Do livro: The Buddha from Dolpo
A Study of the Life and 1hought of the Tibetan Master
'Do.lpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION
Cyrus Stearns
Introduction
0NE OF THE major sources of tension in .the interpretation of late
Indian Buddhism as received in Tibet was the appar_ently contra
dictory descriptions of emptiness (sunyatd, stong pa nyid) found in scrip
tures and commentaries identified with different phases of the tradition.'
The notion of an enlightened eternal essence, or buddha nature, present in
every living being was in marked contrast to the earlier traditional Buddhist
emphasis on the lack of any enduring essence.
For followers of Mahayana
and Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet, the reconciliation of these two themes
in the doctrinal materials they had inherited from India and elsewhere was
of crucial importance.
In fourteenth-century Tibet the concern with these issues seems to have
finally reached a critical point. There was a burst of scholarly works deal
ing in particular with the question of the buddha nature and the attendant
implications for Buddhist traditions of practice and explication. The forces
primarily responsible for the intense interest surrounding these issues at this
specific point in Tibetan history are not yet clearly understood. But it is
clear that many of the prominent masters of this period who produced the
most influential works on these topics were dedicated practitioners of the
teachings of the Kalacakra Tantra, and either personally knew each other or
had many of the same teachers and disciples. Some of the most important
masters were Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (12.84-1339 ), Buton Rinchen Dr_li,p
(1290-1364), Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292-1361), Longchen
(1308-64), Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen (1312-75), and Barawa Gyaltsen
Palsang (1310-91).
Without question, the writings ofDolpopa, who was also known as "The
Buddha from Dolpo" (Dol po Sangs rgyas) and "The Omniscient One from
Dolpo Who Embodies the Buddhas of the Three Times" (Dus gsum sangs
rgyas Kun mkhyen Dol po pa), contain the most controversial and stunning
ideas ever presented by a great Tibetan Buddhist master. The controversies
that stemmed from his teachings are still very much alive today, 6so years
after Dolpopa's death.
When attempting to grasp the nature and significance ofDolpopa's ideas
and their impact on Tibetan religious history, it is important to recognize
that he was a towering figure. He was not a minor teacher whose strange
notions influenced only his own Jonang tradition, and whose maverick line
of hermeneutic thought died out when that tradition was suppressed by
the central Tibetan government in the middle of the seventeenth century.
This is perhaps the orthodox version of events, but there is abundant evidence that Dolpopa's legacy spread widely and had a profound impact on
the development ofTibetan Buddhism from the fourteenth century to the
present day.
Whenever Dolpopa's name comes up, whether in ancient polemic tracts
or in· conversation with modern Tibetan teachers, it is obvious that he is
remembered first and foremost for the development of what is known as
the shentong (gzhan stong) view. Until quite recently, this view was familiar
to modern scholars largely via the intensely critical writings oflater doctrinal opponents ofDolpopa and the Jonang tradition.
In the absence of the original voice for this view, that is, Dolpopa's extensive writings that have
only been widely available since 1992, even Dolpopa's name and the words
"Jonang" and "shentong" often evoked merely the image of an aberrant and
·heretical doctrine that thankfully was purged from the Tibetan Buddhist
scene centuries ago.5 In this way a very significant segment of Tibetan religious history has been swept under the rug. One of the main aims of the
present work is to allow Dolpopa's life and ideas to speak for themselves.
Dolpopa uses the Tibetan term shentong (gzhan stong), "empty of other;
to describe absolute reality as empty only of other relative phenomena.
This view is his primary legacy and usually elicits a strong reaction, whether
positive or negative. Others before Dolpopa held much the same opinions,
in both India and Tibet, but he was the first to come out and directly say
what he thought in writing, using terminology that was new and shocking
for many of his contemporaries. His ne'Y "Dharma language" (chos skad),
which included the use of previously unknown terms such as shentong, will
be discussed in chapter 2.
According to Dolpopa, the absolute and the relative are both empty, as
Buddhism has always taught, but they must be empty in different ways. Phenomena at the relative level'are empty of self-nature (rang stong) and are no
more real than the fictitious horn of a rabbit or the child of a barren woman.
In contrast, the reality of absolute truth is empty only of other (gzhan stong)
relative phenomena. With the recent availability of a large number of writings by Dolpopa, it is now clear that he was not 'simply setting up the viewpoints of an emptiness of self-nature and an emptiness of other as opposed
theories located on the same level.
6 He obviously viewed the pair as complementary, while making the careful distinction that the view of an "emptiness
of other" applied only to the absolute and an "emptiness of self-nature" only
to the relative. Both approaches were essential for a correct understanding
of the nature of sa.q1sara and nirvar:ta. Dolpopa disagreed with people who
viewed both the absolute and the relative as empty of self-nature, and who
refused to recognize the existence of anything that was not empty of selfnature. From their point of view, the notion of an emptiness of other relative phenomena did not fit the definition of emptiness.
Dolpopa further identified the absolute with the buddha nature, or sugata essence, which was thus seen to be eternal and not empty of self-nature,
but only empty of other. The buddha nature is perfect and complete from
the beginning, with all the characteristics of a buddha eternally present in
every living being. It is only the impermanent and temporary afflictions veiling the buddha nature that are empty of self-nature and must be removed
through the practice of the path to allow the ever-present buddha nature to
manifest in its full splendor.
This view agreed with many Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures, but
most of the scholars· in Tibet during Dolpopa's life disagreed with him.
They viewed such scriptural statements to be provisional in meaning and
in need of interpretation for the true intent to be correctly comprehended.
This was the opinion of the mainstream Sakya tradition to which Dolpopa
belonged before he moved to Jonang. Fot some time Dolpopa tried to
keep his teachings secret, realizing they would be iTiisunderstood and cause
great turmoil and uncertainty for people who had closed minds and were
accustomed to styles of interpretation that differed greatly from his own.
He often remarked that the majority ofbuddhas and bodhisattvas agreed
with him on these issues, but the majority of scholars in Tibet opposed him.
For example, the general position ofthe Sakya tradition is that the buddha
nature, or sugata essence, is present in living beings as a potential or seed.
This seed can be caused to ripen through the various practices of the path
and come to final fruition as perfect buddhahood. If a seed is left in a box
without any water, light, warmth, soil, and so forth, it will never bear fruit.
But if it is planted in the proper soil, receives the right amount of sunlight,
water, and so on, it will grow into a healthy plant and finally bear its fruit.
From this viewpoint, the buddha nature in every living being is a fertile seed
that has the potential to expand and manifest as a result of practice, but is
not complete and perfect already as Dolpopa accepted?
In regard to the two truths, the absolute and the relative, Dolpopa saw
no difference bei:ween speaking of the absolute as totally unestablished and
saying that an absolute does not exist. He asked whether a relative is possible
without an absolute, the incidental possible without the primordial, and
phenomena possible without a true nature. If, he asked, their existence is
possibl"e without an absolute, then would these relative, incidental phenomena themselves not constitute an omnipresent·reality or true nature? There
would be, in such a situation, nothing else. This is an unacceptable conclusion. Dolpopa's doctrinal opponents might respond by saying that everything is not the relative, for there is, of course, an absolute truth. Dolpopa might then reply that if it is impossible for there to be no absolute, does
that not contradict the notion of an absolute that is totally unestablished?8
Everything cannot be simply empty of self-nature, for then there would be
no difference between the absolute and the relative .. As Dolpopa says in his
Autocommentary to the "Fourth Council":
Why is understanding all
as empty of self-nature
not equal to not understanding?
Why is explaining all
as empty of self-nature
not equal to not explaining?
Why is writing that all
is empty of self-nature
not equal to not writing?
Dolpopa saw the only solution to these sorts of problems to be the acceptance of the absolute as a true, eternal, and veridically established reality,
empty merely of other relative phenomena.
Such descriptions of reality or the buddha nature are common in anumber of scriptures that the Tibetan tradition places in the third turning of the
Dharma wheel and in the Buddhist tantras. Nevertheless, no one in Tibet
before Dolpopa had simply said that absolute reality was not empty of self-
nature. This was what caused all the trouble. In answer co the objections of
his opponents, Dolpopa noted chat his teachings and the Dharma language
he was using were indeed new, but only in the sense chat they were not wellknown in Tibet. This was because they had come from the realm ofShambhala co the north, where they had been widespread from an early dace.
He explicicly linked his ideas co the Kalacakra Tantra and its great commentary, the Stainless Light, which was composed by the Shambhala emperor
Kalki Plll).<;l.arika. These works were not translated into Tibetan until the
early eleventh century. Dolpopa clearly felt chat previous interpreters of the
Kalacakra literature had not fully comprehended its profound meaning. As
will be discussed in chapter I, he even ordered a new revised translation of
the Kalacakra Tantra and the Stainless Light to make the definitive meaning
more accessible to Tibetan scholars and In chis respect he was
attempting to remove the results of accumulated mistaken presuppositions
chat had informed the earlier translations in Tibet and provided the baSis
for many erroneous opinions concerning che true meaning of che Kalacakra
Tantra.
This book is divided into two pares. Part I deals with Dolpopa's life and
teachings. In chapter I Dolpopa's life is in some detail. This has
been made possible by che publication of one full-length Tibetan biography
of Dolpopa and the recovery of another unpublished manuscript biography, both by direct disciples who wimessed much of what chey describe.
Many ocher Tibetan sources have also been used for chis discussion. The
story ofDolpopa's life provides essential background for an appreciation of
his character, spiritual and intellectual development, and tremendous influence in fourteenth-century Tibet. ·
Chapter 2 summarizes the historical development of che shentong trildition in Tibet. Some of che earlier Tibetan precedents for che view of ultimate reality as an emptiness only ofocher relative phenomena are briefly
discussed. Dolpopa's unique use oflanguage and che major influences on his
development of the shentong cheory are presented in some detail. The fate of
the Jonang tradition after Dolpopa is described, as well as the significance
of several of the most important adherents to the shentong view from che
fourteench through the twentieth centuries.
Chapter 3 is a discussion of Dolpopa's view of the nature of absolute
reality as empty only of phenomena ocher chan itself, and of che relative as
empty of self-nature. In connection wich these ideas, Dolpopa's attempt to
redefine the views of Cittamatra and Madhyamaka in Tibet is described, and
his own definition of what constitutes che tradition of Great Madhyamaka
(dbu ma chen po) is summarized .. Finally, there is a brief presentation of two
opposing views of what actually brings about enlightenment. Dolpopa felt
that enlightenment occurs only when the vital winds {vayu, rlung) normally
circulating through many subtle channels in the body are drawn into the
central channel {avadhuti) through the practice of tantric yoga. He strongly
objected to the view that enlightenment could be achieved merely by recognizing the of mind, without any need for the accumulation of the
assemblies of merit and primordial awareness through the practice of the
path. These topics are discussed to provide basic information for understanding the following translations.
Part 2. contains translations of major works by Dolpopa, two of which
were coin posed in verse. The first is the General Commenary on the Doctrine
(Bstan pa spyi 'grel), one of the earliest texts Dolpopa composed to present
his view of the entire structure of the Buddhist tradition.
The introduc_;-tion to the translation describes the circumstances of its composition and
the significance of the work. The translation of the General Commentary on
the Doctrine is annotated from the detailed commentary by Nya On Kunga I
Pal, who was one of Dolpopa's most important disciples.
This first short work is followed by translations of the Fourth Council (Bka' bsdu bzhi pa)
and the Autocommentary to the "Fourth Council" (Bka' bsdu bzhi pa'i rang
'grel}. 1he circumstances surrounding the composition of these texts at the
request of the Sakya hierarch Lama Damp a Sonam Gyaltsen are discussed in
the introduction to the translations. The Fourth Council and the Autocom-. mentary were written in the last yeaJ;s ofDolpopa's life and serve as a final
summation of the ideas that he considered most important. Virtually the
entire text of his own summarizing commentary (bsdus don 'grel pa) to the
works is also included in the translation of the Fourth Council.
