800 Year Celebration of the Mahaparinirva of Jigten Sumgon: Appendices

Appendix 1: The Monk’s Presentation

I found this provocative as there is a unique syncretism¹ to the epistemological approaches of the Drigung Kagyu. More than most schools, there is a sense that any such approach can work to hone the mental discipline and analytical skills needed to make sense of the various practices in the tradition.

The principle point of departure for the monk (from Rinchen Ling, Kathmandu) is the following:

“The subtle obscurations should be abandoned first. The translation at hand has it ”It can also be the case that the cognitive obscuration is abandoned first.” ² This strikes me as untenable; while there is a sense of “can”, the additional “also” doesn’t obtain from the context. EDIT: on reflection, perhaps the use of “also” in the translation at hand is contextual to maintain the thought begun in the previous verse.

His successive arguments may be found elsewhere in the Gong Chig and these will be cited accordingly.

It should be noted that while there is a high degree of syncretism in these arguments, not all approaches were considered equal by Jigten Gonpo. For instance, he states that supporters of the Mind Only school could only achieve the seventh level or bhumi³.

Our monastic began with stating that Buddhanature is the ultimate state only temporarily obscured by our own defilements and that in an ultimate sense, nothing is removed, added to, Buddhanature. He posited this perspective as representative of the rang-stong (emptiness of self) shared by Tsongkhapa and Mingyur Dorje, as well.

However, he also pointed out that the Karmapa Mingyur Dorje’s view is also equivalent to zhan-stong/other emptiness (and is also posited here as shared by Jigten Gonpo) such that “afflictive emotions arise only at the relative level, ultimately there is no self to support this and thus no other to attribute these emotions to. This latter is expanded upon in some of his later arguments where he rooted his propositions in Jigten Sumgon’s statement to the effect that Buddha abides in mind innately⁴.

He countered himself by asking if Buddhanature is composite or uncompounded, permanent or impermanent and concluded that Buddhanature transcends all such categories, with a quote attributed to Nagarjuna that “I only applied these terms to the relative level.”

Interestingly, and I’ve encountered this before; what follows is the kind of statement that sets every Madhyamika scratching their head, if not exploding. Our friend noted that Buddhanature is inherently existent (since it is innate) and also “the cause of something else”. Yet, it also has no essence or inherent existence and is equivalent to emptiness (stong-pa-nyid). He notes that this perspective is also held by Longchenpa, as well as Jigten Sumgon. As with the Nagarjuna attribution (and the previous mentions of shared views with Tsongkhapa and Mingyur Dorje, I have no textual references at hand). The Longchenpa similarities are evident to me from what I recollect of his “Mind at Comfort and Ease” portion of his “treasuries” (mzod). Honestly, I don’t quite know where Tsongkhapa stands on the issue of the inherence of Buddhanature. Gelug friends have certainly mentioned something similar, but they’ve tended to liken it to a seed that needs to be watered in order to develop it. This certainly is reflected in the Gong Chig and encountered in other schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

Additionally, underscoring Jigten Gonpo’s statement that defilements are only subjective and impermanent (or even non-existent), he cited the verse from Jigten Gonpo’s “Seven Praises to Tara” that sentient beings’ minds are the dharmakaya (chos-sku), they just don’t realize it⁵.

He moved on to what might be the ultimate argument: “appearances are one’s mind and this extends even to objects, thus a vase can have buddhanature.” Appearances are one’s own mind, that mind is actually pervaded by buddhanature, thus appearances are pervaded by buddhanature. The content of one’s experience is pervaded by buddhanature, thus the objects that populate that content are so pervaded, as well⁶.

This all drew to a quick conclusion as he moved on to state that the position that appearances that arise from the mind are also somewhat or somehow separate from the mind “is being refuted here.” Following on that was “Buddhanature is inherently virtuous by nature.⁷”

I suspect he had more he could have and wanted to say, but the conclusion was pretty definitive and the wrap-up fast, if not tidy.

On this last note, I’m not saying that I support all or any of these arguments proposed here; I can agree with them and I tend to agree that praxis and the fruits of that praxis are often not contained in the descriptors we use to attempt to convey the work or the results; however, there is food for thought in all this.

In some ways, the epithet applied to Jigten Sumgon as “the second Nagarjuna” is apt, given his use of Nagarjuna’s tetralemma throughout his major work. It would take us too far afield to examine how much of Jigten Sumgon’s thought was shared by other schools at the time. He was very much a reformer and to some degree an innovator of no small impact; but one is left to wonder if he was ever very integral to the intellectual foment of the period. This is often held to be irrelevant to practitioners (and indeed, may very well be, but he was informed, at least, by Phagmodrupa and Phagmo’s antecedents, then).

There’s much in the venerable monk’s exposition that should provide students of the Drigung Kagyu (and other schools of thought, as well) with substantial meat to chew on.

Notes:

All citations taken from “The Root Verses of the Sublime Dharma Same Intent”/ dam-chos-dgong-pa-gchig-pai-gzhung-gi-rtsa-ba are from the translation (n.d.) by Konchok Tamphel. Herein abbreviated GS. Chapters are in Roman numerals; verses in standard Arabic.

1. For example: “The teachings of mind-only delineate the middle-way free of extremes”/sems-tsam-bka'-yis-mtha'-'bral-dbu-ma-ston/. GS I: 11.

2. Shes-bya’i- sgrib-pa-thog-mar-spong-bang-yod/ GS 1: 15.

3. sa-drug-man-chad-nyan-rang-thun-mong-ste/The sixth bhumi and below are shared with hearers and solitary realizers.

sems-tsam-pa-ni-sa-bdun-mngon-rtogs-yin/The adherents of the mind-only school attain the seventh bhumi's realization.

chos-kyi-bdag-med-sa-brgyad-mngon-du-byas/The selflessness of phenomena is realized on the eighth bhumi. GS IV: 15-17.

4. sangs-rgyas-thams-chad-sems-chan-rgyud-la-bzhugs/All Buddhas exist in the nature of sentient beings. GS VII: 15

5. rang-chos-sku-yin-par-ma-shes-par/sems-nyon-mong-dbang-du-gyur-pa-yi/Through not understanding oneself as dharmakaya, one’s mind is overpowered by the kleshas. “Supplication to Tara” in Vajra Songs of Jigten Sumgon, translated by Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen. Vajra Publications, 1997. Revision 1. Actually, this work reiterates this theme in almost every verse. Aside from being a wisdom text, it’s a beautiful poem.

6. shes-byar-srid-tschad-sangs-rgyas-bya-ba-byed/A Buddha performs his activity through everything that can possibly be an object of knowledge.

chos-dbyings-kun-du-'tschang-tgya-dgos-par-bzhed/It is held that one has to be enlightened in terms of the entire expanse of phenomena.GS VII: 9-10. It’s debatable that this is what he had in mind, but I feel “everything that can possibly be an object of knowledge” (shes-byar-srid-tschad) would entail even those objects that our minds encounter as inanimate.

7. The entirety of the Gong Chig supports this. I might have to transcribe the whole text!

Appendix 2: The major tormas

Documentation for each of the figures can be found elsewhere on the web; I am not 100% sure of two attributions, and will note those accordingly.