Absence of self nature.pdf

The Development of the Proof of the Absence of Self-Nature from India to Tibet

Seiji KUMAGAI JSPS Research Fellow, Kyoto University

0. Introduction

As Ejima [1980] explains, after Ngrjuna (ca. 150-250), Mdhyamika thinkers demonstrated the

absence of self-nature in various ways. From the period of Kamalala (ca. 740-795), they had a

tendency to merely gather together traditional arguments. Kamalala enumerated "five" traditional

proofs in his Madhyamakloka (M). Contrary to Kamalala, Atia (982-1054) gave "four" proofs.

According to Kumagai [2007b], Tibetan thinkers generally admitted "five" such acceptable proofs,

basing themselves on Kamalala's M. In my recent study I found that in both Tibetan Buddhism

and in the Bon religion, there was also a tradition which accepted only "four" such proofs.

Here we have a question how they have classified the proofs. In this paper we outline the general

history and characteristics of the classification of acceptable proofs for the absence of self-nature in

Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Bon religion.

1. Classification of the acceptable proofs for the absence of self-nature in Indian Buddhism

1-1. Those who accept five such proofs

In his Madhyamakloka (M), Kamalala (ca. 740-795) shows the following "five" acceptable

ways of proving the absence of self-nature in the Mdhyamika school.1

[Proof 1] That which is absolutely separated from the production from itself, another, and

both, and the production without causes has no self-nature as true. For example, a

1 Moriyama [1991] states that the origin of these five proofs is attested in the composed by (Paramrtha, 499-569) so there is a possibility that Kamalala was influenced by .

Draft - Not For Quotation????????

sky flower.2

Kamalala calls this proof "four non-obstructive vajra particles" (rdo rje gzegs ma thogs pa med

pa'i bzhi po).

3

[Proof 2] The result, which has already existed, will not be produced again because its

production is non-sense. [The result], which has not existed yet, will not be

produced too, because horns of rabit would also be produced if it were the case.

Later in Tibet it is called "reasoning of vajra particle" (rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs,

vajrakaahetu*).

4

Kamalala does not give the name of this proof. But later Tibetan thinkers call it "reasoning

which negates production from existence and non-existence" (yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs,

sadasadutpdapratiedhahetu*).

[Proof 3] It is not logical that multiple results are produced from one cause. Neither is it

logical that one result is produced from multiple causes Multiple [results] are

not produced from [multiple] causes Neither is one [result] produced from [one]

cause.5

Kamalala calls this proof "that which is separated from four extremes of production" (mu bzhi

pa'i skye ba dang bral ba nyid).

6

[Proof 4] Whatever is produced dependently is naturally peaceful.

Later in Tibet it is called "reasoning which negates four extremes

of production" (mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs, catukoyutpdapratiedhahetu*). 7

Kamalala does not give the name of this proof. But later Tibetan thinkers call it "reasoning of

interdependence" (rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs, prattyasamutpdahetu*).

[Proof 5] All things are separated from the self-nature of singularity and multiplicity, so they

have no self-nature.8

Kamalala calls this proof "reasoning which is separated from the self-nature of singularity and

multiplicity" (gcig dang du ma'i rang bzhin dang bral ba'i gtan tshigs).

9

2 M [D 190a3, P 208a6-7]: gang dag don dam par rang dang / gzhan dang / gnyi ga las skye ba dang / rgyu med pa las skye ba dang / bral ba de dag ni yang dag par na ngo bo nyid med pa yin te / dper na nam mkha'i padma la sogs pa lta bu'o //

Later in Tibet it is called

"reasoning which is separated from singularity and multiplicity" (gcig dang du bral gyi gtan tshigs,

3 M [D 202a6, P 223a2]. 4 M [D 137b5-6, P 148a8]: gang yang 'bras bu yod pa yang mi skye ste / skye ba don med pa'i

phyir ro // med pa yang ma yin te / ri bong gi rva la sogs pa yang skye bar thal bar 'gyur ba'i phyir ro.

5 M [D 138a4-6, P 148b7-149a2]: gang dag rgyu gcig las kyang 'bras bu du ma skye bar rigs pa ma yin la / du ma las kyang gcig (P. cig) skye bar rigs pa ma yin no // ...... du ma las kyang 'bras bu du ma mi skye ste / ...... gcig las gcig skye ba yang ma yin te /

6 M [D 210b2, P 232b2]. 7 M [D 138b3, P 149a7-149a8]: rten cing 'brel par 'byung ba gang yin pa de ni ngo bo nyid kyis

zhi ba'o. 8 M [D 138b6, P 149b4]: dngos po thams cad ni gcig dang du ma'i rang bzhin dang bral ba'i phyir

rang bzhin med pa'o. 9 M [D 139a7-b1, P 150a8].


eknekaviyogahetu*).

number 5 of the M)

[Proof (iv)] "reasoning of interdependence" (rten cing 'brel par 'byung ba'i gtan tshigs)

[Ngrjuna] said in the logical reasoning of his nyatsaptati and

Mlamadhyamakaklik, etc.: "Self-natures of things are empty."14

(proof number 4 of

the M)

Atia calls the proof number (i) the "reasoning which negates four extremes of production" (mu

bzhi skye ba 'gog pa'i gtan tshigs). But the content of this proof corresponds to the proof number 2 of

the M, which is called later in Tibet the "reasoning which negates existence and non-existence"

(yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs). On the other hand, Atia does not give the proof which

corresponds to the proof number 3 of the M, which is called later in Tibet the "reasoning which

negates four extremes of production" (mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs). That is to say Atia gives the

name "mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs" to the proof of the "yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs." We

must also notice that Atia's four proofs are different from the four proofs of the MRP as we see later.

1-2-2. Four proofs of the Madhyamakrthasagraha (MAS)15

In the MAS there is an expression: "logic of four reasonings such as negation of four extremes of

production" (mu bzhi skye 'gog la sogs pa'i gtan tshigs bzhi yi rigs pa).16

So there was also a

tradition of four proofs before Atia. But it is not sure if the "four proofs" of the MAS are the same or

different from those of Atia, because the MAS only names one of them, the reasoning which negates

four extremes of production (mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs).

1-2-3. Four proofs of the Madhyamakaratnapradpa (MRP)17

The MRP enumerates following four proofs.

[Proof (I)] Thing is not produced from itself, another, both [itself and another], nor

non-cause.18

14 BPP [D 240a7, P 276b7-8]: sTong nyid bdun cu'i rigs pa dang // dBu ma rtsa ba sogs las kyang // dngos po rnams kyi rang bzhin gyi // stong pa nyid ni grub bshad pa //

15 The MAS is regarded to be composed by Bhavya but he seems to be different from Bhviveka (ca. 500-570) who wrote the Madhyamakahdayaklik. According to Ejima [1980: 33] it was composed by one who existed after Jnagarbha (ca. 8th cen.) before Atia, that is to say between the late of eighth century and the beginning of eleventh century.

16 Ejima [1980: 19], D 329b6-7; P 381a2. 17 The MRP is regarded to be composed by Bhavya but he seems to be different from Bhviveka (ca.

500-570). According to Yamaguchi [1972: 267], he is one who is after ntarakita. 18 MRP [P 332b6-332b7]: bdag las mi skye gzhan las min // gnyis las mi skye rgyu med min //


This proof corresponds to the "reasoning of vajra particle" (rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs).

[Proof (II)] Multiple things are never produced from one thing, neither is one thing

produced from multiple things. One thing is not produced from one thing too,

neither are multiple things produced from multiple things.19

This proof corresponds to the "reasoning which negates four extremes of production" (mu bzhi

skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs).

[Proof (III)] Existence is not produced, neither is it logical that non-existence produced. Both

existence and non-existence are not produced, neither is produced that which is

not both.20

This proof corresponds to the "reasoning which negates production from existence and

non-existence" (yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs).

[Proof (IV)] It is not logical that thing exists as single, nor is it logical that thing exists as

multiple. How could thing be found other than single or plural?21

This proof corresponds to the "reasoning which is separated from singularity and multipicity"

(gcig dang du bral gyi gtan tshigs).

These four proofs correspond to those of the M, but lack number 4, the "reasoning of

interdependence" (rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs). These four proofs are therefore different from the four

of Atia, who instead omitted the "reasoning which negates four extremes of production" (mu bzhi

skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs).

1-3. Summary

In Indian Mdhyamika, Kamalala adopted the position of five proofs of the absence of self-nature.

After Kamalala, the tradition of four proofs seems to have become more general than that of five

proofs. However, each thinker did not adopt the same four.

2. Classification of the proofs of the absence of self-nature in Tibetan Buddhism

In Indian Mdhyamika, Kamalala gave five proofs, but the position of four proofs seems to have

been more general than that of five proofs. In Tibetan Buddhism there were both positions of four

19 MRP [P 332b7-332b8]: don dam par ni / gcig las du ma'i dngos mi skye // du mas gcig gi dngos mi skye // gcig las gcig (P. cig) kyang mi skye zhing // du ma las kyang du ma min //

20 MRP [P 332b8-333a1]: yod pa nam yamg mi skye ste // med pa'ang skye bar rigs ma yin // yod dam med pa'ang gnyi ga min // gnyi ga min pa'ang mi skye 'o //

21 MRP [P 333a1-333a2]: dngos po gcig tu mi rigs te // du ma dag tu'ang rigs pa min // gcig dang du ma ma gtogs pa'i // dngos gang rnyed par ga la 'gyur //


and five proofs in the beginning of phyi dar. However, the position of five proofs seems to have

become more general through time.22

Type (A)

In later periods the five proofs were further classified into

three types as follows:

gcig dang du bral, rten 'brel

rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog

Type (B)

rten 'brel

gcig dang du bral, rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog

Type (C): synthesis of Type (A) and Type (B)

rten 'brel (first)

gcig dang du bral (second)

rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog (third)

2-1. Position which accepts five traditional proofs 2-1-1. Classification of Gro lung pa Blo gros 'byung gnas (ca. 1100, bKa' gdams pa)

In his Lam rim rnam bshad Gro lung pa gives "five great reasons" (gtan tshigs chen po lnga)

according to Kamalala.23 Gro lung pa classifies the five proofs in two ways as follows:24

- Classification of Gro lung pa (a): Type (A)

gcig dang du bral, rten 'brel: proof analyzing from the point of view of the self-nature of

things

rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog: proof analyzing from the point of

view of causes and results.

- Classification of Gro lung pa (b): Type (B)

rten 'brel: proof which is the "recognition of pervasion by contradiction" ('gal bas khyab pa

dmigs pa)

gcig dang du bral, rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog: proof which is the

22 Concerning the history of the position of five syllogisms in Tibetan Buddhism, see Kumagai [2007b].

23 Lam rim rnam bshad [408a3]: 'dir slob dpon Ka ma la shi las spros pa'i dra ba ma lus pa 'gog pa'i gtan tshigs chen po lnga gsungs pa ltar phyogs tsam dbye bas rnam par bzhag par bya'o //

24 Lam rim rnam bshad [408a4-6]: lnga nyid du rnam par bzhag pa'i don yang [1] dngos po rnams kyi rang gi ngo bo nyid dang [2] rgyu 'bras kyi sgo nas rnam par dpyod pa'i tshul gnyis las brtsams nas / [1] dang po la don gzhan dgag pas 'gog pa khyab byed mi dmigs pa'i sbyor ba gcig dang du ma dang bral ba dang / don gzhan bsgrub pas 'gog pa 'gal bas khyab pa dmigs pa'i sbyor ba rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs gnyis so // [2] gnyis pa la rgyu rnam par dpyod pa rdo rje gzegs ma dang / 'bras bu rnam par dpyod pa yod med skye ba dgag pa dang / rgyu 'bras gnyi ga rnam par dpyod pa mu bzhi'i skye ba dgag pa gsum ste khyab par byed pa mi dmigs pa nyid do //


"non-recognition of pervasion" (khyab byed mi dmigs pa)

2-1-2. Classification of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419, dGe lugs pa)

Tsong kha pa also classifies five proofs in two ways in his Legs bshad snying po and Legs bshad

gser phreng as follows:

- Classification of the Legs bshad snying po:25

rten 'brel

Type (B)


- Classification of the Legs bshad gser phreng:26

gcig dang du bral etc.: proof which examines self-nature

Type (A)

rdo rje gzegs ma, mu bzhi skye 'gog, etc.: that which examines causes and results

In the latter classification, proofs included in "etc." seem to be rten 'brel and yod med skye 'gog,

which are stated in Legs bshad snying po.

2-1-3. Classification of Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (1367-1449, Sa skya pa)27

In his Rigs lam kun gsal Rong ston synthesizes two classifications (Type A and B), he finally

shows the classification into three (Type C) as follows:28

- Classification of the Rigs lam kun gsal (a): Type (A)

gcig dang du bral, [rten 'brel]: that which decides completely the meaning of emptiness

rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog: that which does not decide

completely the structure of middle way

- Classification of the Rigs lam kun gsal (b): Type (B)

rten 'brel: that which gets rid of both exaggeration of existence and exaggerated denial of

non-existence.

25 Legs bshad snying po [P 140b6-7]: dBu ma snang ba las ni rdo rje gzegs (P gzigs) ma dang yod med skye 'gog dang mu bzhi skye 'gog dang gcig dang du bral yang gsungs la / rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs kyang gsungs te de ni 'gal zla dmigs pa'i rtags so //

26 Legs bshad gser phreng [P 23a3-4]: rigs pa gang gis she na / [1] ngo bo la dpyad nas 'gog pa gcig dang du ma'i ngo bo nyid dang bral ba'i phyir zhes bya ba la sogs pas [2] rgyu la dpyad pa rdo rje gzegs ma 'bras bu la dpyad pa mu bzhi skye 'gog la sogs pa'i tshad ma ste gtan tshigs rnams kyis so //

27 Kumagai [2007a]. 28 Rigs lam kun gsal [13b4-14a1]: de la yod med skye 'gog sogs gsum gyis ni skye ba la bden 'dzin

gyi spros pa tsam gcod par byed kyi / bden pa spyi ldog nas bcad pa med pas dbu ma'i lus yongs su rdzogs par gtan la phab pa min la / gcig dang du bral gyis bden pa spyi ldog nas bkag pas stong pa nyid kyi don rdzogs par gtan la phab pa yin no // 'on kyang gtan tshigs bzhi kas kyang yod pa sgro 'dogs kyi gnyen po byed kyi / med pa skur 'debs kyi gnyen po byed pa min la / rten 'brel gyi rtags kyis ni gnyis ka'i gnyen po byed pas gtan tshigs gzhan las nus pa lhag pa la dgongs nas /


gcig dang du bral, rdo rje gzegs ma, yod med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog: that which gets

rid of the exaggeration of existence but does not get rid of exaggerated denial of

non-existence.

- Classification of the Rigs lam kun gsal (c): Type (C) which is synthesis of Type (A) and (B)

rten 'brel (first)



In the period of Rong ston, the synthesis of the various classifications caused the new

classification of proofs of the absence of self-nature to become more complex.

2-1-4. Classification of lCang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717-1786)

In his lCang skya grub mtha' lCang skya explains five proofs according to different Mdhyamika

schools as follows.

[A] Sautrntikamdhyamika focus the "reasoning which negates the four extremes of production"

(mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs) among five proofs, as seen in Jnagarbha's Satyadvayavibhaga

(SDV).29

[B] Among Yogcramdhyamika thinkers, Kamalala gives five proofs, rdo rje gzegs ma, yod

med skye 'gog, mu bzhi skye 'gog, gcig du bral, and rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs.

30 ntarakita focuses

on the "logic which is separated from singularity and multiplicity" (gcig du bral gyi rigs pa).31

[C] For Prsagikamdhyamika thinkers, the rdo rje gzegs ma,

32 yod med skye 'gog,33 and mu

bzhi skye 'gog34 are the proofs which negate egolessness of phenomena (chos kyi bdag med). The

gcig dang du bral35 and rten 'grel36

29 lCang skya grub mtha' [240.14-16]: spyir 'di pa'i lugs la yang gtan tshigs chen po lnga la sogs pa bzhed pa yin te / rTog ge 'bar bar yang phal che ba gsungs pa'i phyir dang / bDen gnyis rtsa 'grel las kyang mu bzhi skye 'gog nyid rtsal du bton pa'i phyir ro //

are the proofs which negate both egolessness of individual and

30 lCang skya grub mtha' [260.25-261.3]: slob dpon chen po Ka ma la shi'i la'i dBu ma snang ba las ni sems tsam pas dbu ma pa la rgol pa'i tshul mang po zhig gsungs nas de dag gi lan 'chad par lung rigs mang du mdzad pa'i rigs pa'i skabs su rdo rje gzegs ma dang / yod med skye 'gog dang / mu bzhi skye 'gog dang / gcig du bral dang / rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs rnams kyang rgyas par gsungs so //

31 lCang skya grub mtha' [260.16-17]: slob dpon Zhi ba 'tsho dBu ma rgyan las ngo bo la dpyod pa gcig du bral gyi rigs pa nyid rtsal du bton nas 'chad par mdzad cing /

32 lCang skya grub mtha' [293.13]: dang po la / mtha' bzhi'i skye ba 'gog pa'i rdo rje gzegs ma'i rigs pa bshad pa ni /

33 lCang skya grub mtha' [293.3-4]: yod med skye 'gog dang mu bzhi'i skye 'gog ni chos kyi bdag med gtan la 'bebs pa'i rigs pa yin la /

34 lCang skya grub mtha' [293.3-4] yod med skye 'gog dang mu bzhi'i skye 'gog ni chos kyi bdag med gtan la 'bebs pa'i rigs pa yin la /

35 lCang skya grub mtha' [293.4]: gcig du bral ni bdag med gnyis ka la sbyor bar mdzad do // 36 lCang skya grub mtha' [293.10-11]: thun mong du rigs pa'i rgyal po rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs

bshad pa'o //


phenomena (gang zag dang chos kyi bdag med). Then, the rten 'grel is the king of logic (rgyal po'i

rigs pa).37

rten 'brel (first)

Thus, according to lCang skya, Prsagikamdhyamika give the classification of Type

(C) as follows:



2-2. Position which accepts four traditional proofs 2-2-1. Four proofs of Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (beginning of 11th cen.)

We can enumerate following characteristics of Rong zom's four proofs.

- Rong zom has a position of four proofs without the "reasoning which negates the production from

existence and non-existence" (yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs).

- Atia gives substantially the four proofs without the "reasoning which negates four extremes of

production" (mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs), so Atia's four proofs are different from Rong

zom's.

- Rong zom also uses a special name: "[reasoning] of four daggers of middle way" (dbu ma'i phur

bzhi) for the proof of the "reasoning of vajra particle " (rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs)

[3] yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs:47

[4] mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs:

that which negates by examining results. 48

[5] rten cing 'brel 'byung gi gtan tshigs:

that which negates by examining causes and results. 49

that which negates by examining the opposition of

pervader.

2-3. Summary

[1] In Tibetan Buddhism the position of "five proofs" according to Kamalala's M seems to be

general.

[2] However, in early period of phyi dar, there was also a position of "four proofs" such as Rong

zom (beginning of 11th cen.). But Rong zom's four proofs are different from Atia's.

[3] Unlikely to Indian Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhist thinkers classify "five proofs" in two ways.

- Type (A)



- Type (B)

rten 'brel


[4] In the period of Rong ston (1367-1449), Tibetan Buddhist synthesized the classifications of Type

(A) and (B).

- Type (C)

rten 'brel (first)



47 SKKB [Vol. 5: fol. 148a2-3]: gsum pa 'bras bu la rtag pa byas nas 'gog pa yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs ni de nyid las / yod pa yod phyir skye med de / (nyatsaptati, k. 4a) zhes pa dang / Lam sgron las / yod pa skye ba rigs min te / med pa nam mkha'i me tog bzhin / nyes pa gnyis ka thal 'gyur phyir / gnyis ka dag kyang 'byung ba min / (BPP, k. 48) zhes so /

48 SKKB [Vol. 5: fol. 148a3-4]: bzhi pa rgyu 'bras gnyis ka la rtag pa byas nas 'gog pa mu bzhi skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs ni / bDen gnyis las / du mas dngos po gcig mi byed / gcig gis du ma'i dngos mi byed / du mas du ma mi byed cing / gcig gis gcig byed pa yang min / (Satyadvayavibhaga, k. 14) zhes so /

49 SKKB [Vol. 5: fol. 148a4-b1]: lnga pa khyab byed kyi 'gal zla la rtag pa byas nas 'gegs pa rten cing 'brel 'byung gi gtan tshigs ni / dBu ma rtsa ba las / byed po las la brten byas shing / las kyang byed po de nyid la / brten nas 'byung ba ma gtogs pa / grub pa'i rgyu ni yod ma yin / (Mlamadhyamakakrik, chap. 8, k. 12) zhes pa dang / rten cing 'brel 'byung gang yin pa / de ni stong pa nyid du bzhed / (Mlamadhyamakakrik, chap. 24, k. 18ab) ces pa dang / Rigs pa drug cu pa las / de dang de brten gang byung pa / rang gi ngo por de ma skyes / rang gi ngo bor ma skyes gang / de ni skyes zhes ji ltar bya / (Yuktiaik, k. 19) zhes dang / dKon mchog brtsegs pa las gang zhig rkyen las skyes pa de ma skyes / de la skye ba'i rang bzhin yod ma yin / rkyen la rag las gang de stong par bshad / gang zhig stong nyid shes de bag yod yin / zhes so /


[5] lCang skya (1717-1786) gave the classification of five proofs according to different schools such

as Sautrntikamdhyamika, Yogcramdhyamika, and Prsagikamdhyamika.

[6] These detailed classifications are not attested in Indian Mdhyamika treatises, so it seems to be

difficult to apply them directly to the understanding of Indian Mdhyamika treatises.

3. Classification of proofs of the absence of self-nature in the Bon religion

3-1. Four proofs in the Theg rim (rediscovered in the fifth Rab-byung, i.e. 1267-132650

)

The Theg rim refers "four types of proof of great reason" (gtan tshigs chen po'i sbyor ba rnam pa

bzhi). 51

However, it is not sure which the four proofs are. (Its commentary, the Theg 'grel

enumerates each name of the four proofs.)

3-2. Four proofs in the Theg 'grel (rediscovered in the fifth Rab-byung, i.e. 1267-132652

)

The Theg 'grel refers the "six great reasons" (gtan tshig chen po drug). However it gives, in fact,

only the following four: "[reasoning of] great peg of svastika" (g-yung drung gzer chen), "[reasoning

of] great interdependence" (rten 'brel chen po), "[reasoning] which is separated from singularity and

multiplicity" (gcig dang du bral), "[reasoning which] negates production from existence and

non-existence" (yod med skye ba dgag pa).53

The Theg 'grel does not explain the content of each proof, so it is not sure if the "[reasoning of]

great peg of svastika" (g-yung drung gzer chen) indicates the reasoning of vajra particle (rdo rje

gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs) or the reasoning which negates four extremes of production (mu bzhi skye

'gog gi gtan tshigs).

In any case the Theg 'grel's four reasons are different from Rong zom's four reasons which lack

the "reasoning which negates production from existence and non-existence" (yod med skye 'gog gi

gtan tshigs).

50 Karmay [1972: 152n2]. 51 Theg rim [375.3-5]: Thugs rje chen po sems dpa'i theg pa ni // gtan tshigs chen po'i sbyor ba

rnam pa bzhis // We must notice that the Thugs rje chen po sems dpa'i theg pa corresponds to Buddhist Yogcra

school. (See Mimaki [1994: 130, 132]). 52 Karmay [1972: 152n2]. 53 Theg 'grel [450.6-451.2]: gtan tshigs chen po drug gis 'gegs pa ste / spros pa'i rgyu la gnod pa

gtong ba g-yung drung gzer chen dang / rten 'brel chen po dang / spros pa rang gi ngo bo la gnod pa gtong ba gcig dang du bral dang 'bras bu la gnod pa gtong ba yod med skye ba dgag pa'o /


3-3. Four proofs of mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1356-1415)

In his Sa lam rang 'grel, mNyam med classifies four proofs as follows:54

gcig dang du bral gyi rtags

This is the classification

Type (B).

yang dag par 'brel yul 'gog pa g-yung drung gzer chen gyi rtags

yod med skye 'gog gi rtags

tha snyad du 'gal zlar bsgrub pa rten 'brel chen po'i gtan tshig

The "reasoning of great peg of svastika" (g-yung drung gzer chen gyi rtags): non-production from

itself, another, both itself and another, and without causes.55

This reasoning corresponds to the

"reasoning of vajra particle" (rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs). That is way mNyam med admits four

proofs, omitting the reasoning which negates production from existence and non-existence (yod med

skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs). His four proofs are the same with Atia's, but different from Rong zom's.

3-4. Summary

In Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, both four and five proof systems were accepted. However, in the

Bon tradition, only the position which accepts four proofs is so far attested. Buddhist "reasoning of

vajra particle" (rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs) is called the "reasoning of great peg of svastika"

(g-yung drung gzer chen gi rtags) in the Bon tradition. Four proofs of the Theg 'grel and mNyam

med correspond to the Indian Buddhist Atia's, but different from the Tibetan Buddhist Rong zom's.

mNyam med separates the "reasoning of interdependence" (rten 'brel gi gtan tshigs) from the other

proofs, that is the classification Type (B). Thus, Bonpo thinkers created their own classifications of

54 Arguillre [2006: 317.16-19]: gnyis pa rigs pas bsgrub pa la gnyis te / yang dag par 'brel yul 'gog pa dang / tha snyad du 'gal zlar bsgrub pa'o / dang po la gsum ste / ngo bo dang / rgyu dang / 'bras bu la brtag ste rang bzhin med par bsgrub pa'o /

Arguillre [2006: 317.19-22]: dang po ni / gcig dang du bral gyi rtags kyi bsgrub ste / snang ba bon can / bden dngos kyis stong zhing rang bzhin med pa yin te /

Arguillre [2006: 318.3-8]: gnyis pa rgyu la brtag pa ni / g-yung drung gzer chen gyi rtags 'god de /

Arguillre [2006: 318.28-319.3]: gsum pa 'bras bu la brtag pa la / yod med skye 'gog gi rtags 'god pa ni /

Arguillre [2006: 319.8-10]: gnyis pa tha snyad du 'gal zlar bsgrub pa la / rten 'brel chen po'i gtan tshigs 'god pa ni /

55 Arguillre [2006: 318.3-8]: gnyis pa rgyu la brtag pa ni / g-yung drung gzer chen gyi rtags 'god de / snang ba tsam bon can / rang las skye ba la sogs te / skye ba'i mu bzhi dag dang bral ba'i phyir / skye ba'i rang bzhin du yod pa ni ma yin no / dpe ji ltar zhe na sgyu ma'i rta glang ni / rang las kyang ma skyes / gzhan las kyang ma skyes / rang gzhan gnyis ka las kyang ma skyes / rgyu med pa las kyang ma skyes pa bzhin no /


proofs of the absence of self-nature, by adopting parts of various classifications of Indian and

Tibetan Buddhist thinkers.

4. Conclusions

Now we summarize characteristics of the classification of proofs of the absence of self-nature in

Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Bon religion, which are examined in this paper.

[1] Indian Mdhyamika

- There are both positions of five proofs such as Kamalala and four proofs such as Atia.

- The tradition of four proofs seems to be more general than that of five proofs.

- Each thinker adopts different four proofs.

We can therefore say that Indian Mdhyamika thinkers enumerated representative proofs but they

did not classify them in detail.

[2] Tibetan Buddhism

- There existed both four and five proofs at the beginning of phyi dar, but the position of five proofs

seem to be more general.

- The four proofs of Tibetan Buddhism are different from those of Indian Buddhism.

- Fundamentally there are following two types of basic classification in Tibetan Buddhism:

- Type (A)



- Type (B)

rten 'brel


- In the period of Rong ston (1367-1449), Tibetan Buddhist synthesized the classifications of Type

(A) and (B).

- Type (C)

rten 'brel (first)



- lCang skya (1717-1786) gave the classification of five proofs according to schools such as

Sautrntikamdhyamika, Yogcramdhyamika, and Prsagikamdhyamika.

Thus, Tibetan Buddhist thinkers seem to have classified proofs in detail, so the classification

became more complex.


[3] Bonpo

- In the Bon tradition, only the position of four proofs is so far attested.

- Bonpos' four proofs correspond to Atia's but they are different from Rong zom's.

- mNyam med separates the reasoning of interdependence (rten 'brel gi gtan tshigs) from the other

proofs. (Type B)

Bonpo thinkers thus seem to have created their own theories, by adopting partially various

classifications of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist thinkers.

BGM Bonpo Grub mtha' Material, Six Texts Including the Bon sgo gsal byed and the Theg rim

mdo rgyud Commentary of Tre-ston Rgyal-mtshan-dpal on the Establishment of the

Philosophical Base of Bon, Dolanji: Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1978.

D Tibetan Tripiaka, sDe dge Edition.

Otani The Tibetan Tripitaka Catalogue and Index, Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1961.

(repr. The Tibetan Tripitaka Catalogue and Index, Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1985.)

P Tibetan tripiaka, Peking edition.

Tohoku A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. edited by Hakuju Ui, Munetada

Suzuki, Yensh Kanakura, and Tkan Tada, Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University, 1934.

[Indian sources]

BMDP Atia: Bodhimrgadpapajik. Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma'i 'grel pa. D: Tohoku No.

3948; P: Otani No. 5344.

BPP Atia: Bodhipathapradpa. Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma. D: Tohoku No. 3947, 4465; P:

Otani No. 5343, 5378.

M Kamalala: Madhyamakloka; dBu ma snang ba. D: Tohoku No. 3887; P: Otani No. 5287.

MAS Bhavya: Madhyamakrthasagraha; dBu ma'i don bsdus pa. Tib. ed. Ejima [1980, 18-23];

D: Tohoku No. 3857; P: Otani No. 5258.

MRP Bhavya. Madhyamakaratnapradpa; dBu ma rin po che'i sgrom ma. D: Tohoku No. 3854; P:

Otani No. 5254.

[Tibetan sources]

Grub mtha'i brjed byang Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (11th century): lTa ba dang grub mtha' sna


tshogs pa brjed byang du bgyis pa. (Edition) [1] Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung 'bum, Khreng

tu'u: Si khrin mi rigs dpe skrun khang, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 197-231. [2] Selected Writings of

Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po, Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, vol. 73, Leh, 1974, pp. 333-414.

lCan skya grub mtha' lCan skya Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717-1786): Grub pa'i mtha' rnam par bzhag pa

bshad pa thub bstan lhun po'i mdzes rgyan. (Edition) [1] Grub mtha' thub bstan lhun po'i

mdzes rgyan, Krung-go: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1989. [2] Sarnath ed.:

1970, 545 p. [3] Pekin ed.: Cat. Univ. Tokyo No. 86-88, cf. Loksh Chandra ed., Buddhist

Philosophical Systems, atapiaka vol. 233, New Delhi, 1977. [4] Ser byes ed.: Cat. Univ.

Tokyo No. 82-85.

rJe btsun phar phyin Se ra rje btsun pa Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1469-1546): Phar phyin skabs

dang po'i spyi don skal bzang klu dbyang gi rol mtsho, Taipei: The Corporate Copy of the

Buddha Educational Foundation, 2004.

sTong thun chen mo mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzang po (1385-1438). Zab mo stong pa nyid

kyi de kho na nyid rab tu gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos sKal bzang mig 'byed. lHa sa ed.:

Tsultrim [2001]. fols. 1-106b (pp. 460-531); Tsultrim [2003]. fols. 106a-235a (pp. 494-580).

bKra is lhun po ed.: rJe yab sras gsum gsung 'bum. Vol. 27. Collected Works of Lord

mKhas-grub-rje dge-legs-dpal-bzang-po. Vol. 1. Dharmasala. 1998. fols. 1-179a (pp.

127-483).

Theg 'grel Unknown authorship (rediscovered in the fifth Rab byung, i.e. 1267-1326): Theg pa'i

rim pa mngon du bshad pa'i mdo rgyud kyi 'grel pa. BGM, pp. 387-599.

Theg rim Unknown authorship (rediscovered in the fifth Rab byung, i.e. 1267-1326): Theg pa'i

rim pa mngon du bshad pa'i mdo rgyud kyi 'grel pa. BGM, pp. 369-385.

Rigs lam kun gsal Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (1367-1449). dBu ma rigs pa'i tshogs kyi dka' ba'i

gnad bstan pa Rigs lam kun gsal. Dehradun. 1985. fols. 1-69a (pp.1-137).

Lam rim rnam bshad Gro lung pa Blo gros 'byung gnas (ca. 1100). bDe bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa

rin po che la 'jug pa'i lam gyi rim pa rnam par bshad pa, cha gnyis pa, bcug pa snga ba.

ACIP. SE0070-2.

Legs bshad snying po Tsong kha ba Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419). Drang ba dang nges pa'i


don rnam par phye ba'i bstan bcos Legs bshad snying po. The Collected Works (gSung

'bum) of rje Tsong-kha-pa, Reproduced from an Example of the Old Bkra-shis-lhun-po

Redaction from the Library of Klu-'khyil Monastery of Ladakh, by Ngawang ngelek Demo.

Vol. 21. New Delhi. 1979. fols. Pha 1-119a; P: Otani No. 6142. 86a-188a.

Legs bshad gser phreng Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419). Shes rab kyi pha rol tu

phyin pa'i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa'i rgyan 'grel pa dang bcas pa'i rgya

cher bshad pa Legs bshad gser gyi phreng ba. P: Otani No. 6150.

[Secondary sources]

Arguillire, S.

[2006] "mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan et la scolastique bon au tournant du XIVe et du XVe

sicles : prsentation de la Prodigieuse lampe des terres et des voies," Acta Orientalia,

vol. 67, pp. 243-323.

Ejima, Y.

[1980] Chganshis no Tenkai: Bhvaviveka Kenky (Development of Mdhyamika Philosophy

in India: Studies on Bhvaviveka) Tokyo: Shunjusha Publishing Company.

[1983] "Ata no Nishinrisetsu" (Ata's Two Truths Theory), Rju Kygaku no Kenky (Study

on Ngrjuna's Philosophy) edited by T. Mibu, Tokyo: Daiz Shuppan Co., pp. 359-91.

Karmay, S. G.

[1972] The Treasury of Good Sayings, A Tibetan History of Bon, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kumagai, S.

[2007a] "La Classification des Cinq Dmonstrations de la Vacuit (nyat) par Ro ston,"

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 1040-1043.

[2007b] "Kusho Mujishosei Ronsho no Bunrui: 11 Seiki kara 15 Seiki made no Tibetto Bunken

wo Chushin ni" (The Classification of Proofs of Emptiness and Absence of Self-nature),

Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies, Vol. 53, pp. 11-24.

[forthcoming] "The Two Truths Theory in Tibetan Grub mtha' treatises," Revue d'Etudes

Tibtaines. (Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of Young Tibetologists)

Mimaki, K.

[1994] "Doxographie tibtaine et classifications indiennes," Bouddhisme et cultures locales -


Quelques cas de rciproques adaptations, Paris: cole franaise d'Extrme-Orient, pp.

115-136.

Moriyama, S.

[1991] "Madhyamakloka no Mujishosei Ronsho to Busshoron," Journal of Indian and

Buddhist Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 108-113.

Miyazaki, I.

[2005] "Atia no Ronrigaku ni Taisuru Tachiba," Tetsugaku Kenkyu (The Journal of

Philosophical Studies), Vol. 580, pp. 15-37.

Tshultrim, K.

[2001] Tsong kha pa Chugan Tetsugaku no Kenkyu III (A Study on the Philosophy of Tsong kha

pa III), Kyoto: Buneido.

[2003] Tsong kha pa Chugan Tetsugaku no Kenkyu IV (A Study on the Philosophy of Tsong kha

pa IV), Kyoto: Buneido.

Yamaguchi, S.

[1972] "Chuganha ni Okeru Chugansetsu no Kouyousho," Yamagushi Susumu Bukkyogaku

Bunshu, Vol. 1, pp. 249-318, Tokyo: Shunjusha.


Documents

Absence of self nature.pdf