The debates between Mi pham and his Dge lugs opponents did not emerge upon a blank slate. They occurred in a specific historical setting and can be viewed as a product of the interplay of various (religious, sociological, political, etc.) factors, and also the debates had certain historical repercussions. This horizontal perspective of investigating the socio-historical background of the debates, and, in particular, the question of how religio-political issues may have played a role in the debates, is the topic of the second part of this chapter.
Apart from that, the debates can also be situated in a vertical line of development, as an example of a specific type of discourse and a literary genre they are part of. Rooted in the rich Indian tradition of religious-philosophical disputation, the phenomenon of debating in Tibet is an integral element of monastic scholarship as it developed on the plateau. In the course of monastic education, specific types of debates are utilised as a heuristic method that facilitates a student’s entrance into the intricacies of Buddhist philosophical thought.[1] Beyond the frame of everyday monastic courtyard debating, debates between different factions and schools serve not only as a pedagogical means, but often exhibit a more antagonistic nature.[2] While Tibetan history is full of accounts of – at times very fierce – personal disputations, there are no records informing us about the exact development of these. As opponents were not always proximate in terms of space and time, debates also materialised in the form of polemical texts, composed to refute a (living or dead) opponent, and came to form an independent genre of Tibetan literature. It is as examples of this specific type of literature and debate that the controversies around Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka are analysed in this study. To place the debates in the line of the general development of the genre of which they are one of the most important manifestations is the task of the first part of the present chapter. In the process, we will also investigate the connections to earlier disputes that are made in the course of the debates, and the repercussions of these debates on later controversies.
The Controversies in the History of dgag lan Debate
"Polemics" as a Literary Genre
The categorisation of Tibetan literature as "polemical" entails some ambiguities. Donald Lopez, in his seminal article about this very genre of literature, suggested "polemics" as the translation of the Tibetan term dgag lan.[3] Of course, as José Cabezón has pointed out, there are various terms in Tibetan that denote a type of literature that might be called "polemical":[4]
The indigenous Tibetan nomenclature used to designate a literary work as polemical is twofold: (a) terms that are used to refer to works that bring forth charges (of inconsistencies, fallacies, etc.) against opponents, and that therefore initiate polemical exchanges, and (b) terms that are used to refer to works that respond to the charges made by others. As examples of the former – what we might call the accusatorial moment that initiates a polemical exchange – we find terms like "debate/dispute/argument" (rtsod pa), "disputational document or record" (rtsod yig), "refutation" (dgag pa), "record of a refutation" (dgag yig) "adversarial speech" (rgol ngag), and "critique/repudiation" (sun 'byin). As examples of the latter terms – the terms used to designate the responsorial moments in polemical exchanges – we find words like "response to a dispute/argument" (rtsod lan), "countering/overturning an argument" (rtsod spong, rtsod bzlog), "response to a refutation" (dgag lan, honorific gsung lan), and "rebuttal" (brgal lan).
The latter type of polemical literature – the responsorial moment of a polemical exchange – can be clearly defined. It usually focuses on one specific text that is regarded as an objection to one's own position. As an answer to these objections, this type of literature then tries to disprove the objections of the other party. As its main aim is the attempt to ward off the opponent's attack, the nature of this latter type of literature is entirely polemical.[5]
More ambiguous, however, is the determination of the first kind of this literature – the initiating moment of a debate. The goal of a text might be to directly and explicitly criticise certain positions of another party and thus start a polemical interchange. More often, though, critical elements appear in a certain text whose overall agenda is a different one. Despite the general non-polemical nature of the text, an opponent might focus on the polemical elements and regard the whole text as a "disputational document" (rtsod yig) that criticises his own positions, and might see himself forced to provide a "response to the objections" (rtsod lan). Thus, what is seen as the initiating moment of a debate depends on the viewpoint of the reader or recipient. This ambiguity can also be perceived in the case of Mi pham and his opponents: although it contains some polemical elements, Mi pham clearly marked his Nor bu ke ta ka as a commentary (rnam bshad/vyākhyā) to the BCA, and, as such, it can hardly be seen primarily as a "disputational document."[6] From his point of view, a debate was initiated by the Dge lugs scholars who criticised his commentary through various rtsod yig, which again led to Mi pham's answers to these objections.[7] The view changes when the events are described from the viewpoint of Mi pham's opponents. Here, Mi pham is seen as the aggressor who was criticising doctrines of the Dge lugs school with his Nor bu ke ta ka, criticism to
which the Dge lugs scholars were then responding.[8]
Not only does this suggest that the role of the aggressor in a debate is an unpopular one, but it further makes clear that the genre-determination of a certain text might be unclear: a text might be composed, for example, primarily in the form of a commentary, but could nevertheless function also as a polemical text.[9]
Polemical Literature in Tibet
An extended history of the genre of polemical literature remains to be written, but José Cabezón, in the introduction to his translation of Go rams pa's Lta ba'i shan 'byed, provides us with an "impressionistic" overview of this literature as it developed in Tibet. In the following, I will highlight some cornerstones of this development in order to understand the place of the disputes around Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka in the line of polemical literature and debate.[10]
Surveying polemical literature as a whole, three general topics that served as focal points of discussion can be distinguished: practices, texts, and doctrines. When Buddhism took hold in Tibet, controversies about the right practice of religion arose not only between established practices, often associated with the Bon tradition, and the Buddhist newcomers, but also within the Buddhist tradition itself. Cabezón mentions the ordinance (bka' shog) of the Pu hrangs-king Ye shes 'od (late tenth, early eleventh centuries) as what could probably be called "the earliest polemical document in the history of Tibetan literature."[11] The short work expresses a concern about the way Buddhism is practiced by tantrikas (sngags pa) in rural areas, and condemns certain practices in ritual, such as sex, killing, human sacrifice, etc. The Bka' chems ka khol ma, which was discovered by Atiśa (b. 972/982), shares these worries about the proper practice of Buddhism, but also addresses the issue of proper belief, that is, of Buddhist doctrine. In the following centuries, doctrines were to become the focus of the majority of controversies, which does not mean that the question of right practice was completely off the agenda. Even six centuries after the composition of Ye shes 'od's text, the Rnying ma scholar Sog zlog pa Blo gros rgyal
mtshan (1552–1624) regarded the work as a criticism of the practices of his own school and felt inspired to respond to it. The most famous controversy about proper practice in the last few centuries developed only recently, in the 1970s, and is still very much a hot topic, namely the issue of the practice of the Dge lugs Dharma protector (chos skyong,srung ma) Rdo rje shugs ldan.[12]
After Ye shes 'od, it was the celebrated translator Rin chen bzang po (958–1055), who, being under the patronage of the former, initiated the criticism of tantric texts. In his own ordinance, Pho brang Zhi ba 'od (second half of the eleventh century), the grand nephew of Ye shes 'od, claims that many of the texts that were central to the Rnying ma tradition were not authentic, meaning that they were not translations from texts originating from India.[13] This accusation of the apocryphal nature of the Rnying ma tantras eventually led to their exclusion from the Buddhist canon that was compiled by Bu ston (1290–1364).[14] The question of authenticity was
also carried forward to other tantric traditions such as the Hevajra-tantra, central to the Sa skya tradition, as well as to the overall body of Gter ma literature, and, in turn, evoked the expected disapproval from their followers, which manifested itself in the production of polemical literature by both sides.
In the debates about Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka, questions about the acceptance of practices and general bodies of texts play a minor role; rather, their focus is on specific doctrines, a topic that became more important with the sophistication and differentiation of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, but that was also crucial to its very beginnings. Even though its exact development (and some say even its historicity in general) is left obscure, the socalled "Great Debate" – the debate that allegedly was held at the monastic centre of Bsam yas at the end of the eighth century – forms a seminal moment in the way the historical development of doctrinal controversies in
Tibet is imagined.[15] While the Tibetan sources report a "classical" debate between two parties, headed by a judge, the Chinese sources from Dunhuang describe, rather, a kind of interrogation, polemical questions that were put to one party, and its subsequent replies. Both sources, however, agree on the subject matter of the debate: the question about which way to awakening is preferable, the "gradualist' (rim gyis pa) way that emphasises the practice of the six pāramitās and the soteriological value of certain concepts such as compassion, or the "simultaneist" (cig car ba) way that views any conceptual state of mind as an obscuration on the path to buddhahood. The respective views were represented by the Indian scholar Kamalaśīla on the one side and the Chinese Ch'an master Hwa shang Mahāyāna on the
other. In this constellation, it is clear that the two masters not only stood for their individual views, but for a more Indian or a more Chinese implementation of Buddhism in Tibet in general. Most of the Tibetan sources inform us about the victory of Kamalaśīla and a subsequent decree of Khri srong lde btsan, the judge of the debates and ruler of Tibet, which established the view of Nāgārjuna and the practice of the six pāramitās as the proper system for Buddhism under his reign. Thus, the Indian interpretation of Buddhism in Tibet was enforced, while the Chinese tradition and its representative Hwa shang Mahāyāna were banned from the country. Leaving
questions of historical accuracy aside, it was this image of the debates that was most influential in the remembrance of later Tibetan generations. In the following centuries, Hwa shang Mahāyāna became the archetype of an erring and allegedly losing opponent, and various scholars accused their opponents of adhering to a "Hwa shang view" (hwa shang gi lta ba), a view that was deemed to be nihilistic.[16] The idea of a possible presence of such a wrong view is also reflected in the interpretation of the story of "Hwa shang's lost shoe." It is said that the defeated Hwa shang left behind one shoe when he left the debate arena, which in turn was seen as an omen that proponents of his view would still be present – left over – or come back to Tibet in later times.[17] In the present debates, too, this topic resonates strongly, as Mi pham is accused repeatedly by his Dge lugs opponents that he adheres to a Hwa shang type of view.
While the beginning of the "later diffusion" (phyi dar) was marked by questions about proper practice and texts that were discussed by the rulers and their followers in West Tibet, soon a shift of interests evolved. With Rngog Legs pa'i shes rab's establishment of Gsang phu Monastery in 1073 in Central Tibet, the foundation was laid for a more detailed commitment to Buddhist philosophy and the reassessment of its doctrines. Famous for his criticism of Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka and innovations in Pramāṇa theory is Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109–69),[18] an early abbot of Gsang phu, who was criticised by later scholars for his stance. Sa skya Paṇḍita's (1182–1251) Tshad ma rig gter, for example, can be seen as such a criticism. In Sa Paṇ's other works, such as his work on the three vows, the Sdom gsum rab dbye, too, the polemical element is very much present. His criticism of the Mahāmudrā tradition of the Bka' brgyud school is eminent, but also the disagreement on the subject of the three vows between him and his contemporary 'Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217), the founder of the 'Bri gung bka' brgyud sect.[19]
In the fourteenth century, two of the most prominent figures step onto the stage of polemical exchange, prominent not so much because of their own polemical verve, but rather, as Cabezón rightly notices, for being "the object of others' polemics."[20] The first, Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361), the father of the Jo nang tradition, is known for his interpretation of emptiness as "empty of what is other" (gzhan stong), which established an – often seemingly irreconcilable – division among Tibetan Mādhyamikas into followers of the rang stong or gzhan stong traditions, respectively. The second, Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419), is probably the most influential of all Tibetan philosophers. His approach is generally distinguished by the rigorous employment of logic, even for such lofty subjects as the determination of the absolute (don dam/paramārtha), an approach that was preserved and refined by his immediate disciples, such as Rgyal tshab Dar ma rin chen (1364–1432) and Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang (1385–1438), and later scholars of the Dga' ldan (later Dge lugs) tradition that he founded.
Dol po pa was criticised by Sa skya masters, such as Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (1367–1450), Red mda' ba Gzhon nu blo gros (1349–1412), and Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge (1429–89). Also Tsong kha pa, who was a student of Red mda' ba, is known to have refuted Dol po pa, a criticism that – with the growth of power in the Dge lugs tradition – only became stronger in the subsequent generations of scholars, and can be seen as a contributing factor that led to the conversion of Jo nang monasteries into Dge lugs institutions and the ban of Jo nang texts under the rule of the fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682), a fate that the Jo nang pas shared with the Bka' brgyud tradition.[21]
As much as Tsong kha pa's innovations were celebrated in his own surroundings, they were objected to by scholars of other traditions, the Sa skya school in particular. This, in turn, led to the expected counteractions and the production of a considerable corpus of polemical literature between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. As for the most famous critics of Tsong kha pa, Stag tshang lo tsā ba (b. 1405), Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507), Go rams pa, and the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507–
54) must be mentioned. Stag tshang's criticism was then objected to by the First Paṇ chen bla ma Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1570–1662), 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa (1570–1662), and Phur lcog Ngag dbang byams pa (1682–1762). Rje btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1469–1544/6), the composer of the yig cha of the Se ra byes college, responded to the other three critics of Tsong kha pa mentioned, Shākya mchog ldan, Go rams pa, and Mi bskyod rdo rje.[22] Responses to Go rams pa were further written by 'Jam dbyangs
dga' ba'i blo gros (1429–1503) and Lcang lung Paṇḍita (1770–1845). The philosophical controversy between the Dge lugs tradition and – mainly – scholars of the Sa skya school was not followed by a large-scale confinement of their tradition, as was the case for the Jo nang school, but individual authors, such as Go rams pa and Shākya mchog ldan, were suppressed under the rule of the Dga' ldan pho brang.
The nineteenth century was marked by the controversies between Mi pham and several scholars, mainly from the Dge lugs tradition, events whose exact developments have already been discussed in the last chapter. Many of the doctrinal and hermeneutical issues that were discussed for centuries by earlier scholars surface here again, and add to a general divide between the Dge lugs school and non-Dge lugs traditions in scholastic matters.
Some centuries later, the Dge lugs stance of Madhyamaka was even criticised from inside the Dge lugs tradition, when the famous A mdo libertine Dge 'dun chos 'phel (1903–1951) passed down his Klu sgrub dgongs rgyan.[23] Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work was deemed close to views associated with the Rnying ma tradition and viciously rejected among orthodox Dge lugs circles, for example, by Dze smad Rin po che (1927–96) and his former teacher Rdo sbis Dge bshes Shes rab rgya mtsho (1884–1968), which again led to further defending and attacking of the different positions.[24]
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the corpus of polemical literature expanded rapidly, making it difficult to keep track of all its developments. In recent times, polemical discourse has also discovered Tibetan-language periodicals, as well as the internet, as suitable media.[25]
In the current state of research on polemical literature, evaluating its overall development appears a very bold and speculative venture. Nevertheless, I will dare to make a few – tentative – remarks in this regard. Reviewing the corpus of literature that the TBRC database lists under the rubric "polemic," and comparing it with the dates of the individual works or the dates of their authors, at least gives us an idea of the development of the genre in terms of quantity.[26] TBRC's list hardly contains any examples of polemical literature before the end of the fourteenth century, which seems to imply that there were only a few works of this genre composed in this period, or that existing works were lost, or, probably, both. The situation changes clearly with the fifteenth century, where several works are listed. The figures go down for the sixteenth century and remain stable for the following period, including the eighteenth century. Then, the numbers rise again in the nineteenth century, a development that culminates in the twentieth century with an enormous production of polemical literature.
How can this development be interpreted? Two points seem significant: the rise of polemical literature in the fifteenth century, and its enormous growth, starting with the nineteenth century. In both periods, major conflicts were taking place – the controversy between Sa skya and Dge lugs scholars in the fifteenth century, and the controversy between Dge lugs scholars and Mi pham in the nineteenth century – and it seems plausible to think of these debates as initiating moments that entailed subsequent controversies, thus leading to the growth of polemical literature. Such an explanation can, of course, only be applied to a part of the literature and – most importantly – does not concern the beginning of a controversy.[27] Exploring the conditions for the start of a debate remains the task of further research; in the case of the debates on Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka, these conditions will be dealt with in the second part of the present chapter.
In terms of content and character, it may be useful to view the overall development of polemical literature as a continuous process of differentiation that evolves from the coarser to the more subtle: from debates about the right tradition (Bsam yas) and religion (chos vs. bon) in the first propagation (snga dar), through questions about the right practice (critique of māntrika practice by Ye shes 'od and Atiśa) and texts (the exclusion of the Rnying ma tantras from the Bka' 'gyur) within the Buddhist tradition in the second propagation (phyi dar), to questions about the right doctrines between adherents of different schools (e.g., the Sa skya-Dge lugs controversy) and questions about the right doctrines among scholars of the same school (e.g., certain Dge lugs scholars that belonged to different colleges; the debate between Mi pham and Rdo grub Dam chos) at the climax of Tibetan scholasticism. As such, every debate can be read as a communication, where one side criticises and excludes the other (religion, tradition, practice, text, doctrine, etc.) and by that very act constitutes the borders of its own system. In the course of Tibetan scholasticism, these systems split and differentiate, forming new units that act as references for the identity of their adherents.
Connections to Earlier Controversies
In view of the lack of detailed studies in the field of polemical literature, drawing precise connections in terms of similarities of positions and arguments between the debates under consideration and earlier controversies is rather tedious. However, the participants of the debates make reference to earlier developments and ascribe to themselves and their opponent(s) a place in the larger context of philosophical controversies in Tibet. It is on these contextualisations, found usually as an introductory framework to the content proper of a text, that we will focus in the following.
In the introductions of two of the texts that Dge lugs scholars sent to Mi pham in order to criticise him, explicit reference is made to some of the earlier debates. Rab gsal, in his first critique,[28] begins by establishing Tsong kha pa, the founder of his native tradition, as an incontestable authority, who was not only predicted by "trustworthy scriptures and excellent beings,"[29] but also lived up to their expectations. Nevertheless, so Rab gsal stated, he was criticised by Stag tshang Shes rab rin chen, the famous first critic of Tsong kha pa, described above. The reason for his criticism is obvious: he could not see the greatness of Tsong kha pa as he "had a mind that is afflicted by the defect of Timira,"[30] a disease where one's vision is disturbed by apparently existing, but actually non-existent hairs – a typical example of someone whose perception is not to be trusted. Those of sharp faculties (dbang rnon), on the other hand, certainly understood the profundity of Tsong kha pa's findings. Nowadays, however, Rab gsal continues, there is a composer of a commentary of the ninth chapter of the BCA who has all sorts of flaws. Mi pham is described as "short-tempered" (blo sna thung) and "having a partial view" (phyogs re'i mig can);[31] he "criticises any text of his own or another's [tradition] without consideration and, in particular, he is clueless with regard to the path of reasoning [...]."[32] This
suggests that Mi pham, just like Stag tshang Lo tsā ba earlier, is unjustly criticising Tsong kha pa. For Rab gsal there is a clear distinction among Tibetan thinkers: as Tsong kha pa is the benchmark for what is right, everyone who follows in his tradition can be established as a proper heir of Buddhist thought, while everyone who is in contradiction to Tsong kha pa must inevitably be wrong.
A similar division is made by Ldan ma Blo chos, who, in the introduction to his own critique of Mi pham, sums up the development of philosophical controversies in Tibet in the following way:[33] Initiated by Nāgārjuna, the second Buddha, the Madhyamaka tradition was spread by masters of the Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika traditions and was flourishing in India. Then, gradually, it came to Tibet, where "the collections of the profound and vast Dharma [...] were translated well," thanks to the combined efforts of translators and rulers. Even though Buddhism was able to establish itself in the tradition of the Early Translation (sngar 'gyur) with an abundance of followers, thus being likened to "a gathering of bees," "the strength of the interest of the disciples gradually diminished and hence the majority turned away from the correct path: some took their own view to be the highest, and pretended it was the sermon of the Buddha, others came into contact with wrong views such as [that of] Hā shang [...].
These people of wrong views and practices were refuted by Kamalaśīla." Further, Atiśa criticised those who took up the path of the Vajrayāna without basing themselves on the ordinary path (of proper discipline etc.) first, and "adorned Tibet with the Bka' gdams pa teaching." Later, this teaching was obstructed by "the mistaken people from earlier times" (sngar gyi log rtog rnams). At that stage, it was time for Tsong kha pa to point out the correct path once again. He and his followers succeeded, but soon afterwards "the black banner of the proponents of wrong [positions] was woven by the three, Go, Shag, and Stag," i.e., the famous Sa skya critics Go rams pa, Shākya mchog ldan, and Stag tshang lo tsā ba. Of course, the followers of the Dge lugs tradition did not allow these wrong views to prevail; hence Rje btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 'Jam dbyangs dga' ba'i blo gros, and Paṇ chen Chos rgyan "cut [these wrong views] with the sharp knives of scriptures and reasoning and knocked them down." In
the present day, Ldan ma Blo chos continues, there is again a detractor of the Lord Tsong kha pa. This time it is the "fearless" Mi pham, who composed "sarcastic refutations with regard to the positions (thugs bzhed) of the Lord [Tsong kha pa]'s own tradition that clarify the difficult points of the Prajñā[nāma]mūla[madhyamakakārikā] by way of the eight great theses of the Prāsaṅgika [tradition]." Mi pham's criticism was answered by Brag dkar Sprul sku, to whom Mi pham responded with his Brgal lan nyin snang. In Blo chos' conclusion, the problem is that Tsong kha pa follows the scriptures of Candrakīrti, Buddhapālita, and ultimately Nāgārjuna in a correct way, while Mi pham "expounds these scriptures in a wrong way, by [giving] crooked explanations."
While Ldan ma Blo chos' account is much more elaborate than that of Dpa' ris Rab gsal, we can see that Blo chos too, draws a clear-cut line between what is right and what is wrong among Tibetan philosophers. In its Madhyamaka stance, Tibetan philosophy goes back to the Indian master Nāgārjuna, and for Ldan ma Blo chos the right interpretation and preservation of Nāgārjuna's ideas is essential. In India, Nāgārjuna's thought was disseminated by the masters of the Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika traditions, and when Buddhism spread to Tibet, it was masters such as Kamalaśīla and Atiśa who carried on Nāgārjuna's heritage. Through this line of transmission, Madhyamaka philosophy came to Tsong kha pa, who "spread it as the great sound of the correct Dharma,"[34] and – at least for followers of the Dge lugs tradition – it is in his native tradition that this "correct Dharma" is preserved.
Since this lineage of transmission is "correct" and "pure," it exposes itself to infiltration and attack, and must therefore be defended. In Ldan ma Blo chos' account, first Kamalaśīla had to ward off Hwa shang and others of wrong views and conduct. After him, it was Atiśa who had to fight misguided tantrikas. Even though each of them succeeded, new times brought new dangers to the correct lineage of the transmission of Buddhism from India to Tibet. Again, Tsong kha pa is described as the benchmark, who, just as his predecessors, was able to ensure the continuation of the proper understanding of Nāgārjuna – in his case against "the mistaken people from earlier times," referring probably to the aforementioned followers of the mistaken Hwa shang and certain tantrikas. After Tsong kha pa, a new threat arose with various Sa skya scholars. For Ldan ma Blo chos, Tsong kha pa embodies the standard of Tibetan philosophy, and hence any criticism of him endangers the preservation of Nāgārjuna's thought. Tsong kha
pa's own followers therefore fought back against the criticism from the Sa skya side; in more recent times, scholars such as Brag dkar Sprul sku have guarded Tsong kha pa's heritage against the qualms raised by Mi pham.
In Ldan ma Blo chos' description, the lineage of proper transmission is thus contrasted with a lineage of "impure transmission," or threat to the former. In this lineage, Mi pham is placed in a line with Hwa shang, certain misguided tantrikas, their successors, and the critics of Tsong kha pa from the Sa skya tradition.
Turning to the texts that were exchanged between Mi pham and Dpa' ris Rab gsal – the major object of this study – we find two recurring elements in the content proper of the debates that also locate Mi pham in this lineage: the claim that Mi pham's position resembles that of Hwa shang, and the claim that his interpretation would conflict with that of Tsong kha pa.
Pari Lobzang RabsalPhotographer unknown
In both philosophical discussion and purely rhetorical polemic,[35] Rab gsal accuses Mi pham of adhering to a Hwa shang view,[36] of basing his arguments on the same scriptures as Hwa shang,[37] and of "coming from China in the guise of a present-day monk."[38] Further, Mi pham "is also not to blame [for adhering to the Hwa shang view], since he received his (i.e., Hwa shang's) old boot as a reward."[39] All these examples are intended to indicate a strong connection between Mi pham and Hwa shang, a figure that, in the development of Tibetan philosophy, "has become the quintessential philosophical other."[40]
The second issue, the question of whether Mi pham contradicts Tsong kha pa, is another prominent theme in the debates. Rab gsal uses Tsong kha pa as the authority in all philosophical matters;[41] for him, the Dge lugs founder (and also his heirs) assures the proper transmission of the lineage coming from India through masters such as Atiśa and 'Brom ston.[42] Mi pham, on the other hand, is depicted as being in contradiction to the Dge lugs leader.[43] In both cases, i.e., the charges that Mi pham adheres to the Hwa shang view or contradicts Tsong kha pa, the implications are the same: if either of the accusations could be established, Mi pham clearly would have overstepped the bounds of proper philosophy.
How does Mi pham then react to these charges, and how does he place himself and his opponents within the larger context of philosophical controversies in Tibet? Mi pham is clearly in a much more defensive position. In his texts we do not find any attempts to locate the opponent within a long tradition of mistaken understanding; instead, Mi pham is occupied with warding off the charges made against him. In an elaborate way he argues that his position is not that of Hwa shang, and, in view of the lack of concrete texts from the Hwa shang tradition, also asks for more care when accusing someone of holding the view of Hwa shang.[44] Further, he denies that he contradicts the position of Tsong kha pa. Mi pham joins his Dge lugs opponents in praising their leader[45] and refers to certain texts by Tsong kha pa in order to prove the ultimate consensus between himself and the Dge lugs founder.[46] Mi pham thus makes clear that he accepts Tsong kha pa's authority; he argues that, rather than his contradicting Tsong kha pa, it is the "present holders of the lineage of Lord [Tsong kha pa],"[47] or, even more pointedly, the "present people that assert to hold the lineage of Lord [Tsong kha pa], the Mahātma,"[48] who do not understand the intention of their founding master, and hence see a contradiction between him and Mi pham. Mi pham emphasises the ultimate unity of himself and Tsong kha pa, and thus places himself – along with Tsong kha pa – in the lineage of proper transmission of Buddhist thought. According to him then, it is only those who do not see this unity who have gone astray from the proper path.
On the other hand, Mi pham also has to acknowledge certain differences between his tradition and that of Tsong kha pa. Mi pham describes this disparity as a "difference insofar as the position (bzhed tshul) of the earlier Tibetan [thinkers] (bod snga rabs pa) and of the later scholars (phyis kyi mkhas pa) is slightly different."[49] Among Tibetan Madhyamaka philosophers, a common classification is that one either belongs to the tradition of "the ones from earlier times" (snga rabs pa) or the tradition of the "ones from later times" (phyi rabs pa). "Snga rabs pa" denotes the rang stong branch of Madhyamaka that developed prior to Tsong kha pa, including scholars from the Sa skya, Rnying ma, and Bka' brgyud traditions, while the tradition that is based on Tsong kha pa's interpretation is termed "Phyi rabs pa."[50] Mi pham explains the differences between himself and Tsong kha pa as a result of the affiliation with these two disparate traditions, the Phyi rabs pa tradition that Tsong kha pa founded, and the Snga rabs pa tradition, in which Mi pham places his own philosophy. This identification with the Snga rabs pa tradition, to which Mi pham frequently refers, has a clear advantage:[51] even in the case of – as Mi pham would say, superficial – disparity between his and Tsong kha pa's thought, it is not the result of a critique of Tsong kha pa, but only of the affiliation of his own school. Mi pham explains that he "was born in this life at the feet of the teaching of the Earlier Translation (snga 'gyur pa)" – the Rnying ma tradition – and that he "received the nectar [of the teaching] from the mouths of great holders of the teaching." Hence, devotion arose in him and he "simply was not caught by the demon of terrible destruction, that means, an evil attitude of disparaging the profound long-standing tradition of the Highest (i.e. the Buddha)," but his "explanations follow the earlier highest [masters]."[52] Thus, Mi pham establishes his position on firm ground; as a disciple of the Rnying ma tradition, and, as such, being affiliated with the Snga rabs pa tradition of Tibetan Madhyamaka, his thought does not deviate from the lineage of the proper transmission of Buddhism, even though it might not be in line with the philosophy of Tsong kha pa in every aspect. Put in this context, difference is natural, and not a deviation from the proper way, as Mi pham points out: "[my] view is in accordance with the Tibetan Snga rabs pa [tradition] and some people who belong to the Phyi rabs pa [tradition] announce it to be a 'private Dharma'."[53]
We have seen how the Dge lugs scholars Ldan ma Chos dbyings and Dpa' ris Rab gsal use references to earlier controversies to distinguish a proper transmission of Buddhist thought from its improper counterpart. In their view, Tsong kha pa and his followers assure the continuation of the earlier, while any deviation from Tsong kha pa's thought – such as the philosophy of Mi pham or earlier misguided scholars – is perceived as a threat to this transmission. Mi pham, on the other hand, takes a defensive
position. He tries to refute the charges made against him and establishes his own thought as part of his own Rnying ma school and the Snga rabs pa interpretation of Tibetan Madhyamaka.
Impact of the Debates on Later Controversies
As noted above, the enormous growth in the production of polemical literature in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries makes it difficult to keep track of all its developments. While the debates around Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka have had their impact on a number of these controversies, I will focus only on a single, particularly well-known example. Dge 'dun chos 'phel with his Klu sgrub dgongs rgyan is probably the most famous critique of his own Dge lugs tradition in the twentieth century. Even though his work does not make any direct reference to the debates surrounding Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka, certain parallels suggest a connection between the
two controversies.[54]
Just as in the earlier debates, the issues under discussion centre on the specific manners of interpretation of two different Tibetan Madhyamaka traditions, the Snga rabs pa and the Phyi rabs pa traditions. Dge 'dun chos 'phel frequently refers to the Snga rabs pa tradition and defends it against his native Phyi rabs pa tradition and its founder Tsong kha pa.[55] As a consequence, Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work addresses many of the topics that were discussed earlier by Mi pham and his opponents, and, before them, among Dge lugs and mainly Sa skya scholars in the period between the
fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries: the reliability of conventional valid cognition (tha snyad tshad ma); a too narrow or too broad determination of the negandum (dgag bya); a literal understanding of the Madhyamaka principle that things are "neither existent nor non-existent" (yod min med min) versus an interpretation through the insertion of qualifiers/specifiers; a conception of emptiness as being free from two (yod, med) or four extremes (yod, med, gnyis, gnyis min); the role of assertions (dam bca', khas len) in Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka; the scope of logic; etc.[56]
Based on the similarity of certain ideas, Donald Lopez refers to the famous Sa skya trio Stag tshang lo tsā ba, Go rams pa, and Shākya mchog ldan as precedents for Dge 'dun chos 'phel's views.[57] Surely we can add Mi pham to this list of Snga rabs pa philosophers, as Dge 'dun chos 'phel – growing up in the same area as Dpa' ris Rab gsal, one of the main opponents of Mi pham, and studying at 'Bras spungs, the monastic institute of Brag dkar Sprul sku and Ldan ma Chos dbyings, Mi pham's two other Dge lugs opponents – must have been aware of the controversies surrounding Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka.[58] Moreover, parallels between Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work and the texts of Mi pham are not limited to specific philosophical ideas alone, but can also be observed in the sources that are consulted to verify these ideas.[59]
Obviously, Dge 'dun chos 'phel was in a state of abeyance and held both Tsong kha pa and Mi pham – two of the greatest masters of quite divergent schools – in great esteem, as expressed in one of his last wishes before his death that a poem of each of the two masters should be read to him.[60] That Dge 'dun chos 'phel was seen as holding an arbitrary position between Tsong kha pa and Mi pham is also illustrated by an anecdote related by his student, friend, and companion Shes rab rgya mtsho:[61]
One day, as an aside to the accounts of the Lamas, I asked [Dge
'dun chos 'phel]: "Who of the two, Lord [Tsong kha pa], the
Mahātma, and the Dharma Lord Mi pham, is wiser?" He said:
"I have thought this issue over many times. Those two are very
similar: their minds are emanations of the Buddha and both
had visions of Mañjuśrī. If both were present today and en-
gaged in debate, Lord [Tsong kha pa] would probably come
out as the wiser, as the Precious Lord [Tsong kha pa] had en-
gaged in academic training for a long time. That is what I think.
With regard to skill in acute intelligence, ability to understand,
way of explanation, and so forth, Mi pham is terrific. But if oth-
ers hear this, they could well object. This is truly what I say."
In the present context, Shes rab rgya mtsho's question is even more interesting than Dge 'dun chos 'phel's pointed answer. The question suggests that the two masters, Tsong kha pa and Mi pham, could be compared in terms of their intellectual achievements, that – ultimately – there is a struggle of supremacy between these two scholars. It seems that Shes rab rgya mtsho – just like Mi pham's direct opponents – does not view the tensions between Mi pham and the Dge lugs school in their specific historical
context, as a debate between contemporary figures, but shifts the tensions back in time and conceptualises them as a struggle between Mi pham and Tsong kha pa.
As mentioned earlier, Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work was criticised rather strongly by orthodox Dge lugs scholars such as Dze smad Rin po che and Dge 'dun chos 'phel's teacher, Rdo sbis Shes rab rgya mtsho (not to be confused with his aforementioned friend who bears the same name). The most fundamental point of criticism made by later scholars was to question the authenticity of the work in general. According to its colophon, it was composed by Dge 'dun chos 'phel's student Zla ba bzang po, who belonged to the Rnying ma tradition, but based on the oral instructions of Dge 'dun chos 'phel. Bdud 'joms Rin po che, another famous Rnying ma scholar, is reported to have financed the whole undertaking and also added three verses of his own to it.[62] Some scholars thus did not regard the Klu sgrub dgongs rgyan as a proper work of Dge 'dun chos 'phel, but rather as a "mixture" that was deemed to be greatly influenced by Rnying ma ideas.[63] Dge 'dun chos 'phel's friend Hor khang Bsod nams dpal 'bar writes in this regard:[64]
Concerning whether or not the Adornment for Nāgārjuna's Thought is an actual composition of that excellent being, there is a difference of opinion between the Dge lugs and the Rnying ma. Some say that it is not the statements of Dge 'dun chos 'phel and that it is a mixture, with a great deal added to Zla ba bzang po's notes. Others identify it as an actual composition of Dge 'dun chos 'phel.
Also, defenders of Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work noticed a connection to traditional Rnying ma ideas. Thub bstan blo gros in his Dgag lan mun sel sgron me refutes not only attacks on the Klu sgrub dgongs rgyan, but also attacks on the thought of Mi pham. Further, Blo bzang chos grags, in his criticism of the Dgag lan mun sel sgron me, links the Klu sgrub dgongs rgyan to Mi pham's philosophical stance.[65]
This suggests that salient issues of the previous controversies resonate in Dge 'dun chos 'phel's work, as it has been conceived of by both his supporters and opponents. The controversies connected to Mi pham's Nor bu ke ta ka are, then, not only a logical continuation of the discussions of earlier scholastics, but they also provide an important impetus for the ways Madhyamaka thought has been discussed in the twentieth century and continues to be in the twenty-first.
