina Draszczyk completed her MA studies with Prof. L. Schmithausen (Hamburg).
She then studied at the Karmapa International Buddhist Institute in New Delhi under Mkhan po
Chos grags bstan ’phel and Prof. Sempa Dorje (emer. Prof. Central Institute of Higher Buddhist
Studies, Sarnath). Moreover, she acted as an interpreter for a number of Tibetan scholars at the
Institute in New Delhi and in Europe. In 2007 she enrolled in Vienna University for her Ph.D.
thesis on gzhan stong-Madhyamaka which she completed in 2012 supervised by Prof. H.
Tauscher. Dr. Draszczyk, with her knowledge acquired through her Ph.D. thesis on the topic of
gzhan stong and mahāmudrā, and, in particular during the project “Emptiness of other (Gzhan
stong) in the Tibetan Mahāmudrā traditions of the 15th and 16th centuries has the perfect
background for this project. Along with focusing on the smaller collections such as the single
miscellaneous writings (gsung 'bum thor bu), the primary emphasis of her research will be the
tathāgatagarbha theories in the Commentary on the Three Kāyas (Sku gsum ngo sprod) and in the
four volume Commentary on Yoga Tantra and Other [Works] (Rnal 'byor rgyud kyi rnam bshad
sogs) by Mi bskyod rdo rje because in these texts philosophical analysis of buddha nature is
closely linked with its integration in meditation, a special field of research of Dr. Draszczyk.

(2) Dr. David Higgins completed his BA and MA studies under the supervision of the late Prof.
H. V. Guenther (University of Saskatchewan). In 2012 Higgins completed his doctorate at the
University of Lausanne under the supervision of Prof. Tom Tillemans. The University of
Lausanne awarded him the “prix de faculté” for his dissertation on the philosophical distinction
between mind (sems) and primordial knowing (ye shes), published in Vienna in the series of the
WSTB 2013, Heft 78. In this work he examined the Rnying ma views on the nature of mind,
buddha nature and the nature of reality that traces their evolution and complex relationships with
Indian Cittamātra, Madhyamaka, Pramāṇavāda, and Vajrayāna views. In addition to contributing
several articles to peer-reviewed journals, he recently produced a critical edition and translation
of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Nerve Tonic for the Elderly (Rtan po’i rlung sman) to be included in the
proposed project. Having become broadly acquainted with the major polemical and exegetical
issues that defined the post-classical intellectual milieu, his research focus will be on Mi bskyod
rdo rje’s philosophical masterpiece Chariot of the Dwags po Siddhas (Dwags brgyud grub pa’i
shin rta) and the multi-volume Single Intent (dgongs gcig) commentary composed during the
same period. We can anticipate that his in-depth knowledge of the author’s own views on buddha
nature and his criticisms of rival theories will make a substantial contribution to this project.

18
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

2.2. Importance of the project for the career of the project participants

The contributions of Drs. Martina Draszczyk and David Higgins to this project would serve to
strengthen their position as specialists in the field of Buddhist studies in general and Mahāmudrā
and buddha nature theories in particular. Continuous work in this direction would deepen their
knowledge of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s philosophical views vis-à-vis the post-classical Tibetan
tathāgatagarbha debates and give them an unprecedented understanding of the main issues and
debates that defined this highly fruitful period of Tibetan intellectual history. It would also give
them the opportunity to contribute to Buddhist studies original and pioneering research on an
important body of texts that remains largely unexplored by contemporary scholars.

3. Expected additional impact

It is anticipated that a work of this nature—the first systematic study of the central philosophy of
one of Tibet’s most prolific and penetrating thinkers—will stimulate a great deal of interest in Mi
bskyod rdo rje’s philosophical work, which has so far been poorly understood due to a lack of
comprehensive critical analysis. The translation and interpretation of core materials on buddha
nature based on philological, historical and hermeneutical methodologies will make valuable
contributions to disciplines within Buddhist Studies such as Tathāgatagarbha, Abhidharma,
Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra studies, as well as related disciplines such as comparative
philosophy, religious studies, and psychology. In addition to its scholarly contribution, it is
expected that such work will be of great benefit to a growing number of non-specialists who have
taken an interest in Mahāyāna Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular.

4. Financial aspects

4.1. Information on the research institution

The project leader will provide adequate working space for his research team within the
Department of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. All technical
equipment of the department, like computers, scanners, etc. can be used by the project members.
Its monograph and journal holdings in the department library create an ideal environment for the
research project.

4.2. Information on applied funds

4.2.1. Personnel
(1) Dr. Martina Draszczyk (DV, 100 %, 36 months, € 62.500,00 per year) € 187,500.00
(2) Dr. David Higgins (DV, 100 %, 36 months; € 62.500,00 per year) € 187,500.00
19
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

4.2.2. Required material

Relevant texts of the handwritten version of Mi bskyod rdo rje’s Collected Works in the Vajra
Vidya Institute in Sarnath, India, is to be photographed or photocopied. As well further copies of
relevant materials are to be produced for the project: approx. € 1.000 € 1,000.00

4.2.3. Travel costs

2015
Flight: Vienna-India/Nepal-Vienna (Mathes, Higgins, Draszczyk) each € 1,000.-- € 3,000.00
30 days and nights (according to RGV):
Higgins, Draszczyk (30 days à 24,20 and 30 nights à 30,50 for India) € 3,282.00
Mathes (30 days à 31,80 and 30 nights à 34,20 for Nepal) € 1,980.00
2016
Flight: Vienna-Tibet-Vienna (Mathes, Higgins, Draszczyk) each € 1,500.-- € 4,500.00
30 days and nights (according to RGV):
Higgins, Draszczyk (30 days à 26,80 and 30 nights à 23,30 for Tibet) € 3,006.00
Mathes (30 days à 35,10 and 30 nights à 30,50 for Tibet) € 1,968.00
2017
Flight: Vienna-India/Nepal-Vienna (Mathes, Higgins, Draszczyk) each € 1,000.-- € 3,000.00
30 days and nights (according to RGV):
Higgins, Draszczyk (30 days à 24,20 and 30 nights à 30,50 for India) € 3,282.00
Mathes (30 days à 31,80 and 30 nights à 34,20 for Nepal) € 1,980.00

4.2.4. Contracts for work

Work contracts for digitalizing required material as well as for proofreading € 4,800.00

Work contract with Tibetan scholars in Vienna for the fees for the work
on difficult passages in the above mentioned texts per year € 2,500.00 € 7,500.00

Interim Total: € 414,298.00

General Costs (5 % of the interim total) € 20,714.90

Total Sum: € 435,012.90

20
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Selected Bibliography

1. Primary Sources: Indian Works

Ghanavyūhasūtra. Peking Kanjur no. 778: 1-62b8.

Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio (Bibliotheca Otaniensis 1). Kyoto: Otani
University Press,1923.
Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti: Traduction Tibétain. Bibliotheca Buddhica. IX. Publiée
par Louis de la Vallée Poussin, St.- Pétersbourg, 1907–1912.
Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (Theg pa chen po bsdus pa’i ‘grel pa). Vasubandhu. D 4050, 121b-
190a.
Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī. Ed. by Kazunobu Matsuda. See Matsuda 1996: 93-99.
Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇīṭīkā. Kamalaśīla. Peking Kanjur no. 5501, 146b6-174b1.
Prasannapadā. Candrakīrti. Sanskrit ed.: see La Vallée Poussin 1970. Tibetan ed.: see May
1959.

2. Primary Sources: Tibetan Works

Dkon mchog yan lag, Zhwa dmar pa V

_____ Karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje bshad pa’i gsung ’bum gyi dkar chag. Full title: Rgyal ba
thams cad kyi ye shes kyi rnam pa thams cad pa’i thugs can karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje
bshad pa’i gsung ’bum gyi dkar chag. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje’i gsung ’bum, vol. 1, 1-28.

Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan

_____ Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho. Full title: Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho zhes bya ba mthar
thug thun mong ma yin pa’i man ngag. Pecing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998.
_____ Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa rang ’grel. The Collected Works (gsung ’bum) of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-
pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361). 1 vol. Paro: Lama ngodrup and sherab drimay,
1984, 585-666.
Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (the Eighth Karma pa)
_____ Bla ma khams pa’i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum, vol. 3:
219-23.
_____ Dvags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Full title: Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan
dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung Dvags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta. Reprod. From a Dpal
spungs edition of Zhwa dmar Chos kyi blo gros. Gangtok: Rumtek Monastery 1974.
_____ Dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol legs par phye ba’i sgron me. Gangtok: Rumtek
Monastery 1972. Also: Dbu ma gzhan stong smra ba’i srol ’byed. In: dBu ma gzhan stong
skor bstan bcos phyogs bsdus deb dang po, 13-48. Gangtok: Rumtek, Karma Shri
Nalanda Institute, 1990.

21
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

_____ Glo bur gyi dri ma tha mal gyi shes par bshad pa’i nor pa spang ba. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje
gsung ’bum, vol. 15, 1073-1082.
_____ Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum. Full title: Dpal rgyal ba karma pa sku ’phreng brgyad pa
mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum, 26 vols. Lhasa, 2004. See also: Dpe rnying bris ma edition
(date unknown). From a xylographic copy of a handwritten manuscript dbu med edition
of Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum in 14 vols. held in the Vajra Vidya Institute
Library, Khajuhee, Varanasi, 221007 (U.P. India).
_____ Mi bskyod rdo rje'i spyad pa'i rabs. Full title: Byang phyogs gangs can 'di na karma pa | |
rim par byon las bdun pa rang byung ni | | kun mkhyen chos rje'i slob mar gyur 'ga' yi | |
bka' 'bangs mi bskyod rdo rje'i spyad pa'i rabs | | In: Mi bskyod rdo rje gsung ’bum, vol.
1, 350-387.
_____ Paṇ chen rdo rgyal ba’i legs bshad. Full title: Paṇ chen rdo rgyal ba’i legs bshad rnam
par dkar ba’i shel gyi glegs bu la drang po’i thig vaidūrya’i ri mo btab pa’o. In: : Mi
bskyod rdo rje’i gsung ’bum, vol. 3, 224-257.
_____ Rgyal ba spyan ras gzigs dbang brgyad pa’ rnam thar legs spyad ma’i don ’grel gsal ba’i
sgron me. In: bka’ ’dbangs mi bskyod rdo rje’i spyad pa’i rabs. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje’i
gsung ’bum, vol. 1, 150-329.
_____ Rje yid bzang rtse ba’i rgyud gsum gsang ba dang | paṇ chen shakya mchog ldan gyi bde
mchog rnam bshad gnyis kyi mthar thug gi ‘bras bu gzhi dus gnas lugs | lam dus kyi rnal
‘byor rnams la dpyad pa bdud rtsi’i dri mchog. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje’i gsung bum, vol.
15: 975-1024.
_____ Rnal ’byor rgyud kyi rnam bshad sogs. Full title: Rgyal dbang karma pa sku 'phreng
brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje'i Rnal 'byor rgyud kyi rnam bshad sogs. 4 vols. A treatise on
yogatantra and related texts by the 8th Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje. Thimpu: Kunsang
topgyel, 1979. Thimphu: Kunsang Topgyel: 1979.
_____ Rtan po’i rlung sman. Alternate title for Rje yid bzang rtse ba’i rgyud gsum gsang ba.
_____ Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i lung chos mtha’ dag gi bdud rtsi’i snying por gyur pa
gang la ldan pa’i gzhi rje btsun mchog ti dgyes par ngal gso ba’i yongs ‘dus brtol gyi ljon
pa rgyas pa shes bya ba bzhugs so. A reproduction of the Dpal spungs (?) block prints by
Zhwa dmar Chos kyi blo gros. Sikkim: Rumtek Monastery, no date.
_____ Sku gsum ngo sprod. Full title: Sku gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud
bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e vaṃ phyag rgya. In: Mi bskyod rdo rje’i gsung bum, vols. 21-22.
Also: dbu med edition (4 vols.) Gangtok: Rumtek Monastery, 1978.

Karma ’phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal

_____ Zab mo nang don rnam bshad snying po. Full title: Zab mo nang don rnam bshad snying
po gsal bar byed pa’i nyin byed ’od kyi phreng ba. Karma ’phrin las pa. In: Rang byung
rdo rje’i gsung ’bum, vol. 14, 1-553.

22
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Padma dkar po, ’Brug chen IV

_____ Bshes gnyen rnam rgyal grags pa’i dris lan. In: Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol. 12, 491-
508.
_____ Chos ’khor rim pa gsum gyi dogs gcod. In: Padma dkar po gsung ’bum vol.7: 297-347.
_____ Klan ka gzhom pa’i gtam. In: Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 21, 553-603.
_____ Padma dkar po gsung ’bum. Full title: Collected Works (gsung-’bum) of Kun-mkhyen
Padma-dkar-po. 24 vols. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang: 1974.
_____ Phyag chen gan mdzod. Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan
mdzod. In: Padma dkar po gsung ’bum, vol. 21: 7-370. Also: Phyag chen rgyal ba’i gan
mdzod. Varanasi: Vajra Vidya Institute Library, 2005.

Rang byung rdo rje, Karma pa III

_____ Chos dbyings bstod pa’i ’grel pa. Full title: Dbu ma chos dbyings bstod pa'i rnam par
bshad pa. In: Rang byung rdo rje gsung ’bum, vol. 7, 1-125.
_____ Rang byung rdo rje gsung ’bum. 16 vols. Ziling: mTshur phu mkhan po lo yag bkra shis,
2006.
_____ Zab mo nang don gyi ’grel pa. In: Rang byung rdo rje gsung ’bum vol. 7, 371-664.

Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol

_____ Smin byed kyi dbang dang grol lam Phyag rgya chen po'i gnad don gyi dri ba lan du phul
ba skal bzang dga' byed bdud rtsi'i 'dod 'jo, in Dkar rnying gi skyes chen du ma'i phyag
rdzogs kyi gdams ngag gnad bsdus nyer mkho rin po che'i gter mdzod (Rtsib ri spar ma),
Darjeeling: Kargyu sungrab nyamso khang, 1978-1985, vol. 26, 842-86.

Shākya mchog ldan

_____ Bde mchog rnam bshad. Full title: Bde mchog rnam bshad dpal dang po'i sangs rgyas
rab tu grub pa. See below: ’Khor lo sdom pa la rgyun chags kyi sdeb sbyor gyi sgo
nas bstod pa.
_____ ’Khor lo sdom pa la rgyun chags kyi sdeb sbyor gyi sgo nas bstod pa dang | | Bde
mchog rnam bshad dpal dang po'i sangs rgyas rab tu grub pa. In: The Complete
Works (gsun 'bum) of Gser-mdog Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan. 24 vols. Delhi:
Nagwang Topgyel, 1995, vol. 8, 1-193.
_____ Phyag rgya chen po’i shan ’byed or Lung rigs gnyis kyi phyag rgya chen po’i bzhed
tshul la ’khrul pa sel ba’i bstan bcos zung ’jug gi gru chen. In: Shākya mchog ldan
gsung ’bum, vol. 17: 468-499.
_____ Shākya mchog ldan gsung ‘bum. 2008. 24 vols. Full title: Paṇ chen Shākya mchog
ldan gyi gsung 'bum legs bshad gser gyi bdud rtsi. Kathmandu: Sachen International,
Guru Lama.

23
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

4. Secondary Sources

Almogi, Orna. 2009. Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions

of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding
the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna : ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan
Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist
Studies.
Broido, Michael. 1985. Padma dKar-po on the Two Satyas. In: Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 8, 7-59.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. 2007. In Praise of Dharmadhātu by Nāgārjuna. Commentary by the Third
Karmapa. Nitartha Institute Series. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications 2007.
_____ 2010. Gone Beyond. The Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, The Ornament of Clear Realization, and
its Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagyü Tradition. vol. 1. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
Davidson Ronald M. 1985. Buddhist Systems of Transformation: Āśraya-parivṛtti/-parāvṛitti
Among the Yogācāra. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Goldfield, Ari et al., Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, and Candrakīrti. 2005. The moon of wisdom: chapter six
of Chandrakirti's Entering the middle way. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications.
Higgins, David. 2013. The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet:
Investigating the Distinction between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye
shes). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de, tr., 1928. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: La Siddhi de Huian-Tsang [Hsüan-
chuang] Traduite et annoteé par Louis de La Vallée Poussin. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
_____ 1970 tr., Madhyamakavr̥tti. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās (Mādhyamika sūtras) de Nāgārjuna
avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire de Candrakīrti. St. Petersburg, Imperial Academy of
Sciences, 1903–1913. Reprint Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.
Lai Whalen. 1977. The Meaning of “Mind-Only” (Wei-Hsin): An Analysis of a Sinitic
Mahāyāna Phenomenon. Philosophy East and West 27, 1 (1977), 61-77.
Levi, Sylvain and Vasubandhu. 1925. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi deux traités de Vasubandhu ;
Viṁśatikā (La vingtaine) accompagnée d'une explication en prose et Triṁśikā (La
trentaine) avec le commentaire de Sthiramati ; original sanscrit publié pour la première
fois d'après des manuscrits rapportés du Népal. Paris: Champion.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within : Gö Lotsawa’s Mahāmudrā
Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Matsuda, Kazunobu. 1996. “Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī: Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation”.
Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyo University, no. 3, March 1996, 89-113.
Price, A. W. 2008. Contextuality in practical reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rheingans, Jim. 2008. The Eighth Karmapa’s Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Bristol: University of the West of England.
Sakuma, H. 1990. Die Āśrayaparivṛtti-Theorie in der Yogācārabhumi. Alt- und Neu-Indische
Studien 40.1-2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

24
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Schmithausen, Lambert. 1977. On some aspects of descriptions or theories of ‘liberating

insight’ and ‘enlightenment’ in Early Buddhism. In: K. Bruhn and A. Wezler (eds.),
Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf. Wiesbaden,
1981: 199-250.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1963. The Jo Naṅ pas: A School of Buddhist Ontologists According to the
Grub mtha’ śel gyi me loṅ. Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jan.—
Mar., 1963), 73-91.
_____ 1969. La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra; études sur la sotériologie et la
gnoséologie du bouddhisme. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
_____ 1971. Le Dharmadhātustava de Nāgārjuna. In: Études Tibetaines: Dediées à la Mémoire
de Marcelle Lalou (1890–1967). Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 448–71.
_____ 1988. A Karma bKa' brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditions of the Indo-Tibetan
dBu ma (Madhyamaka). In: Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata. Rome: Istituto
Italiano per il Medeo ed Estremo Oriente, 1249-1280. Serie Orientale Roma, vol. 56, 3.
_____ 1989. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative
Perspective: on the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet. School
of Oriental and African Studies.
_____ 2000. Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Wien:
Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.
Shakabpa, Wangchuk D. 1967. Tibet: A Political History. New Haven: Yale University Press.
_____ 2010. One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. Vol. 1.
Leiden: Brill.
Sørensen, Per K., Guntram Hazod, Ṅag-dbaṅ-bstan-ʼdzin-ʼphrin-las, and Tshal-pa Kun-dgaʼ-rdo-
rje. 2007. Rulers on the celestial plain: ecclesiastic and secular hegemony in medieval
Tibet : a study of Tshal Gung-thang. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Stearns, Cyrus. The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master
Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. 1999. SUNY series in Buddhist Studies. Albany, N.Y.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. 1989. “An Introduction to Gtsang-nag-pa's Tshad-ma rnam-par
nges pa’i ṭi-ka legs-bshad bsdus pa. An Ancient Commentary on Dharmakīrti’s
Pramāṇaviniś-caya, Otani University Collection No.13971.” Introduction to the facsimile
edition of the text in Otani University Tibetan Works Series, Volume II, Kyoto: Rinsen
Book Co., 1–33.
Williams, Paul. 1983. A note on some aspects of Mi bskyod rdo rje's critique of dGe lugs pa
Madhyamaka. Journal of Indian Philosophy. June 1983, Vol. 11, Issue 2, 125-145.

25
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Curriculum Vitae

Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes (* April 5th, 1958)

Zwerngasse 18/8/12, 1170 Wien

Email: klaus-dieter.mathes@univie.ac.at

From March 2010 Professor of Tibetology and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna

2005-2010 Lecturer (“Privatdozent”) at the University of Hamburg (Dept. of Indian

and Tibetan Studies)

Research Project (financed by the DFG) on the early Kagyupas and the
India origins of their mahāmudrā teachings.

2006 (April 24 - June 30) Visiting professor (Numata) at the University of

Vienna

2004-05 Visiting professor (replacement of Prof. Steinkellner) at the University of

Vienna

2004 Habilitation in Indology and Tibetology at the University of Hamburg

2001-04 Lecturer at the University of Hamburg (Dept. of Indian and Tibetan

Studies)

Scholarship from the German Research Council (DFG)

1993-2001 Director of the Nepal Research Centre and the Nepal-German Manuscript
Preservation Project in Kathmandu

1999-2001 Lecturer at Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu (Cultural Department)

1994 Obtained a doctorate in Indology from the University of Marburg

1991-93 Worked as an assistant in the Department of Central Asian Linguistic and

Cultural Studies of the University of Bonn

1992-93 Studied Indology and Tibetology at the University of Marburg

1984-92 Studied Tibetology, Indology, Comparative Religion and Oriental Art

History at the University of Bonn

26
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

1990 Obtained a Master's degree in Tibetology, Comparative Religion and

Oriental Art History from the University of Bonn

1980-84 Lived in the region of Tibetan cultural influence in the Himalaya; studied
Buddhism

1979-80 Studied mathematics and physics at the University of Erlangen

1977-78 Discharged basic military service

1968-77 Attended and graduated from the Pirckheimer Gymnasium in Nuremberg

1964-68 Attended the Volksschule Wendelstein

5.4.1958 Born in Mannheim (Germany) as the son of the businessman Kurt Mathes
and the accountant Christel Mathes, née Gerner

Teaching Activity

From SS 2010 University of Vienna Wien

WS 2009/10 University of Hamburg

WS 2008/09 – SS 09 Kathmandu University

WS 2006/07 – SS 08 University of Hamburg

SS 2006 University of Vienna

WS 2005/06 University of Hamburg

WS 2004/05 – SS 05 University of Vienna

WS 2001/02 – SS 04 University of Hamburg

WS 1999 – SS 2001 Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu

Publications
Last Five Years

2013a "Reality in Buddhism". In: Anne Runehov und Lluis Oviedo (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sciences
and Religion. Dordrecht: Springer, 1958-1965.

2013b “bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: “Chinese rDzogs chen” or the Teachings of the Siddhas?” In:
Tibet after Empire. Culture, Society and Religion between 850-1000. Proceedings of the
Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2011. Edited by Christoph Cüppers, Robert
Mayer and Michael Walter. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 267-294.
27
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

2013c "Clouds of Offerings to Lady G.yang ri—A Protector Practice by the First Yol mo Sprul
sku Shākya bzang po (15th/16th Cent.)." In: Nepalica-Tibetica. Festgabe For Christoph
Cüppers. Edited by Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Petra Maurer (Zentralasienforschung 28, 2).
Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, vol. 2, 37-56.

2012 “The gzhan stong model of reality: Some more material on its origin, transmission and
interpretation.” JIABS 34, 187-226.

2011 "The Collection of 'Indian Mahāmudrā Works' (phyag chen rgya gzhung) Compiled by the
Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho". In: Roger Jackson und Matthew Kapstein (eds.),
Mahāmudrā and the Bka'-brgyud Tradition. PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh
Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006,
(Zentralasienforschung 25). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies,
89-130.

2010a “The Principle of True Nature (dharmatā-yukti) as a Justification for Positive

Descriptions of Reality in Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In: Logic and Belief in Indian
Philosophy. Ed. by Piotr Balcerowicz (Warsaw Indological Studies, vol. 3). Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 605-616.

2010b “Maitrīpa´s Amanasikārādhāra (“A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged”)”.

Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, vol. 13 (2009 (2010)), 5-32.

2009a “The Role of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa in the Mahāmudrā Tradition of the Dagpo Kagyu”.
Journal of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): http:|
|www.thlib.org?tid= (accessed August 6, 2010).

2009b “The “Succession of the Four Seals” (Caturmudrānvaya) Together with Selected
Passages from Karopa´s Commentary.” In: Tantric Studies, vol. 1 (2008 (2009)), Centre
for Tantric Studies, University of Hamburg) 89-130.

The Ten Most Important Publications

2013 "Reality in Buddhism". In: Anne Runehov und Lluis Oviedo (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sciences
and Religion. Dordrecht: Springer, 1958-1965.

2012 “The gzhan stong model of reality: Some more material on its origin, transmission and
interpretation.” JIABS 34, 187-226

2011 "The Collection of 'Indian Mahāmudrā Works' (phyag chen rgya gzhung) Compiled by the
Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho". In: Roger Jackson und Matthew Kapstein (eds.),
Mahāmudrā and the Bka'-brgyud Tradition. PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh
Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006,
(Zentralasienforschung 25). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies,
89-130.

2010 “Maitrīpa´s Amanasikārādhāra (“A Justification of Becoming Mentally Disengaged”)”.

Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, vol. 13 (2009 (2010)), 5-32.

28
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

2009 “The Role of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa in the Mahāmudrā Tradition of the Dagpo Kagyu”.
Journal of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): http:|
|www.thlib.org?tid= (accessed August 6, 2010).
2008 A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsawa´s Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the
Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

2007 “The Ontological Status of the Dependent (paratantra) in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and
the Vyākhyāyukti.” In: Indica et Tibetica. Festschrift für Michael Hahn zum 65.
Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht. Ed. by Konrad Klaus and Jens-Uwe
Hartmann. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 66). Vienna:
Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, 323-339.

2006 “Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and his Circle on the
Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools”. In: Tibetan Buddhist Literature
and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period 900-1400. Ed. by Ronald M. Davidson and
Christian K. Wedemeyer (Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, Oxford 2003,
vol. 10/4). Leiden: Brill, 201-227.

2003 ´Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal´s Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Theg pa

chen po rgyud bla ma´i bstan bcos kyi ´grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba´i me
long). Critically edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes (Nepal Research Centre Publications,
vol. 24). Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag.

1996 Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen (Dharmadharmatāvibhāga).

Swisttal-Odendorf 1996 (Indica et Tibetica, vol. 26).

29
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Curriculum Vitae of Martina Draszczyk (* Jan. 5th, 1961)

Fleischmarkt 16/I/23, 1010 Wien

Tel: 0650 99 10 689
E-mail: martina.draszczyk@univie.ac.at

Education and
degrees
2007-2012 Doctoral program in philosophy, Department of South Asian, Tibetan and
Buddhist Studies, University of Vienna. Field of study: Tibetology and
Buddhism
Supervisor: Prof. Helmut Tauscher
1992-2005 Extended training and research in Buddhist philosophy, epistemology, and
meditation at the Karmapa International Buddhist Institute in New Delhi,
India, five to six months a year
1995: Bachelor of Arts Degree in Buddhist Studies
2005: Acharya Degree in Buddhist Studies
1985-1987 European-Secretary-Academy, Vienna
1987: Diploma, Languages: English, French
1980-1985 University of Hamburg, Germany
Faculty: Middle Eastern Studies
Main subject: Tibetology, minor subjects: Indology and English studies
1985: Magister Artium, Hamburg
1978-1980 Staatliches Gymnasium, Kaufbeuren
27.6.1980: Abitur
1971-1978 Mariengymnasium, Kaufbeuren
1967-1971 Volksschule, Bad Wörishofen
05.01.1961 Born in Augsburg (Germany) as the daughter of the physicians Dr. Ludwig
Waibl and Dr. Frieda Waibl (née Egle).

Work Experience
2008-present Language assistant for Tibetan at the University of Vienna
2004 Lecturer at the “Buddhismus-Lehrgang” at the University of Vienna
1994-present Scriptwriting and translating for documentaries in the field of Tibetan culture
1992-2005 Interpreting for mKhan po chos grags bstan ’phel, Educational Director at the

30
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Karmapa International Buddhist Institute in New Delhi, India, in the field of

Buddhist philosophy, epistemology and meditation
Languages: Tibetan and English
1990-present Interpreting for various Tibetan scholars in international Buddhist institutes in
India and Europa. Languages: Tibetan, English and German
1990-present Lecturing in various Buddhist Institutes
1989-present Translations in the field of Buddhism from Tibetan

Presentations
Nov. 19, 2010 Buddhismus-Lehrgang at the University of Vienna, a co-operation between
“The Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka“ and the „Akademie für
Buddhismus und Christentum“: The History of Tibetan Buddhism
Nov. 5, 2010 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: The canonical traditions as transmitted in Tibet
Oct. 29, 2010 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: Buddhist philosophical views as cultivated in Tibet
and their importance for the spiritual training in Buddhismus
Nov. 19, 2011 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: The development of the eight practice lineages in
Tibet
Nov. 26, 2011 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: The four great Buddhist traditions of Tibetan
Buddhism
Dec. 17, 2011 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: Essential aspects of Tibetan Buddhism
Feb. 13, 2012 “The Indian Mahāsiddha Tīlopa’s Upadeśa on Sahaja-Mahāmudrā in the Eyes
of Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje”. Presentation at the 4th International CBS
Workshop Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 12th-14th Feb. 2012 on Sahaja, The
Role of Doha & Caryagiti in the Indo-Tibetan Interface.
Jan. 19, 2013 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: Buddhist tenets and their relevance for contemplative
training, part I.
Jan. 23, 2013 Buddhismus-Lehrgang: Buddhist tenets and their relevance for contemplative
training, part II.
July 21-27, 2013 Co-chaired Panel “Toward a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions” with
Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Dr. David Higgins at the 13th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Ulaanbaatar
July 21, 2013 “A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos Grags ye shes on
the Hidden Meaning of Luminosity”, presentation at the 13th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Ulaanbaatar.

31
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

May 21, 2014 “On Mindfulness”, presentation at the University of Vienna organized by the
“Cultural Transfers and Cross-Contacts in the Himalayan Borderlands” and
the Khyentse Foundation Buddhist Translation Studies Program.
August 20, 2014 “Some Bka’ brgyud Responses to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Critique of “Present Day
Mahāmudrā” as Equivalent to Mohoyen’s System”, presentation at the 17th
Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies in Vienna,
Austria.

Forthcoming Publications
Die Anwendung der tathāgatagarbha-Lehre in Kong spruls Anleitung zur gzhan stong-Sichtweise
[slated for publication in WSTB, Vienna 2015]

“Some Remarks on Kong sprul’s Immaculate Vajra Moonrays” [slated for publication in The
Other Emptiness at State University of New York Press, Albany]

“The Immaculate Vajra Moonrays, an Instruction for the View of Shentong, the Great
Madhyamaka” [slated for publication in Buddhist Luminaries: Inspired Advice from the Great
Ecumenical Masters of Eastern Tibet, Wisdom Publication, Boston]

“Tathāgatagarbha from the Perspective of Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje” [forthcoming in the
Proceedings of “On the Origin and Exegesis of the tathāgatagarbha idea“ – Symposium at
EKŌ–Haus der Japanischen Kultur, Düsseldorf 2013

“The Indian Mahāsiddha Tīlopa’s Upadeśa on Sahaja-Mahāmudrā in the Eyes of Karma pa

Rang byung rdo rje” [forthcoming in the Proceedings of “Sahaja, The Role of Doha & Caryagiti
in the Indo-Tibetan Interface”, 4th International CBS Workshop Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, Feb.
2012

“A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos Grags ye shes on the Hidden Meaning
of Luminosity” [Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Ulaanbaatar forthcoming in Zentralasiatische Studien]

Research Interests
1) Buddhist philosophy with special emphasis on Yogācāra and Madhyamaka
2) Textual hermeneutics
3) Mahāmudrā
4) Buddhist philosophy and its relevance for contemplative traditions

Languages

Classical Tibetan (main research language), Modern Tibetan, Sanskrit, English

French: reading knowledge.

32
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Curriculum Vitae of David Higgins (* Jan. 5th, 1961)

Dr. David Higgins, Post Doc Research Fellow,

Dept. of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies
University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 2.7
1090 Vienna, Austria

T +43-14277-43570
F +43-1-4277-43550
david.higgins@univie.ac.at
Education

Ph.D. 2008-2012 Doctorate in Oriental Languages and Cultures,

Faculté des Lettres, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Doctoral Thesis: The Philosophical Foundations of Classical
Rdzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction Between
Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes)
Supervisor: Dr. Tom Tillemans (Chair, Buddhist Studies)
Award: Awarded Elizabeth de Boer Scholarship for Doctoral
Research; Duration: 2009-11

M.A. 1984-88 Master’s Degree in Far Eastern Studies,

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon with first class standing
MA Thesis: The Tibetan Lam-rim (Stages of the Path) Genre: A
Comparative Study Focusing on Five Representative Texts
Areas of Focus: Indo-Tibetan philosophy and epistemology with
emphasis on Tibetan Bka’ brgyud and Rnying ma traditions; Indo-
Tibetan ‘Stages of the Path’ (Lam rim) literature
Supervisor: Dr. Herbert V. Guenther
Award: Recipient of M.A. Graduate Studies Scholarship;
Duration: 1984-88

B.A. 1979-84 Obtained Double Honors Bachelor’s Degree in Far Eastern

Studies and Philosophy, University of Saskatchewan
Areas of Focus: Buddhist philosophy, Indo-Tibetan Tantrism,
Tibetan poetry, Phenomenology and Hermeneutics.
Award: Awarded scholarship for outstanding achievement in
Department of Far Eastern Studies, 1984.

33
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Areas of Professional Interest

Buddhist Philosophy, Indo-Tibetan Tantrism (esp. Mahāmūdra and Rdzogs chen traditions),
Tibetan Poetry, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Philosophy of Mind, Conceptual History

Teaching/Research Experience
2012-present South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Department,
University of Vienna
Have taught one course each year in, with focus on theory and practice of
translating Buddhist philosophical texts. In 2012 I also taught a course
entitled the Religious Approaches to the Problem of Suffering.

2011 Section de langues et civilisations orientales, Faculté des

Lettres, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Employed as Assistant Professor to teach an Intensive Literary Tibetan
course, April 18 – May 31, 2011.

2003-2011 Sessional Lecturer, Department of Pacific and Asian Studies,

Religious Studies program, University of Victoria, Victoria
Have taught Asian Religions course (RS230B: Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Daoism and Shinto) as well as RS 402
Seminar on Madhyamaka Philosophy of Nāgārjuna.

1993-99 Sessional Lecturer, Department of Religious Studies,

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
Taught for seven years in Religious Studies, focusing on the seven Asian
religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism
and Shinto) that make up the eastern half of the Introduction to World
Religions course (Relst 110).

Publications

Books
The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction
between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes). Wien: Arbeitskreis für
Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2013.

34
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Papers

Last Five Years:

An Introduction to the Tibetan Dzogchen (Great Perfection) Philosophy of Mind. Religion
Compass (DOI: 10.1111/rec3.12004), vol. 6/10. 2012: Wiley-Blackwell, 443-50. (refereed)

A Reply to Questions Concerning Mind and Primordial Knowing: An Annotated Translation and
Critical Edition of Klong chen pa’s Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan. Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies vol. 34, no. 1-2, 2011 (2012), pp. 31-96. (refereed)

On the Development of the Non-Mentation (Amanasikāra) Doctrine in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.

Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies vol. 29, no. 2, 2006 (2008), pp. 255-
304. (refereed)

Forthcoming:
Uniting the Streams: Epistemological Cross-Currents in the Wake of Tibet’s Great Debate.
Included in a dedicated volume of the proceedings from a panel I chaired “The Tibetan Samyé
Debate: Challenges and Responses” at 17th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies, Vienna, August 2014. Forthcoming in the Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies (refereed).

The Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Padma dkar po on Yang dgon pa’s Distinction between gnas lugs
phyag chen and’khrul lugs phyag chen. Included in a volume of papers presented on panel
“Toward a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions” convened by our research team for the
13th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Ulaanbaatar, July 2013.
Forthcoming in Zentralasiatische Studien. (refereed)

*Bodhigarbha (byang chub snying po): Preliminary Notes on an Early Rdzogs chen Concept of
Buddha Nature. Forthcoming in The Other Emptiness: Perspectives on the Zhentong Buddhist
Discourse in India and Tibet. Mathes and Sheehy (eds.). New York: State University of New
York (SUNY) Press. (refereed)

On the rDzogs chen Distinction Between Mind (sems) and Primordial Knowing (ye shes):
Clarifications and Transcendental Arguments. Forthcoming in the Journal of Buddhist
Philosophy vol. 2, a dedicated volume of panel papers from 12th Seminar of the International
Association of Tibetan Studies, University of British Columbia, 2010, Vancouver, ed. Klaus-
Dieter Mathes. (refereed)

Presentations and Panel Chairs

*Bodhigarbha: Introducing an Early Tibetan Family of Buddha Nature Ideas. Public lecture.
Friday October 17th, 2014. Institute for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies. University of
Vienna.

35
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Uniting the Streams: Epistemological Cross-Currents in the Wake of Tibet’s Great Debate. and
presented at 17th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies in Vienna,
Austria, 18-23 August 2014.

Chaired panel “The Tibetan Samyé Debate: Challenges and Responses” at 17th Congress of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vienna, 18-23 August 2014.

Two Faces of Mahāmudrā: Some ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud Reflections on Yang dgon pa’s
Distinction Between Mahāmudrā in the modes of abiding (gnas lugs phyag chen) and delusion
(’khrul lugs phyag chen). Presented at 13th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Ulaanbaatar, 21-27 July 2013.

Co-chaired Panel “Toward a History of Tibetan Mahāmudrā Traditions” with Prof. Klaus-Dieter
Mathes and Dr. Martina Draszczyk at 13th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Ulaanbaatar, 21-27 July 2013.

*Early Rdzogs chen Buddha Nature Concepts. Public Lecture at International Buddhist
Academy, Bodhnath, Nepal. Sunday, March 24, 2013.

Meditation Trends in the Wake of the Samyé Debate. Rangjung Yeshe Institute, University of
Kathmandu, Bodhnath, Nepal, February, 2013.

Can We Reason Our Way to Enlightenment? A Key Epistemological Issue of the Samyé Debate.
Centre for the Study of Religion in Society (CSRS) Public Lecture Series, University of Victoria,
Canada, January 10, 2013.

The Rdzogs chen “Path Without Progression” (bgrod du med pa’i lam). Presented at 4th
Conference of South and Southeast Asian Association for the Study of Culture and Religion
(SSEASR), Paro, Bhutan, July, 2011.

A Hitherto Unknown Family of Early rDzogs chen Buddha Nature Concepts in Tibet. Presented
at 16th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Dharma Drum Buddhist
College, Taiwan, June, 2011.

A Thematic Overview of Klong chen pa‘s Reply to Questions Concerning Mind and Primordial
Knowing (Sems dang ye shes kyi dris lan): A Classical Rnying ma Treatise on Mind, Buddha
Nature and Meditation. 12th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies,
University of British Columbia, August, 2010.

The Paradox of Progression in Rnying ma Path Hermeneutics: Some Soteriological Implications

of the Mind/Primordial Knowing Distinction. Invited as guest speaker to the Institut für
Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde, University of Vienna, May, 2010.

The Non-Mentation (Skt. Amanasikāra=Tib. Yid la mi byed pa) Doctrine in Indo-Tibetan

Buddhism. Paper presented at 2006 Buddhist Studies Graduate Students Conference at Hsi Lai
Temple in Los Angeles. One of twelve papers selected by Harvard Asian Studies graduate
student committee who organized conference. Respondent: Jonathan Silk.
36
Buddha nature reconsidered: Mi bskyod rdo rje and the post-classical Tibetan tathāgatagarbha debates

Languages

Classical Tibetan, Sanskrit, English

French: reading knowledge.

37