From the Three Natures to the Two Natures: On a Fluid Approach to the Two Versions of Other-Emptiness from Fifteenth-Century Tibet

Abstract

From the Three Natures to the Two NaturesOn a Fluid Approach to the Two Versions of Other-Emptiness from Fifteenth-Century Tibet Yaroslav Komarovski In recent years there has been a surge of scholarly interest in diverse systems of Buddhist thought and practice that Tibetan thinkers characterize as “other-emptiness” (gzhan stong), contrasting them with systems of “self-emptiness” (rang stong). While the theories of such exponents of other-emptiness as Dölpopa Sherap Gyeltsen (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361)1 are relatively well known, those of other Tibetan thinkers are only beginning to receive scholarly attention. This paper addresses one such lesser-known other-emptiness theory that was developed by the seminal Tibetan thinker Serdok Penchen Shakya Chokden (gser mdog paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan, 1428–1507). Shakya Chokden articulated his position on other-emptiness in works written during the last thirty years of his life. In those works he advocated both Alīkākāravāda Yogācāra and Niḥsvabhāvavāda Madhyamaka systems as equally valid forms of Madhyamaka, regarding the former as a system of other-emptiness and the latter as a system of self-emptiness.2 Instead of approaching the two systems as irreconcilable, he presented them as equally [End Page 78] valid and effective, emphasized their respective strengths, and promoted one or the other depending on context and audience. Partly for these reasons, his own philosophical outlook does not neatly fall into the categories of other-emptiness or self-emptiness, and placing him squarely into the camp of “followers of other-emptiness” (gzhan stong pa)—as some advocates of later sectarian traditions did—does not do justice to him as a thinker.3 According to Shakya Chokden, virtually all seminal Yogācāra authors, such as Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, as well as leading Buddhist logicians, such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, were adherents of Alīkākāravāda and, by extension, proponents of other-emptiness. This assessment follows from his understanding of the distinction between the two Yogācāra systems—Satyākāravāda and Alīkākāravāda—that ultimately boils down to the question of the reality of mental appearances. In Shakya Chokden’s opinion, although Yogācāras in general do not accept the existence of an external material world, according to Satyākāravāda its appearances or “representations” (rnam pa, ākāra) ref lected in consciousness have a real or true existence, because they are of one nature with the really existent consciousness, their creator. According to Alīkākāravāda, neither external phenomena nor their appearances and consciousnesses that reflect them really exist. What exists in reality is only primordial mind (ye shes, jñāna).4 Because only this latter position represents the final Yogācāra view, according to Shakya Chokden, to claim that any key Yogācāra thinker was a follower of Satyākāravāda would entail that he did not fully understand the final view of the Yogācāra system.5 While presenting the final view of reality held by key Yogācāra thinkers as identical, Shakya Chokden was also aware that they were far from being unanimous in their approaches to that view. He found two different versions of that view in Yogācāra works, but insisted that both versions are valid and do not contradict each other. Consequently, he himself did not interpret the view of other-emptiness in one way only, but shifted focus depending on what materials he was addressing. In the process, he articulated a provocative approach to the three natures (ngo bo nyid gsum, trisvabhāva)—the key Yogācāra categories involved in its teachings on reality—thereby contributing to our understanding of the diversity of Yogācāra theories and their interpretations in subsequent commentarial literature. Discussion of specific details of those theories and their comparison with Shakya Chokden’s views are beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, one important feature of Yogācāra writings should be mentioned. As is well known to contemporary scholars, Indian Yogācāra texts are far from being...