Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies: Illuminating Emptiness in a Twentieth-Century Tibetan Buddhist Classic

Translator’s Introduction

Translator’s Introduction Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies brings to light a number of significant philosophical and doctrinal issues in the Nyingma (rnying ma) tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. In this text, Bötrül (bod sprul mdo sngags bstan pa’i nyi ma, 1898–1959) lays out a systematic exposition of Mipam’s (’ju mi pham rgya mtsho, 1846–1912) voluminous writings on the Middle Way. While addressing a number of specific issues of Buddhist philosophy and doctrine, Bötrül situates Mipam’s Nyingma views amidst a plurality of positions held by competing sects in Tibet. By juxtaposing opposing traditions, Bötrül’s presentation helps his readers navigate the breadth and depth of the intricate world of Buddhist Tibet. Bötrül considered his Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies to be a “meaning-commentary” (don ’grel) on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty.1 The Beacon of Certainty is a Tibetan classic of philosophical poetry that integrates the view of the Great Perfection (rdzogs chen) with the Middle Way. Like the Beacon of Certainty, Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies presents a distinctively Nyingma view of the Middle Way, and addresses several key points of Buddhist philosophy—spanning both S¨tra and Mantra. Bötrül’s text offers a remarkable window into the dynamics of Tibetan scholarship by providing a catalogue of a wide range of views that are held within Tibetan traditions. His approach gives a clear picture of issues at stake that otherwise tend to be obscured when only a single tradition’s interpretative system is presented. Moreover, looking at different traditions side-by-side reveals the considerable differences between various schools of Buddhist thought in Tibet. Scholarship in English has just begun to uncover the depth and range of competing voices within the different sectarian traditions in Tibet. In particular, the works of José Cabezón, Georges Dreyfus, and Jeffrey Hopkins have 1 2 Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies furthered our appreciation for the extent to which views differ among Tibetan monastic traditions.2 From the antirealist epistemological tradition of the Sakya (sa skya) to the “semirealist” Geluk (dge lugs)—and from the Middle Way of the Geluk to the “other-emptiness” of the Jonang (jo nang)—the gulf dividing Buddhist sects seems to be vast. Although Bötrül highlights the differences between distinct interpretations of Buddhist doctrine, he advocates a position that he calls “nonsectarian.” His model for nonsectarianism is certainly not one that compromises distinctions between the traditions. Rather, by contrasting his own views with the claims of several different traditions , he represents his Nyingma tradition within a rich constellation of diverse views. Such a “nonsectarian” work thus involves an explicit intertextuality through which the author defines his own (sectarian) identity by means of explicitly drawing upon others’ texts. We should keep in mind that the term nonsectarian—particularly as it applies to a scholarly movement in Tibet that stems from the nineteenth century—is multivalent. It certainly does not refer to a single system of interpretation. Also, it need not mean that all traditions are necessarily taken as equal on all levels. Rather, a general characteristic of what it means to be “nonsectarian” in Tibet is a broad-based approach to Buddhist traditions that contrasts with a more insular model of scholarship that frames the boundaries of discourse within a narrowly delineated tradition of interpretation. Thus, we can understand what came to be known as the “nonsectarian movement” as a broad set of traditions, stemming from eastern Tibet in the nineteenth century, which developed a common interest in preserving a variety of Buddhist traditions as a response to the singular dominance of the Geluk school. Like the primary target of Mipam’s polemics, most of the positions Bötrül argues against are endorsed by followers of the Geluk tradition. Even so, he describes Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1357–1419), known as the founding father of the Geluk tradition, as like a second Buddha. This reveals an intricacy to his agenda that is easily overlooked in the polemical rhetoric. Bötrül also distinguishes his Nyingma tradition’s claims from Gorampa (go rams pa bsod nams seng ge, 1429–1489) in the Sakya; the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorjé (mi bskyod rdo rje, 1507–1554) in the Kagyü (bka’ brgyud); and Tåranåtha (jo nang rje btsun tå ra nå tha, 1575–1634) in the Jonang (however, he rarely mentions names). Some of the positions...