!

"#$%
!&'()*+ &- ./0 ").0()*.1&)*+
#22&31*.1&) &- $'44/12. %.'4102
5&+'60 78 9'6:0( ;<8 8==> ?8=;=@
!"#$%
!&'()*+ &- ./0 ").0()*.1&)*+
#22&31*.1&) &- $'44/12. %.'4102
5&+'60 78 9'6:0( ;<8 8==> ?8=;=@
!"#$%&'#()
HU Hayan VON HINUBLR
In memoriam, !"# Ji Xianlin (6. August 1911 11. Juli
2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
*'$#+,()
James A. BLNN
The silent sa"gha: Some observations on mute sheep monks. . . 11
Vincent LLTSCHINGLR
Ignorance, epistemology and soteriology

Part I . . . . . . . . 39
Frances GARRLTT
Eating letters in the Tibetan treasure tradition . . . . . . . . . . 85
Sarah H. JACOBY
This inferior female body:' Re!ections on life as a Tibetan
visionary through the autobiographical eyes of Se ra mkha'
'gro (bde ba'i rdo rje, 18921940). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Andrew MCGARRITY
#ryadeva's gradual stages: Their transmission from India to
Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Jan-UIrich SOBISCH
Interpreting the tantras: A Tibetan debate on the numbers of
adepts admissible to tantric consecration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Contents
2
-#"($&. )+01,&)$#+#)2 #. $0( 33
$0
&.4 35
$0
+(.$%'#()
Contributions to a paneI at the XV
th
Congress of the InternationaI
Association of Buddhist Studies, AtIanta, 2328 June 2008
Guest editors: PascaIe Hugon and Kevin Vose
PascaIe HUGON and Kevin VOSL
Introduction Unearthing the foundations of Tibetan Bud-
dhist philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Kazuo KANO
r$og Blo ldan %es rab's position on the Buddha-nature doc-
trine and its in!uence on the early gSa& phu tradition . . . . . . 249
Kevin VOSL
Making and remaking the ultimate in early Tibetan readings
of '(ntideva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
PascaIe HUGON
The origin of the theory of de"nition and its place in Phya pa
Chos kyi se& ge's philosophical system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Jonathan STOLTZ
Phywa pa's argumentative analogy between factive assess-
ment (yid dpyod) and conceptual thought (rtog pa) . . . . . . . . 369
Georges DRLYFUS and Drongbu TSLRING
Pa tshab and the origin of Pr(sa&gika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Thomas DOCTOR
In pursuit of transparent means of knowledge The Madhya-
maka project of rMa bya Bya& chub brtson )grus . . . . . . . . 419
Chizuko YOSHIMIZU
*a& Tha& sag pa on theses (dam bca), pratij() in Madhya-
maka thought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
Interpreting the tantras
A Tibetan debate on the numbers of adepts
admissibIe to tantric consecration
Jan-UIrich Sobisch
It is a commonpIace to caII Tibetan Buddhism (a form of) tantric
Buddhism and to view it as a continuation (in some way) of Indian
tantric Buddhism. Yet it becomes increasingIy cIear these days that
Tibetan tantric Buddhism was not a sIavish copy of Indian tantric
Buddhism. Many experts wiII agree that Tibetan tantric masters
deveIoped their own particuIar styIes, to say the Ieast. The Tibetan
hand-writing is above aII conspicuous in these masters` attempts
to systematize the tantric teachings of India, which on occasion
have toned down some of the more eccentric aspects and promoted
some minor cuIts to mainstream, but overaII have caused what once
might have appeared as a congIomerate of cuIts to be more coher-
ent and, in fact, more uniform. At the same time, each Tibetan tra-
dition wiII cIaim, foIIowing its most prominent masters, that they
preserve faithfuIIy the Indian Buddhist tradition, without decrease
and increase and without insertions and deIetions (`phri snan dang
lhag chad med par).
1

As historians, we deaI not onIy with a (singIe) Tibetan ap-
proach to Indo-Buddhist tantrism, but aIso with how the Tibetan
traditions debated their own diverse ways to go about the matter.
InevitabIy, we aIso have to consider the way we ourseIves deaI
with this compIex of probIems. I have discussed eIsewhere the ap-
1
See for exampIe, for the cIaim of Sa-skya Pa!"ita (11821251, hence-
forth Sa-pa!) to continue the authentic Indian tradition of schoIarship,
GoId 2007, and the present author`s review of it (Sobsich 2009), where
some of the tensions between the Sa-skya-pas and bKa`-brgyud-pas ap-
proaches are brie!y discussed together with the academic approach to
such probIems.
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
VoIume 32 Number 12 2009 (2010) pp. 213234
214 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
proaches in particuIar that the Sa-skya-pa and the `Bri-gung bKa`-
brgyud-pa traditions took to the coexistence of tantric vows with
the pr(timok+a and bodhisattva vows in a singIe mentaI continuum,
and to the tantric practice of mah(mudr(.
2
With the present paper
and a pIanned series of future articIes I wouId Iike to deepen this
Iine of investigation, focusing on a variety of aspects of Sa-skya-
pa and the `Bri-gung bKa`-brgyud-pa approaches to Indian tantric
Buddhism, searching for contested areas and trying to describe and
anaIyze the di#erent views and resuIting programs, and the trans-
formations that Indian tantric Buddhism has undergone on its way
to becoming the tantric traditions of Tibet. It is quite obvious that
much promising materiaI can be found in those works of Tibetan
Buddhism where the authors identify and attack the position of op-
ponents and estabIish their own views. Among such works, two
stand out with their commentaries as the most outspoken ones in
these respects, nameIy Sa-pa!`s sDom gsum rab dbye, which is by
now weII known to interested audiences in the West,
3
and the as
yet much Iesser known dGongs gcig of the `Bri-gung-pa sKyob-
pa `Jig-rten-mgon-po (11431217), a chief discipIe of sGam-po-pa`s

(10791153) master discipIe Phag-mo-gru-pa (11101170).
4
The probIem that I wouId Iike to discuss in the present paper
may seem to be a tri!e one, yet I beIieve that by investigating the
di#erent procedures of the parties invoIved in the debate, we may
be abIe to gIean some particuIars of what may be a Sa-skya-pa and
a `Bri-gung-pa approach not, however, in the sense of a uniform
method that serves as a singuIar key to the understanding of a tradi-
tion, but rather as parts of thought patterns that are characteristic
for them. We can certainIy aIso not expect totaI uniformity within
these two traditions. In fact by contrasting Sa-pa!`s approach with
that of gSer-mdog Pa!-chen Sh$kya mChog-Idan (14281507),
2
Cf. Sobisch 2002 and Sobisch, forthcoming.
3
This Tibetan cIassic was transIated by Rhoton (2002).
4
For a few remarks on the dGongs gcig see Martin 1997, van der
Kuijp 1987, Liu 2002, and chapter 14 of Sobisch 2002. The dGongs gcig
is now in the focus of a research project by Khenpo RangdroI and myseIf,
see http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/.
Interpreting the tantras 215
we aIready reaIize some of the tensions that exist within the Sa-
skya tradition. The subject of the debate under investigation, i.e.
the number of adepts to be admitted to tantric consecration (Skr.
abhi+eka, Tib. dbang bskur), is mentioned by Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-
grags-pa

(15951659) in his commentary of the second topic of the
"fth chapter of the dGongs gcig.
5
This particuIar passage starts
with a quotation from the sDom gsum rab dbye of Sa-skya Pa!"i-
ta, chapter three, verses 21c25b (in Rhoton`s edition of the text),
where Sa-pa! says:
When they perform tantric consecration
they bestow it on an unspeci"ed number of [of adepts|.
This was prohibited by Vajradhara.
With regard to the tantric consecration of the cary( tantras
an unspeci"ed number of discipIes was taught.
[But| there exists [the teaching| of a speci"ed number
with regard to the speci"caIIy seIected discipIes [of| the remaining
[tantras|.
The foIIowing is taught in the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra:
`The skiIIed [master| admits odd numbers of discipIes
such as one, three, "ve, seven [and so forth| up to twenty-"ve.
It is not auspicious to admit
a Iarger number of discipIes [for tantric consecration|.`
sngags kyi dbang skur byed pa na //
grangs nges med par dbang skur byed //
`di ni rdo rje `chang gis bkag //
spyod pa`i rgyud kyi dbang bskur la //
slob ma grangs nges med par gsungs //
lhag ma dmigs bsal mdzad pa yi //
slob ma la ni grangs nges yod //
`di ni gsang ba spyi rgyud las //
mkhas pas slob ma gcig gam gsum //
lnga`am yang na bdun dag gam //
ni shu rtsa
a
ni lnga yi bar //
5
`Bri-gung Dharma K&rti, dGongs gcig `grel ba nyi ma`i snang ba,
MaryIand: Drikung Kagyu Meditation Center, pp. 24648; and The
Collected Works (gSung `bum) of Kun-mkhyen Rig-pa-`dzin-pa Chen-po
Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute 1999, voI. 3, pp.
207.
216 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
zung du ma gyur slob ma gzung
b
//
de bas
c
lhag pa`i slob ma ni
d
//
yongs su gzung
e
bar mi shis so //
Variant readings in P (Peking Tripitaka):
a
dag,
b
bzung,
c
las,
d
dag,
e
bzung
First of aII, neither the sDom gsum rab dbye nor the commentaries
by Go-rams-pa (14291489)
6
and Sh$kya mChog-Idan
7
identify Sa-
pa!`s opponents in this instance. There are, however, some indica-
tions that the practice that is criticized by him was widespread not
onIy among bKa`-brgyud-pa and rNying-ma-pa Iamas, but prob-
abIy aIso among the Sa-skya-pas themseIves. In this passage, Sa-
pa! makes three cIaims:
1. In the cary( tantras it is (under certain preconditions) permitted to
bestow tantric consecration to an unspeci"ed number of discipIes.
2. In the tantras of aII other tantra cIasses, Iower and higher than
cary(, this is prohibited.
3. The reason is that in the non-cary( tantras one has to foIIow the S(-
m(n ya vidhi guhya tantra (a kriy( tantra),
8
which states that tantric
consecration shouId onIy be bestowed on odd numbers of discipIes
such as "ve or seven and so forth, and that the maximum number
of discipIes is twenty-"ve.
6
Go-rams-pa bSod-nams-seng-ge authored six commentaries of
the sDom gsum rab dbye, which are identi"ed and brie!y described in
Sobisch 2002: 2830. For the present articIe I have used his sDom pa
gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba`i rnam bshad rgyal ba`i gsung rab kyi dgongs
pa gsal ba, Sa skya pa`i bka` `bum, The CompIete Works of the Great
Masters of the Sa-skya-pa Sect of the Tibetan Buddhism, voI. 14/4, pp.
119199 (short: sDom gsum rnam bshad). This work was written in 1463
at `Bras-yuI rDzong-dkar sKyed-mo-tshaI. It is a detaiIed exposition that
foIIows Sa-pa!`s sDom gsum rab dbye verse by verse. For a detaiIed out-
Iine of its subject-headings (sa bcad), see Appendix B of Sobisch 2002.
7
For some detaiIs on Sh$kya mChog-Idan`s repIies to (his own) 108
questions on the sDom gsum rab dbye, see beIow.
8
dKyil `khor thams cad kyi spyi`i cho ga gsang ba`i rgyud (Sarvama,-
-a las(m(nyavidhiguhyatantra), P 9/429, 42-5-4 / 52-5-5.
Interpreting the tantras 217
As is weII known, the cary( tantra cIass is, according to the most
wide-spread cIassi"cation system of the Iater transIation period, the
second Iowest of the four tantra cIasses.
9
Why is the practice of
bestowing tantric consecration on any possibIe number of disci-
pIes permitted in the cary( tantras? In his sDom gsum rnam bshad
(foI. 90r), the commentator Go-rams-pa bSod-nams Seng-ge quotes
from the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra (P voI. 5, no. 126, 245-1-1):
10
More [adepts| than one, two, four [etc.| are possibIe, since
11
one does
not need to investigate [them|, admit [aII discipIes|!
And (foI. 90rf., P voI. 5, no. 126, 245-2-2):
12
9
Di#erent Indian masters such as Abhay$karagupta, Buddhaguhya,
Vi I$ savajra, '$ntipa, N$g$rjuna, Vajrap$!i, and Ati(a have suggested
cIassi"cation systems with two up to seven tantra cIasses. For a brief over-
view according to Kong-spruI BIo-gros-mtha`-yas` Shes bya kun khyab
mdzod, see Sobisch 2002: 57 #. For a recent transIation of that passage,
see Lodr Taye 2005: 8993. For further remarks on the cIassi"cation of
the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra, see aIso beIow.
10
For the Tibetan text (in context), see the boId passage two notes fur-
ther down. For the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra, see Sobisch 2002: n.
518 and Hodge 2003 (this passage on p. 93); and Wayman and Tajima
1992.
11
I transIate here Go-rams-pa`s variant reading (dpyad mi dgos pas).
The tantra reads: dpyad mi dgos par.
12
In Hodge (2003: 96); Wayman and Tajima (1998, repr.: 120). The
reIevant passage in P Iooks Iike this (P voI. 5, no. 126, 244-5-8): slob ma
dad cing rigs btsun pa // de bzhin dkon mchog gsum (245-1-1) la dad //
zab mo yi ni blo dang ldan // spro ba chen zhing tshul khrims ldan // bzod
dang ldan zhing ser sna med // dpa` la yid dam brtan pa ni // bcu`am
brgyad dam bdun nam lnga // !"#! !%&#' ()*# +,' +*,! -&,%! ./%! // 01&,0
2# 0!3' 1,. !)/%! (,. (&, // . (245-1-3): gsang ba`i bdag po / `on ky-
ang dkyil `khor rgyas pa `di ni / sems can gyi khams ma nges pa yongs
su bskyab pa`i phyir snying rje chen po`i snying po `byung ba zhes bya
ste / de ni de bzhin gshegs pa rnams kyis bskal pa grangs med par bla na
med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa`i byang chub yang dag par bsgrubs pa
byin gyis brlabs so / gsang ba`i bdag po / de lta bas na rnam grangs `dis
kyang / khyod kyis `di ltar de bzhin gshegs pa rnams ni sems can gcig gi
phyir byang chub mngon par rdzogs par `tshang rgyab ma yin / gnyis kyi
218 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
In order to take [the bestowing of tantric consecration| as a cause
for the resoIve for awakening (bodhicitta), they shouId admit IimitIess
sentient beings!
The Indian master Buddhaguhya, who Iived in the 8th century and
visited Tibet, taught that the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhitantra does
two things:
1. It occasionaIIy teaches means that accord with the kriy( tantras
(which are directed outward to an objective support), but
2. is actuaIIy a yoga tantra that teaches the profound and vast.
Therefore, according to Buddhaguhya`s system of tantra cIassi"ca-
tions (that incIuded two cIasses, and according to some exegetes
a third that appears to be a combination of kriy( and yoga), the
Vai ro can(bhi sa" bodhi tantra beIongs to the yoga or to the ubhay(
tantra cIass (which combines the two).
13
According to the system of
Bu-ston (with four categories), it beIongs to the cary( tantra cIass
(Way man and Tajima 1992: 97 f.) and is its prime exampIe. Go-
rams-pa quotes this tantra here to show that the chief tantra of the
cary( cIass teaches that one does not need to investigate the disci-
pIes when bestowing tantric consecration and that one makes the
admittance to the tantric consecration of IimitIess sentient beings
the cause for the production of the resoIve for awakening (bodhi-
citta). For some reason that is not made expIicit by either Sa-pa!
phyir ma yin / gsum gyi phyir ma yin / `on kyang thugs rje chen po`i dbang
du gyur pa dag sems can gyi khams ma lus pa yongs su bskyab pa`i phyir
byang chub tu mngon par rdzogs par `tshang rgya ste / de dag gis sems
can gyi khams rnam pa du ma la bsam pa ci lta ba bzhin du / sems can
rnams la cho `chad par rig par bya`o // gsang ba (!) ba`i bdag po / theg pa
chen po la goms par ma byas pa rnams ni gsang sngags spyod pa`i tshul
mthong ngam thos na sems la dga` ba `am / dad pa cung zad kyang yang
dag par mi skye yi / gsang ba`i bdag po / gang dag gis sngon theg pa chen
po gsang sngags spyad pa`i (245-2-1) tshul sgo mtha` yas bsgrubs pa la
goms par byas pa de dag ni rdo rje sems dpa` yin te / de rnams nyid kyi
don gyi phyir grangs kyi tshad `di byas so // `on kyang slob dpon snying rje
chen po dang ldan pas sems can gyi khams ma lus pa bsgral par yi dam
bca` ba kho nar bya ste 04' (&,%! "*/( -&# '42' -&# .!&/. `!&/. (,. (&,
(,`# 1*&#. '42' ",% 5'*,0 240 1, .%,2' &3%!' '/ !)/%! (,. (&,`3 //
13
Cf. Hodge 2003: 43 and DaIton 2005: 122f.
Interpreting the tantras 219
or Go-rams-pa, this ruIe onIy appIies to tantras of the cary( cIass,
but not to the (Iower) kriy( or the (higher) yoga. The ruIe of the
S( m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, however, which is quoted in the sDom
gsum rab dbye, is according to the Sa-pa! to be appIied to aII other
tantras (3.25c: `di ni kun la `jug), except, however, those of the
cary( cIass.
But why is the ruIe of the cary( tantra not to be appIied to the
other cIasses as weII? After aII the Vairocan(bhisa"bodhi tantra
refers to bodhicitta, which is one of the most important principIes
of mah(y(na practice in the yoga and highest yoga tantras. And
why is this principIe of bodhicitta overruIed by an instruction from
a kriy( tantra, which is the Iowest of the four tantra cIasses, into
which the tantras are most usuaIIy divided in Tibetan Buddhism?
Both Sa-pa! and Go-rams-pa refer to this probIem onIy indirectIy.
In order to estabIish that the ruIe of the kriy( tantra has to be ap-
pIied to aII other tantras (except cary(), the sDom gsum rab dbye
(3.28a30b) and Go-rams-pa`s sDom gsum rnam bshad (foI. 90v)
argue by quoting another passage from the same S(m(nya vidhi-
guhya tantra (P 9/429, 51-5-4):
If you think: `Since this is a kriy( tantra,
[the ruIe| doesn`t [appIy to| rituaIs [of| other [tantra cIasses|,`
[we repIy|: In the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra itseIf it is taught
that it appIies aIso to aII others:
`In those [tantras| where there are activities,
but activity rituaIs are Iacking,
there the skiIIed master reIies on the rituaI
that was taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?).`
Since this has been taught, this rituaI
is appIied to aII tantras.
[P: Where there are activities,
but own activity-rituaIs are Iacking,
there the skiIIed master shouId perform
those activities that are taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?).|
`di ni bya ba`i rgyud yin pas //
gzhan gyi cho ga min snyam na //
gzhan rnams kun la`ang `di `jug par //
spyi rgyud nyid las `di skad gsungs //
gang du las ni yod gyur la //
220 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
las kyi cho ga rnams med pa //
der ni spyi yi rgyud dag las //
gsungs pa`i cho ga mkhas pas bsten //
de skad gsungs phyir cho ga `di //
rgyud rnams kun la `jug pa yin //
[P: gang du las ni yod `gyur la //
rang gi las kyi cho ga med //
der ni mkhas pas spyi rgyud las //
gsungs pa`i las rnams bya ba yin|
The passage from the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is a paraphrase,
not an exact quote. It poses as it is a number of probIems that can-
not be addressed here. Given the frequency with which the tantra is
quoted in Tibetan sources and the importance that is attached to it,
a detaiIed study of this text wouId certainIy be warranted. Of con-
siderabIe interest in our context, however, is Sa-pa!`s remark (i.e.
the Iast two Iines of the above quote), according to which the rituaI
of this tantra is to be appIied to aII tantras. The above cited tantra
passage In those [tantras| where there are activities, but activity
rituaIs are Iacking, (.), is understood by Sa-pa! as meaning that
in those tantras that require activities, but are Iacking proper rituaIs
of tantric consecration of their own, the tantric consecration rituaI
of the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is to be used. The word tantra is
suppIied in my transIation according to Go-rams-pa`s further para-
phrase, which aIso adds the speci"cations Iacking cIarity and
tantric consecration (sDom gsum rnam bshad, 90v):
In those tantras possessing activities such as tantric consecration, but
the activity rituaIs are Iacking cIarity, there .
rgyud !,%! 0/ dbang bskur ba la sogs pa`i +,' 6%#7 &30 par !&/. +, /
+,' -&# "*3 !, .%,2' gsal po 240 1, 04. %# .
The tantra itseIf, far Iess expIicitIy, mereIy seems to state that ac-
tivity rituaIs missing in other tantras shouId be suppIied from the
s(m(nya tantra(s?) (here referring to itseIf?),
14
and in this context
14
One question is indeed, what is meant by the tantra`s statement spyi
rgyud las gsungs pa`i las rnams. In its fuIIer version, the name of the
tantra is dKyil `khor thams cad kyi '1&#`i cho ga gsang ba`i .!&/0, where
spyi is reIated to cho ga, and not to rgyud. The short version of the name,
however, is (as found in Tibetan texts) gSang ba '1&# .!&/0, but the short
Interpreting the tantras 221
it is taken for granted by Sa-pa! and Go-rams-pa that this tantra`s
restrictions concerning the numbers of discipIes admitted to the
rituaI of tantric consecration shouId be appIied to tantras of other
classes. By mereIy quoting this very brief and indeed cryptic pas-
sage even with Sa-pa!`s and Go-rams-pa`s creative interpretation
the doubts whether rituaIs from a kriy( tantra are appIicabIe to
other tantra cIasses do not seem to have been soIved. And further-
more, if Sa-pa!`s statement is appIied to aII tantras aIIows for
the exception of the whoIe cIass of cary( tantras from this ruIe,
then why can the tantras of higher cIasses, such as of the yoga and
highest yoga tantra cIass, which certainIy empIoy the principIe of
form spyi rgyud is in this sense, as far as I can see, nowhere eIse attested
in the tantra. The question is therefore, whether spyi rgyud las gsungs is
an instance of seIf-reference (taught in the s(m(nya tantra), or whether
it is to be understood as taught in the generaI tantras (understanding
spy#`# rgyud). CuriousIy there exists in Sh$kya mChog-Idan`s gSer gyi
thur ma a query that refers to the S(m(nyavidhiguhyatantra and ends
with the words (12v3): (.) [then| it can hardIy be the `generaI tantra`
for aII [cIasses| (kun gyi spyi rgyud yin par dka`), to which he repIies
(12v4): Lven though it is not the generaI tantra for aII, its specifying of
the number of discipIes has been appIied by many authentic authorities
to the other [tantras| (kun gyi spyi rgyud ma yin kyang // de yi slob ma`i
grangs nges ni // tshad ldan mang pos gzhan la`ang sbyar // understand-
ing jmkhas grub] tshad ldan). Sh$kya mChog-Idan, sDom gsum gyi rab
tu dbye ba`i bstan bcos kyi `bel gtam rnam par nges pa legs bshad gser gyi
thur ma, The Complete Works (gSung `bum), Thimphu, Bhutan, Kunzang
Tobgey, 1975, voI. 6, pp. 439648, (=chapters 12), and voI. 7, pp. 1230,
(=chapter 3).
Thus, if this shouId not be a seIf-reference, but a reference to the generaI
tantras (whatever that means), the key passage of Sa-pa!`s argumenta-
tion coIIapses. The immediate context of our passage in the S( m(n ya vi-
dhi guhyatantra (51-5-4) does, in my understanding, not seem to discuss
a tantric consecration rituaI of the present tantra that couId be appIied
to other tantras. It rather Ieaves the impression that this passage teaches
that if rituaIs for any of the activities are missing somewhere (incIuding
in the present tantra), they shouId be carried out by the skiIIfuI master as
taught in the generaI tantras (whatever they are). This is, however, onIy a
preIiminary impression.
222 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
bodhicitta as much as the cary( tantras, not be part of the excep-
tion, too?
15
To sum up so far, we found that Sa-pa! and his commentator
Go-rams-pa argue that the ruIe of a key kriy( tantra, nameIy the
S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, that prohibits the bestowing of tantric
consecration to even numbers of discipIes and to groups Iarger
than twenty-"ve participants must be appIied to aII tantras, ex-
cept those of the cary( cIass. But whiIe their expIanation of the
exception for cary( tantras is, due to the expIicit statement from
the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra, comprehensibIe, their argument
for a transference of the restrictions to the yoga and highest yoga
tantras is hardIy convincing, since the passage that they quote from
the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra in this context to support their cIaim
does not expIicitIy mention these restrictions, nor the need to appIy
them to tantras other than those of the kriy( cIass. In fact, it may
be a generaI statement to the e#ect that rituaIs missing anywhere
can be carried out with the heIp of rituaIs found in other general
tantras.
* * *
Let us now turn to the question how the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra
itseIf justi"es its restrictions concerning tantric consecration. As
we have aIready seen, Sa-pa! quotes from the tantra (sDom gsum
rab dbye 3.24bcde25ab, P 9/429, 44-4-5):
The skiIIed [master| admits odd numbers of discipIes
such as one, three, "ve, seven [and so forth| up to twenty-"ve.
It is not auspicious to admit
15
I am not discussing here the probIems of the graduaI emergence of
the tantras in history, since this wouId neither be Sa-pa!`s nor Rig-`dzin
Chos-kyi-grags-pa`s (or in other words an emic) way of thinking. In an
historicaI perspective, the kriy( tantras certainIy appeared earIier than
most cary(, yoga, or highest yoga tantras, and it wouId require a di#erent
type of argument to show that rituaIs of the (historicaIIy) earIier kriy(
tantra are appIicabIe to the (historicaIIy) Iater tantras. Yet, since, as far
as I can see, such a graduaI emergence is not an issue in Tibetan tantric
Iiterature (at Ieast not in a sense as it is discussed by phiIoIogists), we can-
not expect arguments of this sort in these works.
Interpreting the tantras 223
a Iarger number of discipIes [for tantric consecration|.
Sa-pa! expIains that the restriction is necessary because the rituaI
of tantric consecration is to be performed within a singIe night and
has to be compIeted before dawn (sDom gsum rab dbye 3.26):
For a Iarger number of discipIes,
a compIete rituaI
cannot be concIuded in a singIe night.
If it is not concIuded in the same night,
it is taught that the rituaI is defective.
de bas lhag pa'i slob ma la //
cho ga yongs su rdzogs pa ni //
mtshan mo gcig la tshar mi nus //
de yi mtshan mor ma tshar na //
cho ga nyams par 'gyur bar gsungs //
And he quotes again the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra, which says
(sDom gsum rab dbye 3.27bcde, [a| = P 9/429, 43-5-4; [b| = 43-5-2):
(a) When the sun has set, the gods
certainIy gather through the bIessing.
(b) It is propitious to worship [them| and then to request their depar-
ture untiI the sun has risen.
(a) lha yang nyi ma nub pa na //
a
nges par byin gyi brlabs kyis `du // (.)
(b) nyi ma shar bar ma gyur bar //
b
mchod nas gshegs su gsol ba shis //
Variant readings in P:
a
nyi ma nub pa lha rnams ni //,
b
nyi ma shar
ba las gyur bar //
Here, the two passages (a and b) quoted from the tantra actuaIIy
occur in the tantra in reverse order and two Iines apart from one
another. With the above statements from the sDom gsum rab dbye
Sa-pa! o#ers a reason why onIy a maximum number of twenty-"ve
discipIes are admitted, nameIy that the rituaI cannot be compIeted
within a singIe night if more discipIes are present (the necessity of
odd numbers is expIained by its auspiciousness). Again, the quote
from the tantra hardIy supports such an interpretation. In fact, in
order to create the sequence `sunset to sunrise` the two passages a
224 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
and b had to be presented in reverse order and the text in between
these Iines had to be ignored.
* * *
It is weII known that the teachings of the sDom gsum rab dbye
were aIso discussed criticaIIy within the Sa-skya-pa tradition, in
particuIar by Go-rams-pa`s contemporary Sh$kya mChog-Idan. He
formuIated 108 questions and chaIIenged the Sa-skya-pa masters
of his time for answers. Among others, Go-rams-pa provided re-
pIies (in 1476), but Sh$kya mChog-Idan (somehow unsurprisingIy)
remained dissatis"ed and composed his own answers in 1481. To
start o# the discussion (in our present topic), he "rst cites a passage
from the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra that appears to be in con!ict
with Sa-pa!`s point of view (gSer kyi thur ma, voI. 7, foI. 9v1, P
9/429, 52-4-5/7):
16
The guru shouId consecrate
a singIe discipIe into the ma!"aIas.
It shouId not happen that the skiIIed master
consecrates two discipIes simuItaneousIy.
Two, three, or four [discipIes| are aIso possibIe,
[but| regarding the activities of the tantric consecration
the guru shouId bestow [tantric consecration| to aII [discipIes| indi-
viduaIIy
with a new di#erent set of requisites [for consecrating|.
bla mas slob ma gcig pu ni //
dkyil `khor dag tu dbang bskur bya //
mkhas pas cig char
a
slob ma gnyis //
dbang bskur ba ni yongs
b
mi bya //
gnyis sam gsum mam
c
bzhi yang rung //
bla mas dbang bskur bya ba ni //
yo byad gsar
d
pa gzhan rnams kyis //
thams cad so so so sor bya //
Variant readings in P:
a
car,
b
yong,
c
`am,
d
sar
16
Sh$kya mChog-Idan, sDom gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba`i bstan bcos kyi
`bel gtam gser kyi thur ma, The CompIete Works of gSer-mdog Pa!-chen
Sh$kya-mchog-Idan, voI. 67.
Interpreting the tantras 225
For the sake of his argument, Sh$kya mChog-Idan introduces three
sections of the rituaI of tantric consecration: (1) Admitting adepts
and guiding them, (2) preparations, and (3) the actuaI consecration.
In his actuaI answer he then ascertains (foI. 10v):
Regarding the intention of the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra it is taught
that after compIeteIy performing the rituaIs of `admitting` and `prepa-
ration` at the time of `admittance of discipIes` and `preparation` for
however many [discipIes| up to a number of at the most twenty-"ve
there may be assembIed into a singIe group, the rituaI of the actuaI
tantric consecration is to be done for each discipIe individuaIIy.
gsang ba spyi rgyud kyi dgongs pa ni / slob ma rjes `dzin dang sta gon
gyi dus su / nyer lnga man chad kyi grangs kha yar ba ji tsam yod pa
de thabs gcig tu tshogs pa la / rjes `dzin dang sta gon gyi cho ga yongs
su rdzogs par byas nas / dbang skur dngos gzhi`i cho ga ni slob ma re
re nas bya bar gsungs pa yin te /
He furthermore shows that according to the tantra, the master caIIs
up each adept individuaIIy in the tantric consecration,
17
and that a
skiIIed master never bestows tantric consecration on two (or more)
adepts simuItaneousIy, unIess he has di#erent new utensiIs for each
of them (foI. 11r).
18
Sh$kya mChog-Idan concIudes (foI. 11r):
If we infer based on that meaning, if not more than one set of tantric
consecration tooIs that are necessary for the tantric consecration is
avaiIabIe, the discipIes are consecrated successiveIy, and if there are
tantric consecration impIements avaiIabIe matching the number of
[present| discipIes, it is apparentIy so that it is acceptabIe to consecrate
[them| simuItaneousIy.
don de la rjes su dpag na / dbang de la dgos pa`i dbang gi yo byad
cha gcig las med na / slob ma rnams rim gyis skur ba dang / slob ma`i
grangs dang mnyam pa`i dbang rdzas yod na / cig char du dbang bskur
bas chog pa lta bur mngon no //
17
gSer kyi thur ma, foI. 10v, P 9/429, 50-1-4/5. blo dang ldan pas cho
ga `dis // slob ma rnams ni legs par bzung (P: gzung) // slob ma re re nas
bkug (P: dgug) ste // gsang gtor snga ma bzhin byas la (P: nas) //.
18
See the above quote (foI. 9v1) from mkhas pas cig car . untiI . so
so so sor bya //. Sh$kya mChog-Idan cites here onIy the "rst two Iines (foI.
10v).
226 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
He expIains the di#erence regarding the totaI numbers of adepts
aIIowed in a tantric consecration in the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra
and other tantras (max. twenty-"ve) and in cary( tantras such
as the Vairocan(bhisambhodhi (unIimited) through the fact that
in the former the discipIes are "rst examined and then admitted,
whiIe in the Iatter they are "rst admitted and then examined (foI.
11v).
19
UnfortunateIy he does not expIain this topic further and thus
the question remains, why not a number Iarger than twenty-"ve
adepts can be "rst examined and then admitted.
20
Of great interest
is Sh$kya mChog-Idan`s foIIowing remark concerning the maxi-
mum of adepts in the tantric consecration of other tantra cIasses
(foI. 12r):
The "xation `up to twenty-"ve` with regard to the number of discipIes
in the `admittance of discipIes` in the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra is
without doubt the intention of the dBang gi chu bo, but those gurus
who have shaped that [scripture| into a rituaI practice having in
mind the speciaI necessity of taking [the admittance of many disci-
pIes| as the cause for the resoIve for awakening as taught in the Vai ro-
ca n( bhisambodhi have not "xed the number [of discipIes| (.)
gsang ba spyi rgyud du / slob ma rjes `dzin gyi slob ma`i grangs la nyi
shu rtsa lnga man chad kyi grangs nges mdzad pa de / dbang gi chu
bo`i dgongs pa yin par gdon mi za yang / bla ma rnams phyag len du
19
It shouId aIso be mentioned here that Sh$kya mChog-Idan (foI. 11v)
points out that the number of adepts admitted to tantric consecration even
in a cary( tantra is not unIimited by defauIt, but onIy through the speciaI
quaIities of the master: With regard to the tantric consecration of the
cary( tantra there is no certainty of an upper Iimit that agrees with the
[number of present| discipIes. It is not so that they [can be| unIimited,
since more than ten are prohibited. Lven though it is so, there is no cer-
tainty with regard to the number of admitted discipIes, since it is taught
that `a great compassionate )c$rya shouId admit [them| without Iimits!`
(spyod pa`i rgyud kyi dbang bskur la // slob ma kha `cham kha yar gyi //
nges pa med mod grangs med min // bcu las lhag pa bkag phyir ro // de
lta na yang rjes bzung gi // slob ma`i grangs la nges pa med // slob dpon
snying rje chen po yis // tshad med bzung zhes gsungs phyir ro //).
20
The reason that not a Iarger number of discipIes can be examined
is probabIy that, according to Sa-pa!`s interpretation of the kriy( tantra,
time is restricted, for which see above, sDom gsum rab dbye 3.26.
Interpreting the tantras 227
mdzad pa de ni / rnam snang mngon byang nas gsungs pa ltar / byang
chub kyi sems kyi rgyur `gyur ba`i dgos pa khyad par can la dgongs
nas grangs nges ma mdzad pa (.)
This concerns the Sa-skya-pa practice of Hevajra, whose tantric
consecration is in the focus of the dBang gi chu bo, a text of enor-
mous importance composed by bSod-nams-rtse-mo in the sec-
ond haIf of the 12th century.
21
According to Sh$kya mChog-Idan,
bSod-nams-rtse-mo intended in his text a Iimitation of twenty-"ve
adepts, but the rituaI works derived from it foIIowed the Iead of the
Vai ro can(bhi sa" bodhi tantra. If this is indeed true, we wouId have
a case where eminent Sa-skya-pa authors appIied the ruIe of the
c(rya tantra to a tantra of the highest yoga cIass, pIacing it above
the ruIe of the kriy( cIass. It wouId certainIy be worthwhiIe to study
derived rituaI works such as those by Grags-pa-rgyaI-mtshan of
the 12
th
century (aIso because of their important remarks with re-
gard to the roIe and function of the four trantric consecrations of
the highest yoga cIass).
22
Sh$kya mChog-Idan introduced further
distinctions and cIari"cations, some of them on the very di* cuIt
terrain of rituaI practice, and I am quite aware that more research
is necessary to eIucidate the "ne points of his argumentation, but
I nevertheIess hope to have identi"ed the major points of his repIy
(to his own question) here.
* * *
Let me now return to Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa`s commentary
on `Jig-rten-mgon-po`s dGongs gcig, where, in the second topic of
the "fth chapter and in reaction to Sa-pa!`s criticism, he deaIs with
this probIem. Not surprisingIy, Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa attacks
the supposed authority of the kriy( tantra over the yoga and higher
21
bSod-nams-rtse-mo (dPal kyai rdo rje`i dkyil `khor du slob ma smin
par byed pa`i cho ga dbang gi chu bo chen mo, Sa-skya-pa bKa` `bum
2/20, 35r89r).
22
Grags-pa-rgyaI-mtshan (dBang gi chu bo ma nub par bskur ba,
Sa skya Lam `bras Literature Series 11, 122r122v), and perhaps aIso
rDzong-pa Kun-dga`-rgyaI-mtshan (Kyai rdo rje`i dkyil `khor du dbang gi
chu bo bskur ba`i zhal gdams gnad kyi gsal byed kyi dka` `grel bdud rtsi`i
bum pa). See aIso Stearns 2001: 13.
228 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
yoga tantras.
23
He argues in fact that the S(m(nya vidhi guhya tantra
is onIy a kriy( tantra (p. 247: spyi rgyud ni bya rgyud kho na yin)
and that what is taught in it is vaIid onIy for tantras of the kriy(
cIass. He quotes the same tantra (P 9/429, 42-5-6):
24
Out of Iove for the worIdIings, for certain,
I have taught this generaI rituaI
of those ma!"aIas,
such as that of Vajravid$ra!$(?),
that I have taught as the 3.500 ma!"aIas.
`jig rten dag la brtse phyir nges //
rnam par gnon pa la sogs pa //
dkyil `khor sum stong dag dang ni //
lnga brgyar bshad pa gang yin pa //
dkyil `khor de dag rnams kyi spyi`i //
cho ga `di ni ngas bshad do //
Thus the Vajradhara`s announcement that he has taught a generaI
rituaI which then supposedIy contains restrictions with regard to
the number of adepts in a tantric consecration concerns accord-
ing to Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa onIy the ma!"aIas of the kriy(
cIass, of which there seem to be 3,500, but not the ma!"aIas of the
yoga and highest yoga tantras. Since this is Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-
grags-pa`s main thrust, he has to deaI with the passage of the tantra
(aIready quoted above through sDom gsum rab dbye 3.29), through
which Sa-pa! intended to show that the tantra`s rituaI was vaIid for
aII other tantras, too:
In those [tantras| where there are activities,
but activity rituaIs are Iacking,
23
AIready Sh$kya mChog-Idan was weII aware of this type of criti-
cism. He quotes an unspeci"ed opponent with these words (foI. 12v): If
the speci"ed number of discipIes is estabIished for the tantric consecra-
tion of the higher tantras through the reasoning of the kriy( tantra, how
can the unspeci"ed number not be estabIished through the reasoning of
the cary( tantra? (bya ba`i rgyud kyi rigs pa yis // rgyud sde gong ma`i
dbang skur gyi // slob ma`i grangs nges `grub `gyur na // spyod pa`i rgyud
kyi rigs pa yis // grangs nges med pa cis mi `grub //).
24
This passages stems right from the beginning Iines of the tantra,
where the purpose of the teaching is stated.
Interpreting the tantras 229
there the skiIIed master reIies on the rituaI
that was taught in the S(m(nya-tantra(s?).
According to Sa-pa!, this means that wherever a rituaI for tantric
consecration is missing (or according to Go-rams-pa: Iacks cIar-
ity), the rituaI of the S(m(nya-tantra(s?) is to be appIied. Rig-`dzin
Chos-kyi-grags-pa now points out that nowadays making counts
[of discipIes| etc. appears in your [i.e. the Sa-skya-pa| system aIso
with regard to the tantric consecration of Hevajra.
25
But since
there exist a great number of Hevajra tantric consecration rituaIs
by both Indian and Tibetan masters, there occurs to be an incon-
sistency between the sDom gsum rab dbye and the actuaI practice
in the Sa-skya-pa tradition (bstan bcos su bris pa dang lag len `gal
ba, p. 248).
The strongest argument, I beIieve, on the side of Sa-pa!`s op-
ponents is their questioning of the kriy( tantra`s authority over the
higher tantra cIasses. This has the twin aspects of the kriy( tantras`
inferior position within the tantric system of Tibetan Buddhism
and the great signi"cance of bodhicitta in Mah$y$na Buddhism,
of which tantra is a part, which, as is expressed through the pas-
sage of the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra, may serve on the side of
the vajr(c(rya as a motivation to bestow tantric consecration on
Iarge(r) numbers of discipIes. ObviousIy the di#erent parties en-
gaged in the debate have come to di#erent decisions. Sa-pa! and
some of his foIIowers decided to foIIow the ruIes of the S(m(nya-
vidhi guhya tantra, whereas his opponents, such as `Bri-gung Rig-
`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, have decided to take the formuIation of
the Vairocan(bhi sa" bodhi tantra as the Iead. Here we may aIso
"nd the key to the understanding of these positions. Did Sa-pa!
perhaps "nd it most appropriate to make the Ieast common de-
nominator the basis for his doctrinaI formuIation? Is this perhaps
an attempt to preserve the basic principIes of the foundations of
the practice aIso on higher IeveIs? And is this perhaps somehow
in the same vein as the Sa-skya-pa doctrine of the three vows (of
pr(timok+a, of the bodhisattvas, and of mantra), where they hoId
25
P. 247: deng sang dgyes rdor kyi dbang bskur la yang grangs sogs
byed pa khyod kyi lugs la snang mod.
230 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
that vows are transformed whiIe their essence remains the same
(sdom gsum gnas `gyur ngo bo gcig)? In the case of a person, for
instance, who maintains the pr(timok+a vows and then takes the
bodhisattva vows, this means that the main eIement for taking up
pr(timok+a, nameIy renunciation, is "rst Iimited to the desire to
attain peace and happiness for oneseIf. When the resoIve for awak-
ening (bodhicitta) is produced, the inferior intention is abandoned,
but the ruIes of pr(timok+a (such as abandoning kiIIing) remain as
an eIement of the wish to bene"t sentient beings. It is thus the case
that aIthough the pr(timok+a of the auditors has been transformed
into the bodhisattva (or mah(y(na) pr(timok+a, its rules are still
valid, and aIthough the desire to attain peace and happiness for
oneseIf is augmented with bodhicitta, repIacing the inferior mo-
tivation by the vaster intention, renunciation is still at the core. In
other words, aIthough the practice has been Iifted up to a higher
IeveI, certain principIes remain intact.
26

This doctrine was, according to Go-rams-pa, formuIated in parts
as a repIy to the teaching of the Indian pa!"ita Vibh+ticandra, who
had formuIated (perhaps whiIe in Tibet during the earIy 1200s) the
doctrine of the vows that are outshone (zil gyis gnon pa) by the
next higher set of vows. AccordingIy, the pr(timok+a vows, for in-
stance, remain dormant in the basic consciousness (kun gzhi la
bag la nyal ba`i tshul du gnas) if one forms the resoIve for supreme
awakening.
27
In other words, the ruIes of the Iower IeveI remain
Iatent, but unmanifested, when the higher IeveI is practiced.
Now, even though this might Iook Iike a convenient background
for the teaching that the practice of the higher cary( tantra over-
rides the practice of the Iower kriy( tantra, I think that this is not
the case, at Ieast not in the context of the `Bri-gung-pa Rig-`dzin
Chos-kyi-grags-pa. For if outshining of the Iower wouId be the
principIe behind the permission of bestowing tantric consecration
26
For the Sa-skya-pa view of the simuItaneous possession of the three
vows in a singIe mentaI continuum, see Sobisch 2002, esp. pp. 8996.
I have sIightIy re"ned my interpretation of the Sa-skya-pa view on this
matter in the present articIe.
27
For Vibh+ticandra`s view, see Sobisch 2002: 3588 and esp. p. 115.
Interpreting the tantras 231
to groups of discipIes with more than twenty-"ve participants, this
wouId mean (in unison with Vibh+ticandra?)
28
that the Iower system
is perceived as something that is more rigid, whiIe the higher sys-
tem is more Ienient. But this is not the attitude of the `Bri-gung-pas.
In fact, a cIear statement to that end can be found (in the context
of the three vow doctrine) in the dGongs gcig (Addendum 13/14):
29
[Others| hoId that the three vows are ascendingIy more Ienient [whiIe
`Jig-rten-mgon-po| maintained that the three vows are ascendingIy
more rigid.
sdom pa gsum gong nas gong du yangs su `gro bar `dod / sdom pa
gsum gong nas gong du dog tu `gro bar bzhed do /
According to this view, which is said to have been introduced in
Tibet by Ati(a,
30
the pr(timok+a abandons the coarse mentaI af-
!ictions (nyon mongs pa rags pa) with the heIp of a smaII number
(grangs nyung) of ruIes that are guarded through ordinary (tha mal
28
In his Ri chos, Karma Chags-med (16131678) says that Vibh+ti-
candra`s position was practiced by the bKa`-brgyud-pas (citing the `Bri-
gung-pa `Jig-rten-mgon-po as an exception). In his words, the bKa`-
brgyud-pas proceed a bit Ienient with the ruIes of the vinaya. He contrasts
this with the statement from the addendum of the dGongs gcig, for which
see beIow. For the Ri chos, see rTsib ri spar ma, coIIected and arranged
by La-dwags Khrid-dpon `KhruI-zhig Padma-chos-rgyaI, DarjeeIing:
Kagyu Sungrab Nyamso Khang 19781985, 31 voIs., voI. 5, pp. 77 #.
29
The vajra-statements of the founder of the `Bri-gung bKa`-brgyud-
pas together with the formuIations of what is the generaI opinion or
the opinion of others (gzhan lugs) can be found in rDo-rje-shes-rab`s
commentary (Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa`i `grel chen snang mdzad ye
shes sgron me, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute 1990), pp. 153187,
the present one on p. 178). In the commentary of rDo-rje-shes-rab, this is
the thirteenth addendum, in Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa`s commentary
(Nyi ma`i snang ba) it is the fourteenth, his commentary is on p. 392 f.
(MaryIand edition) and on p. 338 (Dehra Dun edition).
30
That this view goes back to Ati(a is mentioned in a brief versi"ed
commentary by Rig-`dzin Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Dam pa`i chos dgongs pa
gcig pa`i dka` `grel tshigs su bcad pa mun sel sgron me, The CoIIected
Works (gSung `bum) of Kun-mkhyen Rig-pa-`dzin-pa Chen-po Chos-kyi-
grags-pa, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institite 1999, voI. 3, p. 463.
232 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
pa) body, speech, and mind. The bodhisattva vows do the same, but
soIeIy for the bene"t of others (rnam pa thams cad du gzhan don
kho na las) and through a greater number (mang bas) of ruIes. They
are thus considered to be sIightIy more rigid than the previous set
of vows (cung zad snga ma las dog). The mantra vows abandon the
very subtIe mentaI a, ictions of aII three gates (sgo gsum ga`i nyon
mongs shin tu phra ba), and this is done, having abandoned attach-
ment to ordinary appearances, through the body of the deity, i.e. the
iIIusion-Iike sam(dhi (lha sku sgyu ma lta bu`i ting nge `dzin las).
WhiIe the pr(timok+a does not need the two higher sets of vows as
a foundation stone (rmang rdo), bodhicitta needs at Ieast the basic
vows of pr(timok+a, such as the refuge vows, and mantra needs the
support of one of the seven pr(timok+a vows and mah(y(na bo-
dhicitta. It is therefore considered the most di* cuIt (ches dka`) set
of vows. Thus Ati(a is quoted with the foIIowing words (p. 392 f.):
There never occurred a transgression in the pr(timok+a vows to me.
OccasionaIIy there occurred tri!e [transgressions| in the bodhisattva
vows. In the mantra vows the transgressions occurred as a stream.
kho bo la so thar gyi sdom pa la ni nyes ltung gtan mi `ong / byang
chub sems dpa`i sdom pa la skabs skabs su tsag tsig tsam `ong / gsang
sngags kyi sdom pa la ni ltung ba char gcig nyar gcig tu `ong /
This cIearIy shows that the view of Vibh+ticandra, according to
which when the sun (= mantra vows) shines forth, the moonIight
(= the bodhisattva vows) vanishes, [yet| the worId is Iuminous
(Sobisch 2002: 117), is not accepted by the `Bri-gung-pas. In oth-
er words, the dGongs gcig does not maintain a view according to
which the Iower is rigid and the higher is Ienient the opposite is
the case: the higher vows are seen as more rigid and the higher
practices as more di* cuIt to perform. If we appIy this thought to
the probIem under discussion in this articIe, the procedure of the
cary( tantra, that aIIows for a Iarge number of adepts in a tantric
consecration, is seen as the more rigid ruIe, because it presupposes
the motivation of mah(y(na bodhicitta, and it is therefore aIso the
more di* cuIt practice.
If this anaIysis through the somewhat paraIIeI case of the three
vow doctrines is correct, the Sa-skya-pas did not simpIy hoId on to
the Iower principIe whiIe the `Bri-gung-pas have advanced to the
Interpreting the tantras 233
higher, but rather tried to preserve eIements of the practice of a Iow-
er tantra on a higher IeveI and the `Bri-gung-pas` aim for achieving
the same resuIts (i.e. tantric consecration), but for a vaster group
of participants through a vaster motivation, presupposing a greater
quaIi"cation of the guru who bestows the higher tantric consecra-
tions, as this is a more di* cuIt practice than the performance of a
tantric consecration on the Iower IeveI. I hope that future research
into this and reIated materiaI wiII show whether such underIying
trends and dispositions are indeed identi"abIe in the approaches to
tantric practice of Sa-skya-pa and `Bri-gung-pa masters of the past.
6#",#17'&809 &.4 &""'(:#&$#1.)
DaIton 2005 Jacob DaIton: A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans
Organized Tantra During the 8th12th Centuries. Journal of the Inter-
national Association of Buddhist Studies 28/1, 115179.
GoId 2007 Jonathan GoId: The Dharma`s Gatekeepers: Sakya Pa,-ita on
Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet. AIbany, N.Y.: State University of New
York Press.
Hodge 2003 Stephan Hodge (trI.) The Mah(-Vairocana-Abhisa"bodhi
Tantra, With Buddhaguhya`s Commentary. London: RoutIedge Curzon.
Liu 2002 Kuo-wei Liu: 'Jig-rten-mgon-po and the 'Single Intention'
(Dgongs gcig): His view on Bodhisattva vows and its in!uence on Medie-
val Tibetan Buddhism. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Lodr Taye 2005 Jamgn KongtruI Lodr Taye: The Treasury of Knowledge,
Book Six, Part Four: Systems of Buddhist Tantra. LIio Guarisco and
Ingrid McLeod (trIs.), Ithaca: Snow Lion PubIications.
Martin 1997 Dan Martin: Beyond Acceptance and Rejection? The
Anti-Bon PoIemic incIuded in the Thirteenth-Century SingIe Intention
(Dgongs-gcig Yig-cha) and Its Background in Tibetan ReIigious History.
Journal of Indian Philosophy 25/3, 263305.
P The Tibetan Tripi.aka, Peking Ldition (repr.), ed. Daisetz T. Suzuki.
Tokyo/Kyoto 19551961.
Rhoton 2002 Jarred Rhoton (trI.): A Clear Di/erentiation of the Three
Codes: Essential Distinctions Among the Individual Liberation, Great
Vehicle, and Tantric Systems: the Sdom Gsum Rab Dbye and Six Letters.
AIbany, N.Y.: State Univers ity of New York Press.
234 Jan-UIrich Sobisch
Sobisch 2002 Jan-UIrich Sobisch: Three-Vow Theories in Tibetan Bud-
dhism: A Comparative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth
Through Nineteenth Centuries. (Contributions to Tibetan Studies 1).
Wies ba den: Dr. Ludwig Reichert VerIag.
Sobisch 2009 Id.: Review of The Dharma's Gatekeepers: Sakya Pa,-ita
on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet. By Jonathan C. GoId. AIbany, N.Y.:
State University of New York Press 2007, pp. xii + 267. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 129/3, 512517.
Sobisch, forthcoming Id.: Guru Devotion in the Bka`-brgyud-pa Tradition:
Its Functioning as the SingIe Means for the Arising of ReaIization. In:
Tibetan Studies 10, Proceedings of the Seminar of the Inter na tio nal
Association for Tibetan Studies, Bonn, 2006, 26 pp.
Stearns 2001 Cyrus Stearns: Luminous Lives. Boston: Wisdom PubIications.
van der Kuijp 1987 Leonard van der Kuijp: An LarIy Tibetan View of the
SoterioIogy of Buddhist LpistemoIogy: The Case of `Bri-gung `Jig-rten-
mgon-po. Journal of Indian Philosophy 15/1, 5770.
Wayman and Tajima 1992 AIex Wayman, Ryujun Tajima: The Enlightenment
of Vairocana. (Buddhist Traditions 18). New DeIhi: MotiIaI.