Were Sa-pan and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po "Neoconservatives? " Utility and Futility of Source-Culture Alien Categories

5/25/2018 Were Sa-pan and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po "Neoconservatives? " Utility and Futility of Source-Culture Alien Categories

1/11

BRILL Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33

Were Sa-pal}.and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po

"Neoconservatives? "

brill.nl/iij

Utility and Futility of Source-Culture Alien Categories

Jan-Ulrich SobischAsian Department, Copenhagen University

Abstract

In his influential Tibetan Renaissance (publ. 2005), Ronald Davidson categorizes

the two eminent masters of the late 12th and early 13th centuries, Sa-skya PaJ}9.ita

Kun-dga' -rgyal-mtshan and 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, as "neoconservatives,"

portraying them as having an un-Buddhist and inauthentic fixation on India,

and as working to suppress any deviation from their norms. This paper critically

investigates Davidson's general and specific interpretations of his categorization

and raises the question of methodology.

Koninklijke Brill NY, Leiden, 2010.

Keywords

Tibet, Buddhism, sa-skya-pa, 'bri-gung-pa

Introduction

Among the most important Buddhist masters of the late 12th and early

13th centuries are Sa-skya PaJ:!9.itaKun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan (1182-1251)

and the founder of the ,Bri-gung bKa' -brgyud-pa tradition, 'Jig-rten-mgon-

po (II43-1217). Sa-paJ:! is well known to a wider audience both as an

important figure in the history of Tibet and as one of its greatest schol-

ars. English translations of his Entrance Gate for the Wise, 1 A Clear Differ-

entiation of the Three Codes,2and Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita's Trea-

sury of Good Advice3

have been available for some time now, and his life

1) Gold (2007) and Jackson (1987).

2) Rhoton (2002)
http://brill.nl/iijhttp://brill.nl/iij


2/11

2) Rhoton (2002).

24 Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33

and works have been explored by academics for decades. 'Jig-rten-mgon-

po, on the other hand, is much less well known, and only a few works

have very recently become available in German translation.4 To the expert,

these two have always been prominent protagonists of their times-andcertainly antagonists, as many of the topics presented in Sa-paJis Clear Dif

ferentiation, for instance, appear (at least on first sight) to be direct replies

to some of the views expressed in 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's Same Intention.5 Not

only do they maintain in numerous instances opposed views, their strategies

of maintaining and transmitting the Dharma, too, are in sharp contrast.6

It thus came as a surprise to find Sa-PalJ and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po grouped

into the same category of "neoconservatives" in Ronald Davidson's TibetanRenaissance,! and the present note is an attempt to investigate the appro-

priateness and usefulness of such a characterization in this particular case.

I end with a brief reflection on the general utility of such terminology.

Tibetan Neoconservatism in Tibetan Renaissance

The choice of the term "neoconservative" by a North-American author

publishing in 2005, i.e. in the middle of the second term of the 43rd pres-

ident of the United States, whose foreign policy was often described as

4) See for example Sobisch (2006) and Schmidt (2008).

5) The Tibetan title of theSame Intention isDam chosdgongspa gcigpa.A direct link between

the Same Intention and the Clear Diffirentiation is chronologically difficult to establish.

According to the biography of Shes-rab-'byung-gnas, the nephew and chief disciple of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po (published in the dGongsgcigyig cha, Bir: Tsondu Senghe, 1975), the uncle

had taught the topics of the Same Intention as a special teaching to his nephew in private

during the last period of his life. After the master's death in 1217, Shes-rab-'byung-gnas

went into a long retreat at Ti-se and only returned to 'Bri-gung in 1225. In the winter of

the next year he is said to have very briefly met Sa-palj in bSam-yas. In that summer he

taught the Same Intention for the first time in a public teaching. The composition of Sa-

paJjs Clear Differentiation was, according to its colophon, finished six years later in 1232.

We simply don't know when the first copies of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's work began to circulate,

but it appears to be unlikely that the Clear Diffirentiation was a direct reply to that text(Sa-palj himself never identifies an opponent by name). I have found, however, many of the

topics taught in the Same Intention formulated in many other teachings of 'Jig-rten-mgon-

po, and it seems quite likely that Sa-palj had gained his knowledge through these earlier

teachings, which might have circulated more openly or might have been reported to him.

For a few remarks on the Same Intention (dGongspa gcigpal see Martin (1997), 263-

305, van der Kuijp (1987), 57-70, Uu (2002); Sobisch (2002), ch. 14. The Same Intention

is now the focus of a research project by Khenpo Rangdrol and myself, see http://freenet-

homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/ .

6) See my review of Gold's book (forthcoming 2009a).7) Davidson 205.
http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/http://freenet-homepage.de/jigten-sumgon/


3/11

Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33

being under a neoconservative influence, is unlikely to be an accident. I

leave it to the judgment of the reader whether a term originally coined

for a political ideology of 20th century North-America is in general terms

applicable to 12/ 13th century Tibet. What I would like to do here is firstto establish how Davidson characterizes the neoconservatism he perceives

in Tibet, then investigate whether such characterizations are justified and

what is gained by them. The term in question occurs several times through-

out Davidson's book.

- Page 8: The teachings of 'Phags-pa (Sa-paJ;l'snephew) are described as

neoconservative, used here as a contrast to "actual shamanistic prac-

. "tlce.

- Page 13 : The term is used here in contrast to the "indigenous Tibetan

conservatives-who maintained the superiority of the older aristocratic

clans and the authority of the indigenous gods and looked for the

restoration of the monarchy and the resurrection of the imperium."

The neoconservatives instead "took as their standard authenticity the

feudalistic Buddhist monasteries in India." Their ideal was an "ortho-dox curriculum, as well as an enlightened monastic and civil admin-

istration." Furthermore, "for them, anything un-Indian was by defini-

tion un-Buddhist, so that all innovations (... ) [were] illegitimate." And

"even this was not enough," for some" castigated practices or ideas that

were observably Indian but not part of the curriculum of selected great

monasteries." Such condemned practices and ideas are exemplified by

Davidson through those of the Red Acarya and Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas. The neoconservatives were "not a specific sociological formation

but an ideological voice appropriated by selected individuals."

- Page I54: The neoconservative position "represents a greatly restricted

image of the authentic Dharma," which is as an idea "only marginally

Buddhist, for Indians had always kept to the ideal of a canon with

indeterminate limits."

- Page 289: The thirteenth century saw a "neoconservative attempt toalign Gampopa's position with that of Heshang Moheyan ( ) collaps-

ing the distinctions between the Mahamudra and Chan ( )."

- Page 334: The Same Intention of the ,Bri-gung-pa was "a combination

of synthetic philosophical vision and neoconservative comments." The

work criticizes "some of the same principles that later came under Sakya

PaJ:l9.ita'sdisapproval" and "it attempted to paper over some of the

differences between the Sakyapa (... ) and the Mahamudra." This was


4/11


understandable "for both subscribed to the idea of the triple discipline

(trisamvara), and both considered the Sarma yogic systems to be the

pinnacle of the Buddha's dispensation. ( ... ) Unfortunately, precisely

because of their similarities, these Sarma systems came to occupy thesame religious niche, making the various Kagyiipa and Sakyapa lineages

competitors rather than partners."

- Page 375: The neoconservative movement, "including Drigung Jikten

Gonpo, Sakya PaJ;lqita, Chaglo Choje-pel, and others ( ... ) saw what

they understood as the Buddha's pure message being eroded within as

well as without, and the natural creativity of the Tibetan people embod-

ied in the work of Chapa, Gampopa, the Terma masters, and others wasperceived as heresy and doctrinal betrayal. Consequently, they worked

to suppress any deviation from the norm, criticizing the Buddhist activ-

ity that they understood to be un-Indian, and in doing so, they adopted

a standard that was a theoretical position rather than a real Indian con-

struct. Unknown to or unacknowledged by the neoconservatives, many

of the same behaviors and ideas that they criticized in early-thirteenth-

century Tibet had been found in India for many centuries."

Neoconservatives vs.Ancient Aristocracy

One of the central theses of Davidson's book is that the new translation

period supersedes the paradigm of the superiority of the ancient aristo-

cratic clans, with the new translators as (a kind of) new aristocracy. Asan overall observation, this is certainly worth discussing, yet the devil is

in the details. Davidson also characterizes neoconservatives, whose most

prominent members are according to him Sa-paJ;l and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, as

opposing the superiority of the older aristocratic clans (p. 13)-in contrast

to the "indigenous Tibetan conservatives." Sa-paJ;l, however, was a member

of the 'Khon clan, which traces itself back to Jo-bo 'Khon-par-skyes, begot

by a Tibetan woman and a demon. In their line we find 'Khon dPal-po-che, who was a minister (nang blon) of king Khri-srong IDe-btsan. His third

son, 'Khon kLu'i-dbang-po-bsrung-ba was claimed to be the third of the

sixth of the "Seven Tested Men" (sad mi). 8As is well known, the 'Khon clan

still exists today and the head of the Sa-skya-pas is its descendant. At one

point, A-mes-zhabs, one of the great throne holders of the 17th century,

8) The roots of the 'Khon plan are briefly described in the Blue Annals, section 4.2.


5/11

Jan-Ulrich Sobisch / Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (20IO) 23-33 27

gave up his monk vows in order to produce male offspring for the clan.9 In

short, there can be no doubt that the Sa-skya-pas hold their ancient roots

in highest esteem and I have seen no indication that Sa-paJ:!would make an

exception. 'Jig-rten-mgon-po was a descendant of the sKyu-ra clan, whichclaimed its descent from king Ral-pa-can (ruled 815-838). 'Jig-rten-mgon-

po wanted to make a member of the clan the successor to the throne of'Bri-

gung, but his nephew declined. Mter a first interim candidate followed a

member of the sKyu-ra clan. Until the 16th century the throne remained

hereditary among the clan with only very few exceptions. There can be

no doubt that the overall attitude towards the old aristocratic structures

changed after the loth century. But that Sa-paJ:land 'Jig-rten-mgon-po-neoconservatives according to Davidson-were opposed to the idea that

their ancient clans had great authority must be doubted. Davidson's claim

that neoconservatives such as Sa-paJ:land 'Jig-rten-mgon-po were opposed

to the superiority of the older aristocratic clans also lacks concrete doc-

umentation. Given the fact that they also had a genuine appreciation of

their own ancient Tibetan roots, including their connection to some of the

great figures during the imperial period, the contrast that is built up by

Davidson appears to be in some respects much weaker than portrayed by

him. It remains to be seen how far such an opposition is sufficient as a

characterization of their supposed neoconservativeness.

Un-Indian, Un-Buddhist, and the Limits of the Canon

That the neoconservatives "took as their standard of authenticity the (... )

Buddhist monasteries in India" with their "orthodox curriculum" (p. 13)

appears to be by and large a fitting characterization of Sa-paJis schol-

arly program. But is for him "anything un-Indian (... ) by definition un-

Buddhist, so that all innovations (... ) [are] illegitimate"? Sa-paJ:!was indeed

suspicious of the bKa' -brgyud-pa's Great Seal (mahdmudrd) doctrine, call-

ing it "virtually [the same as] the Chinese religious system" (Clear Dif

ferentiation 3.175). But that does not mean that he refuted that Great Seal

teaching because it was un-Indian and for that reason un-Buddhist. Instead

he identified some of its aspects as being similar to the teaching of the

Chinese Heshang Mahayana, whose doctrine was refuted by the Indian

master Kamalasila. It is certainly true that Sa-paJ:lwas highly suspicious of

9) See Sobisch (207),16-18.


6/11


teachings that did not originate in India, for India was not only the cradle of

Buddhism but also the place where numerous truly great Buddhist scholars

and yogis had been active. Since Buddhism anywhere is deeply rooted in

Indian scholarship and yogic accomplishment, it is certainly obvious tosearch there for authenticity. But Sa-paJ;lwas not an uncritical Indophile,

since he also rejected teachings of doubtlessly Indian origin. And Sa-paJ:!

was also not alone in this respect. It is certainly not wrong to say that

the majority of Tibetan masters would share both his appreciation for

Indian scholarship and accomplishments and his concern for authenticity.

In short, it is difficult to see these concerns as the special characteristics of

a neoconservative.'Jig-rten-mgon-po, on the other hand, can hardly be said to have taken

as his standard authenticity the Buddhist monasteries in India. Although

his insistence on pure monastic discipline earned him a reputation as a

strict follower of the vinaya,10 there is no indication that any scholarly

"orthodox curriculum" comparable to that of the great Indian monaster-

ies was adhered to in 'Bri-gung at any time. The abbatial history of 'Bri-

gung reports regular teachings on the Same Intention, other profound Dhar-

mas (zab chos), and the Essence of the Mahayana Teachings, a gradual teach-

ings text that functions as a commentary on the practice and conduct of

the vinaya, of the bodhisattvas and tantric adepts, and on mahamudra.ll

Although I haven't been able to study all of the available teachings of 'Jig-

rten-mgon-po, I never found an instance where he condemned anything

10) Some of the biographies of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po report that when he gave up the abbot's

seat at Phag-mo-gru, he did so because, among other things, the monks there refused to give

up the use of alcohol (e.g. 'Bri gung gdan rabs gser phreng, Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe

skrun khang, p. 78). C Karma-chags-med's statement (Ri chos, rTsib ri spar ma, p. 78),

according to which the bKa' -brgyud-pa's are a bit lenient with the vinaya vows because they

follow Vibhiiticandra's view of the superioriry of the mantra vows over the pratimolq;a vows

-with the notable exception of 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, who held that the higher vows were

even more rigid than the lower ones (c also Same Intention, supplement no. 13).11) Later, from the beginning of the 14th century onwards a camp was established in

the summer and instructions on the Fivefold Path of Mahamudra (phyag chen lnga ldan)

were bestowed. The monks remained in small tents for practice. For the winter teachings

they went up into the mountains, where the instructions of the six yogas of Naropa were

bestowed. The monks practiced producing the heat of gtum mo, wearing merely a single

cotton shirt. A1; supporting teachings they received the profound teachings (zab chos) of

the Essence of the Mahayana Teachings (1heg chen bstan pa'i snying po) and the Same Intention

(Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa), together with the teachings of former masters and the necessary

tantric initiations. Cf. the 'Bri gung gdan rabs gser phreng, pp. I26 , the biography ofbCu-gnyis-pa Rin-po-che rDo-rje-rin-chen (1278-1314).


7/11


as being un-Indian and therefore un-Buddhist. To the contrary, I found

several instances where he criticized such an attitude in strong and explicit

terms. 12

Davidson (p. 13) also states that the neoconservatives "castigated prac-tices or ideas that were observably Indian but not part of the curriculum

of selected great monasteries," identifying these practices and ideas as those

of the Red Acarya and Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas. Having studied myself a

bit the nebulous figure of the Red Acarya and stories surrounding him, I

do not think that he-or better: the practices ascribed to him-were crit-

icized in Tibet because they were deemed un-Indian, but rather (if the

accusations were true) because they took literally what should have beenunderstood as secret language with a hidden meaning, and they encouraged

tantric adepts to abandon their vinaya VOWS.13 That the neoconservatives

12) See 'Jig-nen-mgon-po, sDe snod gsum gyi nyams len bsil byed tsan dan gyi phreng ba

(Collected Works, Dehra Dun: Drikung Kagyu Institute), vol. I,p. 180: "Some defame the

instructions of the Tathagatas, saying things like 'only this Dharma of mine is Dharma, what

the others practice is not Dharma,' 'the mantra of the rNying-ma-pas is not Dharma,' 'the

practice ofVajrapalji is not Dharma,' and 'mental inactivity (amanasiktira) is not Dharma.'

They create attachment, aversion and delusion. Since the ripening [of such conduct] with

the result 'samsara' and 'lower realms' is pitiful, having seen and heard a great number

of scriptures of the Sugata with your eye of discriminating wisdom arising from study,

reflection and practice, you should never disparage (gang fa yang skur ba mi 'debs)[any

teaching]!"

13) Blue Annals, chapter 8.19: "In the loth century an Indian 'paljqita named Shes-rab-

gsang-ba (Prajfitigupta), who was also known by the name of Aciirya Sham-thabs-dmar-po, translated the Phyag chen thig le rgyud. The eighteen Ar-tsho-ban-de were his disciples,

according to some authors. The doctrine of the Eighteen Ar-tsho-ban-de consisted of a

corrupt form ofTantric practices: they kidnapped women and men, and used to perform

human sacrifices during Tantric feasts (ga1Jacakrapuja). It is said that their practices caused

the Tibetan kings of Guge to invite dPal Atisa."

The Red Master's system has been described by Karma-chags-med (1613-1678), in this

way (Ri chos,pp. 72): "[According to] his religious system, [all the vows were] taken

[successively], beginning with the vows of refuge, up to those of a monk. Each [set of

vows] was maintained for some years [or] months according to the authoritative scriptures.Thereafter, by receiving the [ritual of] the production of the resolve for awakening, the

pratimokia vows turned into the bodhisattva vows. After that, none of the Vinaya rules

had to be maintained. The training of the resolve for awakening, the meditative exchange of

oneself and others, was cultivated for some years. Thereafter, by receiving the four initiations

of the Mantra, these bodhisatrva vows, too, turned into the vows of Mantra. After that,

the training of the bodhisatrva vows did not have to be maintained. Because one was a

practitioner of Mantra, one was even allowed to take a wife, [and] even though one took one,

the defect of having lost the [monastic] vows did not occur. Because his followers increased

greatly, householder monks (lit. "yellow householders") spread everywhere in mNga'-ris,dBus and gTsang. All learned ones censure and refute [this doctrine], calling it the "perverted


8/11


"castigated practices or ideas that were observably Indian" shows, to repeat,

that they were not uncritically accepting everything only because it was

Indian. It also had to be in accordance with the Buddhist teachings on

disciplined conduct (fila) and with a view that avoided extreme positions.Interesting is also Davidson's remark (p. 154), according to which the

neoconservative position "represents a greatly restricted image of the au-

thentic Dharma." Why is it restricted? Because it does not subscribe "to

the ideal of a canon with indeterminate limits." This is one of Davidson's

many more or less obvious personal agendas to be found in his book. In

this case he seems to be in favor of an "open canon" to which new revela-

tions can be added as authentic Dharma. Such new revelations must not beIndian, of course, because the un-Indian, as we can sense from his earlier

statements, must not necessarily be un-Buddhist (because that would be a

restricted image). Strange, however, is Davidson's afterthought, according

to which such a restricted image is an idea "only marginally Buddhist, for

Indians had always kept to the ideal of a canon with indeterminate limits."

Are we to understand from this that in order to be a fully authentic Bud-

dhist, one has to be like the "Indians [who] had always kept to the ideal of

a canon with indeterminate limits"? In that case, Davidson himself seems

to have a "restricted image" of what the authentically Buddhist must be,

namely Indian.

Deception, Betrayal, and Heresy

With regard to the Same Intention of the 'Bri-gung-pa, Davidson remarks

that the work criticizes "some of the same principles that later came under

Sakya PaJ;l9.ita's disapproval." This is a very interesting observation, but

unfortunately the author doesn't provide concrete examples. My hunch is

that this might refer to 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's and Sa-paJ;l's emphasis on strict

disciplined conduct that is most visible in their attempts to revalue the role

of the pratimo~a vows. This attitude, however, goes back in the Sa-skya-

pa's case (at least) to Sa-paJ;l's uncle Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan and in 'Jig-rten-

mgon-po's case (at least) to his guru Phag-mo-gru-pa.14 But Davidson seems

to have other things in mind as well, when he states that the Same Intention

doctrine of the Red Master." For some examples of how the hidden language of the tantras

is to be understood according to 'Jig-rten-mgon-po, see Sobisch (2002), 373ff.

14) Aspects of the Sa-skya-pa's and the 'Bri-gung-pa's view regarding disciplined conducthave been documented and analyzed in Sobisch (2002).


9/11


"attempted to paper over some of the differences between the Sakyapa (... )

and the Mahamudra." Apart from the unfortunate choice of the term "to

paper over," which implies a halfhearted and hardly honest attempt to make

problems invisible, I wonder whether this is the case at all, at least in theunspecified and general sense. On the other hand, I have also noticed on

several occasions that despite their differences in terminology and doctrinal

presentation, Sa-paJ;l and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po in fact do not seem to always

be very far apart. 15 I believe that Davidson could be quite right when he says

that "precisely because of their similarities, these Sarma systems came to

occupy the same religious niche, making the various Kagyiipa and Sakyapa

lineages competitors rather than partners." We need, however, a lot morecase study in order to substantiate such an assessment.

In the conclusion of his book, Davidson states that it was the agenda of

the neoconservative movement that they saw the "Buddha's pure message

being eroded within as well as without." I wonder why Davidson perceives

here a "movement" at work. The evidence presented in his book is far too

little and not concrete enough to postulate a whole movement, and he

himself has stated (p. 14) that the neoconservatives were "not a specificsociological formation but an ideological voice appropriated by selected

individuals." And to see the "Buddha's pure message being eroded" is, in

my mind, not a common agenda, but rather a topos of Tibetan religious

literature (and certainly also of Indian literature) well known to a ll who

read widely (which Davidson certainly does). Davidson continues that

"the natural creativity of the Tibetan people embodied in the work of

Chapa, Gampopa, the Terma masters, and others was perceived [by the

neoconservatives] as heresy and doctrinal betrayal." Again I perceive a

term such as "creativity" in this context as an unfortunate choice, since

it does neither refer to creativity in writing (as in "creative writing") nor to

the creative ways of exposition, but rather implies doctrinal inventiveness

(hence "heresy and doctrinal betrayal"). What actually is happening here is

that Davidson seems to mix up his personal preference for Gampopa and

the Terma masters with the way he perceives such people as Sa-paJ:! and

'Jig-rten-mgon-po. At least in the case of the latter, documented evidence

that he condemned any Buddhist master as a heretic and fraud is totally

lacking in Davidson's book. Where did 'Jig-rten-mgon-po "work [... ] to

suppress any deviation from the norm, criticizing [... ] Buddhist activity"?

15) For some remarks on Sa-paJjs and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po's positions on Mahamudra andtheir closeness despite terminological differences, see Sobisch (forthcoming 2009b).


10/11


Methodological Considerations

This brings me to a last, more general point. Davidson's invention of the

category "neoconservative" introduces a culture- and author-alien conceptinto the discussion. One of the many questions that arise is, whether all

or only some of the above mentioned characterizations are necessary to be

a neoconservative. If all characterizations would be necessary, we would

have a monothetic group. But since many of those characterizations are

doubtful and arguably not fitting, especially not to the 'Bri-gung-pa, we

rather seem to have a polythetic group, i.e. one in which none of its ele-

ments are essential or alone sufficient to make someone a member of thatgroup.16 In this case, however, there is the real danger that the category

"neoconservative" lacks significance and that membership in that group

has practically no meaning. In other words: the value of such an etic cate-

gory is highly questionable. As Seyfort Ruegg has once formulated, we first

have to strive to understand the categories and terminologies of the source

culture itself, and how these categories relate to one another systemically

and structurally. This will then become a solid foundation upon which we

may carry out more generalizing and comparative investigations, avoiding

thereby the superimposing of extraneous modes of thinking and interpre-

tative gridsY

References

Davenport, John (2000) Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita's Treasury of Good Advice,

Wisdom Publications.

Davidson, Ronald (2005) Tibetan Renaissance: Ttmtric Buddhism in the Rebirth of

Tibetan Culture, New York: Columbia University Press.

Gold, Jonathan (2007) The Dharma's Gatekeepers: Sakya PalJt.lita on Buddhist Schol-

arship in Tibet, Albany, N..: State University of New York Press.

Jackson, David P. (1987) The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa-skya

PalJt.lita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of PramalJa and Philosophical Debate,

(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 17), Vienna: Arbeits-

kreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien.

16) Fora discussion of mono and polythetic groups, see Needham (1972) and (1975).1hese

were, to the best of my knowledge, first introduced into the discussion in our field by David

Seyfoft Ruegg.

17) For an interesting discussion of such a scholarly approach, see Seyfoft Ruegg (1995),156 If.


11/11


van der Kuijp, Leonard (1987) "An Early Tibetan View of the Soteriology of

Buddhist Epistemology: The Case of 'Bri-gung 'Jig-rten-mgon-po," Journal of

Indian Philosophy, 151 I: 57-70.

Liu, Kuo-wei (2002) "'Jig-rten-mgon-po and the 'Single Intention' (Dgongs gcig):

His view on Bodhisattva vows and its influence on Medieval Tibetan Bud-

dhism," PhD dissertation, Harvard University.

Martin, Dan (1997) "Beyond Acceptance and Rejection? The Anti-Bon Polemic

included in the Thirteenth-Century Single Intention (Dgongs-gcig Yig-cha) and

Its Background in Tibetan Religious History," Journal of Indian Philosophy,

25/3: 263-305.

Needham, Rodney (1972) Belief, language, and experience, Oxford: Blackwell.

--, (1975) "Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences," Man,

New Series, 10/3: 349-369.

Rhoton, Jarred (2002) A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential Distinc-

tions Among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Ttmtric Systems: the

Sdom Gsum Rab Dbye and Six Letters, Albany, N..: State University of New

York Press.

Schmidt, Susanne (2008) Gongchig: Das einzige Ansinnen, der wahrhafte Dharma,

Mit dem Kommentar Die Lampe, die die Dunkelheit beseitigt von Rigdzin

Chokyi Dragpa, Miinchen: Otter Verlag.

Seyfort Ruegg, David (1995) "Some Reflections on the Place of Philosophy in theStudy of Buddhism," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies

18/2: 145-181.

Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich (2002) Three-vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism: A Compar-

ative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth Through Nineteenth Centuries,

(Contributions to Tibetan Studies I), Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

--, (2006) Licht, das die Dunkelheit durchbricht: Einfuhrung in die "angeborene

Einheit" von Drikung Kyobpa Jigten Gonpo, (Introduction, Edition and Transla-

tion), Miinchen: Otter Verlag.--, (2007) Life, Transmissions, and WOrks of A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'...

bsod-nams, the Great I7th Century Sa-skya-pa Bibliophile, Hartmut-Ortwin

Feistel (ed.), (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland,

VOHD, Supplementband 38), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

--, (forthcoming 2oo9a) Review of Gold 2007, to appear in the Journal of the

American Oriental Society.

--, (forthcoming 2009b) "Guru-Devotion in the bKa' brgyud pa Tradition:

The Single Means to Realisation," Tibetan Studies IO, Proceedings of the Seminarof the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Bonn, 2006.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0022-1791()25:3L.263[aid=9142843]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0022-1791()25:3L.263[aid=9142843]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0022-1791()25:3L.263[aid=9142843]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0022-1791()25:3L.263[aid=9142843]

Documents

Were Sa-pan and 'Jig-rten-mgon-po "Neoconservatives? " Utility and Futility of Source-Culture Alien Categories