Presenting a Controversial Doctrine in a Conciliatory Way: Mkhan chen Gang shar dbang po’s (1925–1958/59?) Inclusion of Gzhan stong (“Emptiness of Other”) within Prāsaṅgika

Abstract

Presenting a Controversial Doctrine in a Conciliatory WayMkhan chen Gang shar dbang po’s (1925–1958/59?) Inclusion of Gzhan stong (“Emptiness of Other”) within Prāsaṅgika Klaus-Dieter Mathes Positive descriptions of the ultimate, which are based on direct access to the luminous nature of one’s mind, as taught in the various traditions of Mahāmudrā or Great Perfection, look back upon a long history. Such systems found doctrinal support in the teachings of the third turning of the wheel of the dharma (dharmacakra), which is not only based on the doctrine of emptiness, but also distinguishes between the imputed and the real (i.e., phenomena and their true nature, or adventitious stains and buddha-nature).1 Some took this third dharmacakra as a teaching of definitive meaning and went so far as to stress the need to define its distinction between the imputed and the real in terms of two modes of emptiness: being “empty of an own-being” (rang stong) and being “empty of other” (gzhan stong). The most prominent proponent of gzhan stong, Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361), takes relative truth as being empty of a true own-being, but the ultimate as not being empty of such an own-being.2 In terms of the theory of three natures, Dol po pa equates this ultimate with [End Page 114] the perfect nature. It alone is gzhan stong, that is, empty of the imagined and dependent natures.3 Such an interpretation mainly follows the Extensive Commentary (Bṛhaṭṭīkā)4 on the Discourses of the Perfection of Wisdom (while also drawing support from the teaching of a buddha-nature, if one equates the latter with the perfect nature and the adventitious stains with the imagined and dependent natures) and requires one to reinterpret the traditional Yogācāra formula according to which the perfect is the dependent empty of the imagined. In the final analysis, the Jo nang pas go so far as to restrict the perfect to its unchangeable nature, with the perfect in terms of its unmistaken aspect (i.e., as nonconceptual wisdom) being taken as the “pure dependent.”5 The basis of emptiness thus is the ultimate or the unchangeable aspect of the perfect nature, everything dependent being part of the negandum which includes the entire relative truth. It should be noted that the Jo nang pa variety of gzhan stong is based on a particular understanding of the relation between the two truths, which requires a clear-cut distinction between an existing transcendent ultimate and a relative that does not exist in this fundamental state.6 In his Treasury of Knowledge (Shes bya mdzod), Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813–1899) remarks that Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507) has a different view, and illustrates this by quoting from the author’s Explanation of Profound Peace and Freedom from Mental Fabrication (Zab zhi spros bral gyi bzhad pa): As to the basis of emptiness, it is the dependent, the entire mind, which takes on the form of the duality of a perceived and a perceiver. The negandum is the imagined. Given its division into perceived and perceiver, it is twofold.7 When the dependent is taken as the basis of emptiness, the resulting gzhan stong formula does not necessarily posit the absence of the relative in the ultimate.8 The way such a Yogācāra-based gzhan stong allows for a dependent nature in the basis of emptiness, can be compared to the Third Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje’s (1284–1339) inclusion of “mere appearances,”9 which correspond to the relative truth, within buddha-nature.10 Based on these two models of emptiness, I earlier proposed distinguishing a Yogācāra-based gzhan stong from a tathāgatagarbha-based gzhan stong.11 Douglas Duckworth recently drew my attention to the Rnying ma master Lo chen Dharma Śrī (1654–1717), who describes two traditions of gzhan stong in a similar way: in the Yogācāra texts the basis of emptiness is delineated as the dependent that is empty of the imagined, whereas in the Ratnagotravibhāga it is suchness (i.e...