Madhyamaka

Studies Among the Early Saskyapas

by David P. Jackson
The Tibet Journal 10:2 (1985)

Madhyamaka Studies Among the Early Sa-skya-pas

David P. Jackson

LTHOUGH

Madhyamaka

philosophy

occupied

an

indisputably

central position throughout the development of Tibetan Buddhism,

manv aspects of its history in Tibet have remained obscure. Some of the

mai Tibetan historians give brief accounts of the Sva.tantri ka and Prasailgika
lineages that were established by the translators Rngog Blo-Idan-shes-rab

(1059-1109) and Pa-tshab Nyi-ma-grags (b. 1055), respectively. But they say
surprisingly little about the transmission of these traditions down to the t im e

of the masters who gave the Madhyamaka doctrines their definitive inter
pretations for the major schools, such as Tsong-kha-pa B lo-bzang-grags-pa
(1357-141 9)

for the

Dge-Iugs-pa

and

Go-rams-pa

Bsod-namssengg e

(1429-1489) for the Sa-skya-pa. Just to unravel the lineages of the scholars
who taught Madhyamaka during the 11 th through 14th centuries is noW
not always easy. And it is o ften very difficult to trac e precisely how the
doctrines were understood in those times.
The early Sa-skya-pas are not exempt from these difficulties. If one asks,

for instance, which Madhyamaka lineage the founders of Sa-skya followed,

there is no easy and universally accepted answer. The later Tibetan historians
and scholars do not give adequate answers, for their accounts are generally
one-sided and do not agree. More satisfactory solut ions to this proble m

can,

in fact, only be reached by going directly to the biographies of the Sa-skya-pa

founders and seeing what teachings they received.

The biographies reveal that the study of the Madhyamaka scholastic

treatises was a part of the Sa-skya-pa traditio n since the time of the first
great founder, Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po (1092-U58).

He and his two

of Rngog lo-tsa-ba Blo-Idan-shes-rab, i.e. according to

b asically Svatran

so ns for the most part studied he Madhyamaka t reat ise s within the school
a

trika approach. ThePrasaJigika tradition ofPa-tshab lo-tsa-ba is not definitely

recorded to have reached the Sa-skya-pas

u ntil

Sa-skya PaI).Qita, though Sa-chen's son

the time of Sa-chen's grandson

Bsod-nams-rtse-mo had at least

a basic acquaintance with the PrasaJigika tenets.

Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po

Sa-chen studied the Madhyamaka with at least four t

e achers. As a youth
.
he studIed
under dge-bshes Me-Ihang,1 who is described as being
a di sciple
of Rngog 10-tsa-ba2 or of Rngog 10's disciple Khyung Rin-chen-grags 3
. The

21

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

works that Sa-chen studied under Me-lhang included the so-called "trhree
eastern SViitantrika t reat ises (ral1g rgyud shar gsum), the main treatises of
"

three g reat Sviitantrika masters of 8th-century eastern I ndia :

Jiiiinagarbha, Satyadvayavibhanga, karika and vrtti (Bden pa gnyis

mal1l par 'byed pa rtsa 'gre!, Derge nos. 3881, 3882)
Siintarakita, Madhyamakalal!lkara, kiirikli and vrtti (Dbu ma rgyall
rlsa 'grel. Derge nos . 3884, 3885)
Kamalasila, Madlzyamakaloka (Dbu ma snang ba, Derge no. 3887)
Another of Sa-chen's teachers was Mal-g yo lo-tsa-ba Blo-gros-grags.
From hi m Sa-chen learned the treatises by Niigiirjuna that formed the

Madhyamaka scholastic corpus (dbu ma rigs pa'i IS/lOgS):

MUlamadhyamakakarikas (Dbu ma r(sa ba shes I'ab)
Yukti:ja,tikCi (Rigs pa drug eu pa)
Silnyatasaptati (Stong pa nyid bdun belt pa)
Vigrahavyavartani (Rtsod pa bzlog pa)
Vidald (Zhib mo mam 'thag)

In addition, he stUdied Niigiirjuna's hy mnic corpus (bstod pa'i tshogs) and

Si1trasamuccaya (Mdo kun las btus pa).4

The third teacher who

taught Madhyamaka to Sa-chen was dge-bshes

Sgyi-chu-ba. With him, he a gain studied the "three eastern SViitantrika

treatises," together with the SilqCisamltccaya and BodhisattvdearyCivattira

of Siintideva. Interestingly, the lineage of Sgyi-chu-ba is said to have come

from h is teacher Mnga - ris -pa 5

'

The

latter was probably Mnga'-ris-pa

Gsal-ba'i-snying-po, a late d iscipl e of 'Brog-mi lo-tsa-ba roughly contem

poraneous with Rngog lo-tsa-ba.6

A fourth teacher of Madhyamaka texts to Sa-chen was bIa-ma Kha'u-pa

Kha'u sku-mched ) With him he studied the Bodhi

(or the Kha'u brothers:

sattvaearyiivatiira and Sik:jlisamuccaya of Sa ntidev a and the Siltl'asamuccayd.7

Finally one should note that Sa-chen may also have stUdied the Madhya

maka directly under Rngog lo-tsa-ba's disciple Khyung Rin-chen-grags.

In the biography by his son Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, it is said that Sa-chen

srud ied a lot with Khyung and that t hese studies included such subjects as

Prama\la. At that time the assistant teacher (zur clzos pa) was one Dpal-mi
Dig-pa.

Two later historians-Shiikya-mchog-ldan and Thu'u-bkwan

specify that: these studies under Khyung Rin-chen-grags included Madhya

maka.8

Slob-dpon Bsod-nams-rtse-mo

Bsod-nams-rtse-mo (1142-1182), a son of Sa-chen

and

the

second

great founder (gong ma) of Sa-skya, also studied the Madhyamaka stistras.

In fact, he devoted proportionately much more of his life to sch olastic studies

22

THE TIDET JOURNAL

than either his father Sa-chen or his younger brother Grags-pa-rgyaI-llltshan

did. For his main Madhyamaka studies he left Sa-skya and journeyed to
Gsang-phu Ne'u-thog in Central Tibet, the old monastic seat (gdafl sa)

and seminary of the great Rngog lo-tsa-ba. There Bsod-nams-rtserno's

chief teacher was the famous Phywa-pa Chos-kyi-seng-ge (1109-1169). He
studied under this master on and off for some eleven years, beginniJ1g in
1158 when Bsod-nams-rtse-mo was sixteen (the year of Sa-chen's death)
1169, the year of Phywa-pa's passing.9 Unfortunately,

and ending in

no detailed account of Bsod-nams-rtse-mo's studies has survived. Nev er

theless, some of the lineages he received from Phywa-pa at tha t time, such
as the exposition of the Bodhisattvacaryavatiira, have been ma intained

within the Sa-skya-pa tradition d own to the present. On the other hand,

c e rtain lineages of PramaI)a and related subjects do not urvive, because

Phywa-pa's interpretations of these topics were largely rejected by }3sod

nams-rt:;e-mo's nephew Sa-skya PaI)c;iita.

Like his father, then, Bsod-nams-rtse-mo probably received his ma in

Madhyamaka training in the school of Rngog lo-tsa-ba. The Madhyao1aka

lineage from Rngog to Phywa-pa is described by S hakya-mchog-ldan as
follows:IO

Rngog lo-tsa-ba

Gro-lung-pa

Rgya-dmar-ba
Byang-chub-grags-pa

Blo-gros-'byung-gnas

---:-

______

_ ______ __

Phywa-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge

However, Sangs-rgyas phun-tshogs in his completion of the Ngor chos 'byzmg
described the lineage differently:

11

Rngog lo-tsa-ba

Gangs-pa she 'u

Khyung Rin-chen-grags

1.--1-I
Stong-lung Rgya-dmar-ba
Byang-chub-grags

Phywa-pa

Prasangika ap prQach . 12
But we know that Bsod-nams-rtse-mo was able to become acquainted with
Phywu-pa is said to have strongly opposed the

23

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

the tenets of the Prasangika because he contrasts the two Madhyamaka

f>ub-schools in his comment ary on t he Bodlzisattl'acarytivatiira.13

ltje- btsun

Grags-pa-rgyal-rntshan

The Madhyamaka studies of the third great founder, Grags-pa-rgyal

than (1147-1216), were also fairly extensive, but they are not described
1n detail in his own biography. There one is sim ply told by the biographer

Sa-sky a Pal)9ita that he learned the Paramitayana sUtras and trcatiscs [rom
various teachcrs.14 One can det:!rm ine many of the Madhyamaka treatis es

that Grags-pa-rgyal-mthan studied for they are listed in Sa-skya PaQs!ita's

biographies among

the

works

that

Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan

taught

the

gllyfs

kyi

latter :15

Nagarjuna,

Ratnal'ali (Rill po che'i 'phrellg ba)

Pratityasamutpfidahrdaya

(Rlen

'brei

bCII

gz1zUlzg)

Suhrllekha (Bshes pa'i sprillg yfg)

The "hymnie corpus" (Bstod pa'i [shogs)

Sutrasamuccaya (Melo kwz las billS pal

Aryadeva,

Ka Ili ka la spring pa, etc.

Call/bialaka (Bzhi brgya pal

Candrakfrti,

Madhyamak{ivatiira (Dbu ma la 'jug pa)

Santideva,

BodhisattvacarYGl'aliira (Spyod 'jug)

Sikiisaml/ccaya (Bslab btus)

Sa-skya Pal)gita
With the studies of Sa-skya Pal].9ita Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan (1182-1251),
a new period of Madhyamaka studies arrived for the Sa-skya-pa lineage.
Sa-skya Pal;1iita (or Sa-pal) for short) n.o doubt gain.ed his basic familiarity

with the Madhyamaka through his early studies with his uncle Grags-pa

rgyal-mt<;hal1, s1.1ch as by studying abovementioned treatises and by being

initiated into the theory or view (Ita ba) of the Tantras. But in addition,

Sa-pal). as a young man also traveled to centers of learning elsewhere in

Ti bet and there studied the main branches of Buddhist scholastic philosophy

froUl some of the renowned teachers of his day. According to his biographies,

Sa-pa:I)'s first teacher of Buddhist philosophy in general and the MadhYl11luka treatises i n particular outside Sa-skya was a scholar named Zhu-ston.

This teacher is mentioned in. some sources as Zhu-hrul (or by mistake,

J(hu-hruI) and as Zhudon Rdo-rje-skyabs. 16 Zhu-ston was probably identical

with the Zhu-ston Hral-mo who acted as gdan-sa-pa of Gsang-phu Nc'u-thog

gling-stod for five years dUrin g the 1180s.17 Sa-paJ} studied under Zhu-ston
at 'Phran.g i n Nyangsto d in the year 1200, when he was eighteen years old.

111. addition to the Dharmas ofMaitreya (Byams chas) and Pramal].a, Zlnt-ston
taugh t

Sa-pal]. the following

works

of Nagarjuna:18

24

THE TIBET JOURNAL

rtsa ba shes rab)

Mulamadhyamakakiirikiis (Dbu rna
pa)
r
eu
ug
Yuktisastikii (Rigs pa d
pa)
Suny tasaptati (Stong Iryid bdun beu

Vaidalyasulra (2Mb rna mam 'thag)

a of Jiianagarbha and t e
Likewise he taught Sa-pat}. the Satyacivayavibhang
assume that Zhu-ston III
may
One
k$ita.
Santara
Madhyamakiilam/dira of
and Phywa-pa.
ngog
R
of
lineage
trika
general belonged to the Svatan
Madhy
the
of
teachers
main
maka was Rkyang
Another of Sa-pat}.'s
him,
der
Sa-pal) traveled
un
study
To
-seng-ge.
'dur-ba Mtshur Gzhon-nu
u
t
s
d the Pramii1;a
he
e
i
d
there,
While
1201.
in
'dur
to Nyang-stod Rkyangof
i
a ndraki rt i and
gsa!)
C
g
(Tsh
dd
rasamzapa
the
P
rti,
vilziseaya of Dharmakl
the
Prasallilapad
ii would
of
study
The
19
ayananda.
J
of
the Tarkamudgara
ka
ineage
of
l
the
Pa-tshab
Prasangi
of
introduction
first
appear to mark the
,

to a Sa-skya founding master.

Although Gzhon-nu-seng-ge had studied with Phywa_pa,20 his main
rs seem to have been Gtsang-nag-pa Brtson-'grus-seng-ge21 and
che
te a
Rma-bya Byang-chub-brtson-'grus.22 Both Gtsang-nag-pa an.d Rma-bya-ba
are listed among Phywa-pa's disciples, but they did not follow his tradition
exclusively for they are also said to have studied with Pa-tshab Nyi-ma

grags.23 In fact, one of the main PrasaIi.gika lineages of the later Sa-skya-pa
passed from Pa-tshab to Rma-bya Byang-chub-brtson-'grus and from him
to Mtshur Gzhon-nu-seng-ge (though some records of the lineages insert

a Rma-bya Byang-ye between Pa-tshab and Byang-chub-brtson-'grus.24

Thu'u-bkwan mentions Rma-bya Byal1g-brtson himself as a teacher of

PramiiQ.a to Sa-paJ.l, but the early sources do not record any studies by
Sa-pav with him.2J
Yet another teacher of Buddhist philosophy to Sa-pal) was Brtsegs
Dbang-phyug-seng-gc.26 The detailed biography by Sa-pal)'s disciple Lho-pa
kun-mkhyen Rin-chcl1-dpal preserved in the Lam' bras slob bslzad collection
records that Sa-paQ. studied Madhyamaka-PramaJ).a (dbu (shad) and the
"Dharmas of Maitrcya" (byams cllos) with this teacher, referring to him as
Phywa Dban.g-phyug-seng-ge. However, in this passage-and elsewhere
in this biography-the names of the specific works studied with Brtse s-ston
are unfortunately not cited. One wishes that Lho-pa had been able to record

these details because BrtsegsDbang-phyug-seng-ge was, according to Shakya

mchog-Idan and Tlm'u-bkwan, the main teacher
of Madhyamaka and
philo ophi al tellets to Sa-paQ.27 The only biograp

her to be more specific

011 tIllS pomt was Yar-klungs-pa Grags-pa-rgy
al-mtshan (fl. late 13th c. ?),
who stated that Brtsegs-pa taught Sa-paJ). the
Madhyamak a "scholastic
corpus" (rigs [shags) at this time.28
Brtsegs was a major disciple of Phywa
-pa Chos-kyi-sen<Y-<Ye and he is
said by Lho-pa to have closely followed the
system of his te c e .29 He was
thc scholar who succeeded Phywa-pa as the
leade
r of Gsang-phu Ne'u-thog,
.
actlllg
as gdan-sa-pa there during the
years 1169-1174.30 According to

:h

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

25

chog-Idan, Brtsegs was responsible for transmitting the following

Sbakya-m
lineage to Sa-pa:t;l and hence to later generations of Sa-skya-pa
ika
antr
t
sva
s-:.bolars:31
Rngog lo-tsa-ba

Gro-Iung-pa

Rgya-dmar

Phywa-pa

Brtsegs

Sa-pal}

'D-yug-pa

Zhang Mdo-sde-dpal

Bla-rna-dam -pa Bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan

G.yag-ston
According to Go-rams-pa, however, Brtsegs-ston also upheld PramaJ;la
lineages that he had received from Mtshur-ston Gzhon-nu-seng-ge.32 In

that case, he may also have been familiar with the Prasailgika, and this

may
have influenced the teachings he gave to the young Sa-pat;'. For though

Brtsegsston and Sa-pal} are not found in any recorded Prasailgika lineage,

Mtshur-ston and another of his disciples, Rrna-bya Shakya-Scng-ge, were

instrumental in handing down au important lineage.33

Pa-tshab Nyi-ma-grags

(Rma-bya Byang-ye?)

Rma-bya Byang-brtson

M1!shUr Gzhon-nu-seng-ge

Rma-bya Shakya-sengge

Zhang Chos-kyi-bla-ma

Mchims Nam-mkha'-grags

26

THE TIBET JOURNAL

Bcom-Idan Rig-ral

L o-tsa -ba Mchog ldan

-

Legs .pa'i-blo-gros

I
I

Bag ston

D pang l o Bl o-g ros

Byang-chub-scng-ge

Dpal-Idan-seng-ge

rgyal-mtshan

Mgon-po'bum

Dpal-ldanp:t

'

Bu-ston

Sg ra tsh ad pa

Red-mda'-ba

Shar-chen Ye rg yal

G ya g ston

Ngor-chen

R on g-s ton

Sa-paT). also learned M adhya maka traditions from the versatile master

Spyi-bolha'S-pa Byangchub-'od,
tradition

The w r iting s

studied under him included the

of

the

Bka'-gdams-pa

Madlzyamakopadea (Dbu ma'i

mall ngag) of AtiSa.34 The Madhyamaka tradition upheld by Atisa

was

co nsidered to have been the Pras an g ika and according to Glo-bo mkhan
,

chen Bsod-namslhun-grub, Atis a's approach as a M a dhyami ka had certain

affillities with the thought of Sa-pal).35 From Spyi-bo-lhas-pa, Sa-pal) also

received teac hings on the "Great Madhyamaka"

clnlb-scI1ls-dpa'

(Dbu ma chen po) of Byang

Zla-ba-rgyal-mtshan. The latter is usually

cl

assifie d

as

Bka'-gdam'>-pa 11lac;tr, and he w as especially important in propag ating

ccrtain Avalokitdvara prac tice s in Tibet.36
Finally, S:t-paJ;l also studied one majo r Madhyamaka treatise with the

Newar pun,dit S:l.J:Tlghasri: t he

Calubsalaka of A ryadeva.37 It is interesti ng

that this was the only Madhyamaka treatise that Sa-paJ}. s tudied from among
his very extensivc stu dies at the feet of four South Asian pundits.
From the foregoing one can see t hat Sa-paJ}. a cquir ed through his studies
a wide familiarity with the main M adhya maka treatises of India t ogethe r with

the ir Tibetan exegetic traditions His scholastic studies were far more diverse
than those of the three earlier fOllndcrs of Sa sk ya . Not only did he stlldy the
.

expected SViltlntrika traditions in the l in eage of Rn gog and Phyw a pa

but he was a ls o the first of the founders to have received the Prasangika
tradition fro m the lin e age of Pa-tshab. In addition, he learned a few other
-

minor tradition'), as well as studying one of the fund a me ntal Madhyamaka

treatises under a Newar pundit . For these reasons, Sa-pal) occupie s a special
position within the dev elo pment of Madhyamaka studies among the Sa
skya-pas.
The recordc; of Sa-paT).'s st lldie s and his biographies, however, give no

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

27

clear in dic ation of which of t he se t raditions or approaches he may have felt

epeciaI Iy inclined toward, if any. Indeed, to form a detailed picture of
S a-s kya Pal}9ita as a Madhyamika, ill will be nece ssary to collect an d

examine

all ih e re levant statements that are prese r ved in his extant wri ti ngs.
ut
ll
eve without attempting such a t h o rough survey, a few preliminary
B

obs er va t ions can be made .

To begi n with, the writings of Sacskya Pal)9ita on the Ma dhya maka arc
n oteworthy b ecaus e Sa-pal) was the fir:;t of the Sa- sky a- pas formally to
classify the Madhyamaka i nto Svatantrika and P n'is an gika schools.38 Though
Sa-paQ's main treatise on philosophical tenets, the Gmb mtha' nwm 'byed,
lost, t his distinction is spe lle d out in several of his major surviving works.39

is

When Sa-pal} me ntio n s these two schools of the Madhyamaka in a formal

cla ssification, he al ways mentions the Svatantrika first and the Prasal'lgika
se c ond . By this pr o gression he in di cates that he held the Prasan gi ka to be

the higher school. In h is classification of other Buddhist schools he observes

t h e same convention: the Mah ayana always comes after and thus is superior
to the

S ra vakayana, and

the Madhyamaka always comes afte r and is thus

superior to the Viji'ianavada.

What, according to Sa-paQ, is the difference between th e Svatantl"ika and
the Prasailgika? He explains in his Bka' gdams do kor ba'i zhus Ian:

It is the PramaQ.a tradition to hold that [something can] be infallible

on [the level of] transactional usage (tlla

sll)!{ld: vyal'ahara). The

Madhyamaka has two divisions: The SvatanEriIca is in accord with the

above. The Prasan gikas do not hold that som ething can be ve ridic al

even on the level of trans actional usage .40

Furthermore, in his Ts/zeld ma rigs pa'i gler gyi rang 'grel he implies

that th\': division of Svii tall trika and Pra sal'l gika can be made on the basis of

the concepts and terminology each adopts for dealing with the su rface level

of truth:

And as for the Madh yami kas, [they hold that] on the level of the ulti
mate truth,

(spros
surface level (10m /"(/zob: SCll!zvrti)
who propound the exist ence of en titie s [i.e.

[ r eality is] free from discursive develop ments

bra!: ni:;prapaiica), while on the

they either follow those
the

S ravaka or Yogacara schools],

or they accord with worldly

consensu,>.41

The Sviitantrikas thus follow e ither the Sautrantikas or the Yogac5rins on the
surface level, where as the Pras an gikas follow world ly consensus.
Sa-paD also h olds that the Mad hyam aka theory of ul imate reality as

f re e from any and all discursive developments (lliprapaFzca) must be identical

fo rthe foIlowers of both the Paramitayana and the Mantrayana. The superio
rity of the Mantrayana rests only in its posses sion of special methods that

28

THE TIBET

IONAL

enable the practi t ioner to realize that ul timate r e ality in one l ifetime instead
of the aeons that are nec ess ary for followers of the Paramitayana. 42
Sometimes Sa-paJ}. transcends both Svatantrika and Prasan gika when he
investigates th e p artic ula r doctrines of each . In one important passage of hi s
Tllllb pa'i dgongs gsal on the t wo truth-levels Sa-paJ}. pro gre ssive ly examines
,

the opinions of the Svatantrika and Pra sail gika and final ly arrives at a third
position-the Madhyamaka th eory ofTantra.43 Thus,although as a scholastic
,

philosopher Sa-paQ show ed a preference for

the P rasan g ik a over the

Svatantrika, as a practiti oner he fundamentally adhered to the Madhyamaka
of Mantraya na precepts and meditations. No dOUbt this was what Glo-bo
mkhan-chen Bsodnams-Ihun-grub was getting at when he said that Sa-paQ

also divided the Madhyamaka into two further classes: an outer, coarse
Madhyamaka and an inner, subtle one.44 Sa p a J}. is s aid to have followed
-

AtiSa in this.45 What was the inner, subtle Madhyamaka? A ccording to

Glo-bo mkhan-chen, Sa-paT) hel d that it was the Madhyamaka practiced

in the m editative stages taught in such tantric instructions as t he Paiicakrama

6
of the Guhyasamaja cycle (a work attributed by tradit ion to Nagarjuna).4

Indeed, in th e above-mentioned passage on the two truth-levels in his Tlzub

pa'; dgongs gsaf, Sa-paJ}. h imself cites the Pancakrama as an authority for
his view.47

Thus as a Madhyam ika S a pal}. is a complex figure. It would be wrong

-

to !etbcl him a S Vi:Uantr i ka as Shakya-mchog-Idan. an d Thu'u-bkwan have

dOllC. It would also be incorrect to follow others and identify him one

sidcdly as a Pras aligi ka.48 As a great scholiast his studies spanned both tradi

tions, and there was still another im port ant current in his tho ught . On a

fundamental level he fol lowe d a p hilosophy that he had inherited from the
previous Sa-skya founders through his uncl e Grags -pa-rgyal-mtshan: the
Madhyamaka of Tantra..

NOTES
1. Grags-pa-rgyal-mtsllan, Sa-skya Rje-btsun, Dpal sa skya pa chell po klill dga' slIying
po'; mam thar, Lam 'bras slob bshad (Derge cd.), vol. 1 (ka), p. 12a.4; Thu'u-bkwan
I3lo-bz,LUg-chos-kyi-nyi-ma (I737-1802), Gmb mIlia' Ihams cad kyi kltllllgs dallg 'dod

tslllll stall pa legs bslrad she! gy; me IOllg, Collected Works (New Delhi: 1969), vo!. 2,
p. 199.
2. 'Go> Io-tsa-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal, The BIlle AIII/als (G.N. Roerich, trans!.), (Delhi: 1976),
p. 326. Here he is calIed Mc-Ihang-tsher.
3. SIl!ikya-mchog-ldan, Gscr-mdog paD-chen (I 428 - 1507), RJlgog lolslsha ba chell pas
bslOI/ pa j; Itar bskyallgs pa'; IS/1II1 mdo lsam elll bya ba IIgo mtshar gtam gyi rol

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

1Il0,

Collcctcd Works (Thimbu: 1975), vol. 16, p. 454.7.

Gmgs-pa-rgyal-mtshan, p. I3a.6.
Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, pp. 12a.6, l 2b .3.
ho-pa kUIl-mkhyen Rin-chen-dpal, Dpalldall sa skya paljqita'i mam thar kllll mkhyell
rill chell dpal gyis mdzaripa, Lam 'bras slob bshad (Derge ed.), o!. 1 (ka), p. 43b.4.
v
Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, p. 14b.2.
Grags-p,l-rgyal-mtsllan, p. 12a.3; Shakya-mchog-ldan, Rlzgog 10,
p. 454.7; Thu'u-

L:

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

9.
10.

11.
12.

13 .

29

bkwan, p. 199.
Kh etsuFl Sangp o, Biographical Dictiollary of Tibet alld Tibetan
Buddhism (Dharamsala:
1973- ), vol. 10, p. 122.

Shakya-mchog-Idan, Dbu ma'i, p. 232.

Sangs-rgyas-phun-tshogs, Rtsom 'phro kilo SkOllg to Dkon-mchog-lhun-grub, Dom po'i
c1IOS kyi 'bYlllzg tS!l1ll legs par bslrad pa bstan po'; rgyo IIItsllOr 'jug po'i gru chell (New
Delhi: 1973), p. 266 f.

Shakya-mchog-ldan, Tshad mo'i mdo dmzg bstall beos kyi shing rta'i srol mams j; Itor
bYllltg ba'; Islll/l gtam du bya ba nyin mor byed po'; silang bas dpyod Idart mtho' dog
dga' bar byed pa, Collected Works, vol. 16, p. 33.4: de Itar mdzad pa de yang dbu 1/10

thai 'gyur ba dang mt!ullt po lIi 1110 yin te de'i bzlred pa 10 dgag po clres shin tu rgya elrer
mdzad po'; phy;r/.
Bsod-nams-rtse-mo, Byang chub sems dpa'i spyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel po, Sa skya pa'i
bka' 'bum (Tokyo: 1968), vol. 2, pp. 495.4.2, 496.1.3, and elsewhere. This commentary

seems to have been based largely on the work of his teacher Phywa-pa Chos-kyi-seng
ge. As Bsod-nams-rtse-mo states in his colophon, he himself expanded and clarified

especially the explanation of the ninth chapter. Indeed, the terms rallg rgyud po and

14.

thai 'gyur ba occur in connection with this chapter.

Sa-skya Pal)qita Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan, Rje btsmt rill po c1le'; mom tlrar, L'lm 'bras
slob bshad, vol. 1 (ka), p. 20a.6: gzlran yang slob dpoll gzhart dal/g gzhan mams las
pha ro! tu phyilr pa'i gzhung gi IIldo doug/ bstau beos kyi ella du ma dang/. It is recorded
on

p. 19b that when Bsod-nams-rtse-mo went to Central Tibet to study the Plira
mitayana scriptures and Madhyamaka and Pramalfa reasoning, he told his younger
brother Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan to stay in Sa-skya and to expound (Le., to study the

15.

16.

exposition of?) the TantraS.

Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. 48a.5; Zhang Rgyal-ba-dpal, Gung-thang-gyi-btsun pa, Dpa!

/dOlt sa skya pQ!Jcjita ehelt po'i mom par tlrar pa, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum (Tokyo: Toyo
Bunko, 1968), vol. 5, p. 436.2.5.

Thu'u-bkwan, p. 201.4, refers to him as Zhu-don Rdo-rje-skyabs. A Zhu-don-mo-ri-pa

and a Don-mo-ri-pa are mentioned in 'Gos lo-tsa-ba, pp. 706, 627. The form Zhu-hrul

is found in Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-bzang-po, Dpal so skya palJrjita'i rnam tlrar gSlIIlg

17.

18.

19.

sgros rna, Lam 'bras slob bshad (Derge ed.), vol. 1 (ka), p. 58a.5.
'Gos lo-tsa-ba, p. 329; Shiikya-mchog-Jdan, RJlgog 10, p. 453.1.

Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. SIb. Here Zhu-ston is said to have been a disciple of "rje

btsult dpal Idwl sa skya pa" (Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan ?), and is referred to as "the one
whose name ends with 'Skyabs'

"

(skyabs kyi mtha'; IIltShOit dang Idan po).

Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. 48b.5.

20.
21.

Shakya-mchog-ldan, RJtgog [0, p. 451.3.

Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. 48b.5. Lho-pa characterizes Mtshur-ston as "gtsang nag pa

22.

Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Y, Zab pa dang rgya ehe ba'i dam pa'i ehos

brtson 'grus seng ge zhes bya ba sras dang beas pa'i sgros 'dzin pa."

kyi (!rob yig gang ga'i elIU rgyllll (Delhi: 1971), vol. 1, p. 50; Ngor-chen Kun-dga'

bza ng-po, T/wb yig rgya mts/IO, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum (Tokyo: Toy6 Bunko, 1969),
vol. 9, p. 65.2.6. According to Mkhas-grub-rje's gsan yig, Rma-bya Byang-brtson
studied the "yukti-corpus" (rigs Ishogs) of Na:garjuna with some four teachers: Rma

bya Byang-ye, Gtsang-pa Sa-sbos, Zhang Thang-sag-pa, and Khu-ston Mdo-sde-'bar.

Sec below, note 33. Rma-bya Byang-brtson died in 1185 (i.e. the wood-snake year of

the third cycle) according to Tshe-tan zhabs-drung, Bstan rtsis kllll las btus pa (Mtsho
sngon mt rigs dpc skrun khang: 1982), p. 177.

23.

Another Slightly later (mid-13th c.) Rma-bya Byang-brtson was a disciple of

Karma Bakshi. He seems to have been a layman with a son named Slob-dpon Don
grub. See Ngor-chen, T/rob yig, p. 87.1.4.
Shikya-mchog-ldan, Rl1g0g 10, p. 451.6; 'Gos lo-tsa-ba, pp. 334, 343.

30

24.
2 5.
26.
2 7.

THE TIBET JOURNAL

_bl o-bzang - rgya-mtsho, vol. I, p . 50.
6', N g a g _dbanrt
' p. 65?
t>
._.
yrg,
Thu'u-bkwan, p. 20)04.
Id an, Rrlgog 1o, p. 453.
- kya-m c ho g L ho-pa kun-m kllyen, p. 5] b . 3', Sh a
bk wan p. 2.O 1. m
-sp ungs-pa

Ngor-cllcn,

t:'ga-

-;.

Shakya-mchog-Id'ln, Dbll lIIa'i, p. 232; Tllll'tl

.
:
a-pal) s s tud L' es wIth this teach(lr tn hiS
ibed l'
db a n g - ,..
Jlgs-grags, a I a tcr b'logro
, pher , descr
a k l
ga rg yal mtslzan dpal bzang
'Jam dbyangs lII;'i srid pa 'dzin pa sa skya paW.: lI ll l
g cd.),
po'; nags pa bljoe! pa bO'kal pa bzang po'i legS lam, Lam bras slo b bshad (De r e

vol. [

28.

"" b
1,/0

Cka),

p. 95a.1 :

,.
las b l/Ig ba 1/1
bod kyi rgall po'i /lgag sgroS
/
lila I
yod lI1ed /IIlha' la s bral ba dbll
ad ilia I gzllllllg//
rlog ge'i IllS brgy ad sian pa Ish
sogs gsall//
IIgeO' dOll byoll1O' pu'i choO' luga fa
he
s chool of Rng og lo-tsa-ba and
TllUS Rin-spungs-pa too links Brtsegs with t
Phywa-pa.

lc:I!I/

Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, Ghos kyi Ije sa skya pallr;!ita kllll dga' rgyal

dpa l bzmlg po'; l'IIall1 par Ihar pa 'bring po, Lam 'bras slob bshad, vol. 1 (ka),

Yar-klungs-pa

IIlIS/WI!

p.33b.G.
29. Lho- a kun-mkllyen, p. 5] b.3. Lho- a himself is said to have
Phywa-pa. See Shakya-mchog-Idan, RJ/gog /0, p- 451.1.

30. 'Gos lo-tsa-ba, p. 329.

31. Sha:kya-mehog-Idan, Db/ll/la'i, p. 232.

been

a d isciple of

32. Go-ralns-pa, Tshad lila rigs pa'; gler gy; dka' ba'i gllas mam par bslrad pa

sde

bdtlll

rab gsal, Collected W o ks , vol. 3, p. 9. Here Go-rams-pa is speaking in particular of

the Prallliil}{lvilliscaya lineage of Brtsegs.

33. Ngag-db'!.Ilg-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho, vol. 1, p. 50f; Ngor-chen, p. 65.2; Sha:kya-mchog

Idan, Dbll ma'i, p. 233f. I c ould not confirm the rese nce of BL!-ston in this lineage
by mcans of his own Thob yig (see his Collected Works, vol. 26, pp . 67-83)_ The only

studies of M adhya maka as such th:J.t I could verify in his TIlob )';g were with Tshad
n ms -m gon (lac. cit., p. 38). The works stud i ed at this time included
t he five works of Nagarjun<\'s "scholastic corpus" (rigs tsllOgs) and significantly, the

m'l'i-skyes-bu Bsod- a

Prasalllwpadii of Candrakirti. This ineage is said to have come from "Zhang dbon."

The lineage of Tsong-kh3.-pa for the study of the Miilamadhyamakakarikas of

N[iglI"juna together witl, the Prasmlllapadtl of Candrakirti as recorded in his gsall yig
(Cnllcclcd Works, vol. 1, p. 292f.) l i kewis e includes Mtshur Gzhon-nu-seng-ge:
Pa-tshab
I
R a- by a Byang -ye

I
Rma-bya Byang-brtson
I

Mlshur Gzhon-nu-seng-ge

Rm a-bya Sh a:kya-s eng -ge

I
Mkhan-chen Zhnng-pa

Skyo-ston-pa

Slob-dpon Dge-'bar
I
Dbu-tshad-pa 'Od-zer-grub

Mi-g.yo-bzang-po

Rin-po-che Kun-rgyal

Tsong-kha-pa

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

31

The ot her Priisangika lineage shared by the main later Sa-skya-pa scholars descended
dilTerently, from another of Pa-tshab's disciples, Zhang Thang-sag-pa Ye-shes-'byung

gnas. As recorded in Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-rntsho, vol.!, pp. 5J-52, this lineage

came down as follows:
Pa-tshab

Zhang Thang-sag-pa
I
Brom Dbang-phyug-grags

Bla-ma Prajahavajra

Slob-dpon Ston-tshul-ba
I
Dla-rna Bde-ba'i-Iha

Jo-btsun-pa
I
Dbu-ra-ba
I
Praji'iasri

Dharma-shes-rab

Bag-ston Shes-rab-rin-chen

Rje Punyasingha
,
Bag-ston Bsam-bsang

Bag-ston Gzhon-nu-bsarn-gtan

Red-mda'-ba

Dm ar-s t on

Rong-ston

According to the gsa/! yig of Mkhas-grub-rje (Collected Works, vol. J [ka], p. 39.3
[=4b.3], Tsong-kha-pa's lineage for the study of the "yukti-corpus" (rigs lshogs) of
Nagarjuna was as follows:

--=-__P a-tsh ab ----_______

______

Rma-bya
Byang-ye

Zhang
Thaog-sag-pa

Gtsang-pa
Sa-sbos

I
-------Rma-bya Byang-brtson

Khu-ston
Mdo-sde-'bar
I

Mtshur Gzhon-seng
I
Rma-bya Shak-seng

Mchims Nam-mkha'-grags
SkYO-stlon

Srnon-Iarn-tshul-khrims

Rgyang-ro PaQ-chen

Mchims Blo-bzang-grags-pa

Snar-thang mkhan-chen
Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan

[Tsong-kha-pa] Blo-bzang-grags-pa'i-dpal

32

THE TIBET JOURNAL

teachin gs are recorded to have come d own

34. Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. 52a.3. These
a. Spyi-bo-Ihas-pa would also seem 10
r
through the lineage of dge- bshes Sne-zu -b
.
a-rg
yal-mtshan. Accordmg to Tshe-tan
Grags-p
e-btsun
Rj
have been a disciple of
, Spyi-bo-lhas.
1982),
:
p.
sngo
173
tsho
n
zhabs-drung's Bstall brtsis krill las bills pa (M
year).
ouse
,.
,.
pa was born in 1144 (the wood-m
,.
b, Mkhas pa I'ltams Jug pa I sgo I rJ/am par
35. Glo-bo mkhanchen Bsod-nams-Ihun-gru
79), p. 558ft".
bshad pa rig gllas gsal byed (New Delhi: 19
lungs-pa, p. 34b.2 , this Dbu ma chell po is
Yar-k
In
1023-1025.
pp.
lo-tsa-ba,
Gas
'
36.
listed as "dbu Ina chell po mtha' bral stollg nyicl."
37. Lho-pa kun-mkhyen, p. 51b.2.
a-pas to classify the Madhyamaka into
38. Though Sa-pan was the first of the Sa-sky
ese names for the sub-schools
Svatantrika an Prasangika in a formal enumeration, t h
ams-rtse-mo. S ee the laUer's commentary
are already used by Sa-paQ's uncle Bsod-n
on the Bodhisatlvacaryiivatiira as cited above, note 13.

This terminology would seem to have been current i n some circles in Tibet as
much as a century before Sa-pal). It may have been first introduced by Pa-tshab Nyi
ma-grags, who fl ourished in the late 11th and early 12th centuries. 'Jam-dbyangs
bzhad-pa in his Grub mtlla' chell 1110 asserts that Pa-tshab classified the later Indian
Madhyamikas into these two schools. See K. Mimaki, Bfo gsal grub nUha' (Kyoto

Zinbun Kagaku Kenkyusyo, Kyoto University, 1982), p. 45, note 110. This passage
seems to have been first noted by S. Matsumoto. See the latter's "Tibetto no Bukkyii
gaku ni tsuite," T{jYo Gakujutsu Kenkyu, no. 2 0-1 (1981),

p . 146, as cited by K.

Mimaki, loc. cit. Professor Mimaki has kindly informed me that Professor Ogawa

of Otani University has recently located the occurrence of the term rang rgyud pa

("Svlilantrika") in a work by the Indian scholar JaYananda, one of Pa-tshab's

collaborators. This work was his large Trkti on Candrakirti's Madhyalllakiivaldra,

which he composed not in Kashmir but in the Tangut state Hsi hsia (Tib. Mi lIyag).
See, for instance, the Peking Tanjur, Dbu

ilia,

vol. ra, p. 199.1.8. On Jayananda see

also

D. Seyfort Ruegg, The Literalllre of fhe Madhyamaka Schoo! of Philosophy ill I/ldia
{Wiesbaden: 1981), p. 11 3f .

39. See, for instance, his Thub pa'i dgollgs pa ,ab til gsa! ba, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum
(Tokyo: T6y6 Bunko, 1968), vol. 5, p. 24.4.2, and his Mkhas pa maills

'jug pa'i sgo,

p. 107.2.3. One should note that this distinction is also spelled out in the GZllll/lg lugs
legs pal' bshacl pa, p. 73.3.3. But this work should not be counted as a genuine work
of Sa-pal), as I have shown in my article 'Two Grub mtha' Treatises of Sa-skya

Palc;1ita-One Lost and One Forged," The Tibet Jour/lal vol. 10, no. 1.

40. Sa-skya Pal)cj.ita, Bka' gdallls do kor ba'i zhus lall, p. 403.3.2:
fha sllyad du IIi mi bslll barl!

'dod pa de lIi tshad lIla'i

lugs!!

rallg rgyucl de dallg ella mthll11 fal!

thaI 'gYllr pa dag fha sllyad du'allg!!

belell par lIli 'dod maor bsaus pa'o!!

According 10 Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, Bod kyi mkhas pa sltga p hyi dag gi grub mtlra';

shall 'byed. mIlia' dpyod dallg bcas pa'i 'bel ba'" gtam

skyes apyod Idall mkhas pa';

IllS rgyaUl'll1 chell ndzes pa'j p hra tS/lOm bkod pa (Thimbu: 1979), p. 202, Sa-paD here

followed the teachings of Candrakirti as found in the latter's autocommentary

1I1adhyalllakiil'attirC/ and

on

the

commentary on the Yuktisastikii.

a discussion of the difference

Sa-pal), Bka' gdtim do kol', p. 403.3.2, mentions h

between the Pramlil)a and the Madhyamaka is found in his Rigs gteI': "rgyas par rigs

gtel' IIm.lg lIa .mclrfs.' I do not know which passage or passages this refers to, though

some dISCUSSIOn

IS

found on Pp. 172.1.2 and 211.4.6.

MADHYAMAKA AMONG SA-SKYA-PAS

41.

33

Sa-skya PalJq.ita, Tshad lila rigs pa 'i gter gyi rallg 'grel, p. 169.3.3: dbu ilia pa'ang dOli
dam par spros pa dang bral zlring kUlI rdzob til dllgos par slllra ba de dag gi Ijes Sll 'jug
'jig rtell grags sde dallg bSlUll yallg rllllg ste/. The modern Sa-skya-pa
school still holds a similar position regarding the theory of ultimate reality of both

kyallg rllllg/

Prasangika and Svatantrika. They maintain that the ultimate must be identical for
both and that the main difference between the schools is the method (i.e. the form of
argumentation) used for establishing that theory in the minds of others, viz. in the

42.

minds of opponents from other philosophical schools.

Sa-skya Pal)q.ita, &[01/1 pa gsulIl gyi rob til dbye ba, p. 3 I 1.2.5:
nyan rfIos dang IIi rheg chell lalI

Ila ba'i rim pa yod mod kyill

pha rol phyilt dallg gsang sngags la ll

Ila ba'i dbye ba bshad pa /lied!I

pha rol phyin pa'i spros bral las ll

Ihag pa'; Ita ba yod Ila nil/

Ila de spros pa call du 'gyurll

spros bral yin lIa khyad par lIled/I

43.
44.

Sa-skya Pal)qita, Thub pa'i dgongs gsal, p. 31.3.4.

Glo-bo mkhan-chen, p. 558: dbll ma pa'i grub /Jltfla'i dbYe ba ji Itar 'dod ce

Sllga rabs pa [p, 559] maills kyi gzlllll1g phy; 1110'; dbll ma dangl
dbu II/a gllyis Sit p hye bar mdzad cingl

pa zfles dbye bar bzhed dol

gllyis pa de la thaI 'gyur ba dang rallg rgYlld

'dir IIi lhal 'gyur ba dallg rang rgYllcZ pa gllyis Sll p/rye 1100'1

dbye gzhi'i dbu ilia logs Sll gyur pa lila bzhed lal
thaI 'gyur ba'; dbye ba IIi
jo bo rjes l

45.
46.

48.

gllyis pa de'; lIallg tshall gyi dbYe ba lal

Imam] gzhag phal clIer dbye ba IIldzad pa lIIi sllmlg yang!

dbu lila rill po che'i sgroJl ma zhes bya ba las rags po phyi'i dbu 1110 dang!

phra ba nallg gi dbll ma zhes gllyis su gSlll1gS Ie! ...

Ibid. The end of the passage quoted in the preceding note apparently begins a quote

from an unidentified work by Atisa.

Glo-bo mkhan-chen, p. 562: de Itar yill pa'i phyir!

dral [read: thaI] rallg la sags pa';

db/( lila rnams rigs [read: rags] pa phyi'i dbu ma yill 101 rim pa II/ga la sags pa'i mall
IIgag

47.

]/01

de'i rjes Sll 'brang ba ';

III

'bYlll1g ba'i sgom rim gy; dbu ma maills IIi lIallg gi dbu lIIar bzhed dol

Sa-skya PalJq.ita, Thub pa'i dgollgs gsal, p. 31.3.3.

Stag-tshang lo-tsa:-ba Shes-rab-rin-chen and Lcang-skya Rol-pa'i-rdo-rje are said to

classify Sa-pal) as an exponent of the Priisangika Madhyamaka in their respective
grub mtha' treatises. See Leonard van der Kuijp, COlltributiollS to tile Del'elopmelll
of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, AIt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 26 (1983), pp. 107

and 306, note 309.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bsod-nams-rtse-mo. Byang chub sems dpa'i spyod pa 10 'jug pa'i 'grel po, Sa skya pa'i bka'
'bum. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 2, pp. 457.4.1-515.2.6.
Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub. Bla ma dam pa maills kYis rjes su bzullg ba'; tshul bka' drin rjes
Sll dran par byed pa, ColIected Works. New Delhi: 1971. Vol. 26, pp. 1-142.

Dkon-mchog-lhun-grub. Dam pa'i chos ky; 'byulIg tshul legs par bslrad pa bsrall pa'i rgya
liltS/lOr 'jug pa'i gru clren. New Delhi: 1973. This includes the Rtsom 'pirro k/IO skollg

by Sangs-rgyas-phun-tshogs.

Glo-bo mkhan-chen Bsod-nam -Ihun-grub. Mkhaspa mams 'jug pa'; sgo'i rnam par bslrad
pa rig gJlas gsal byed. New Delhi: 1979.

Go-rams-pa Bsod-nams-seng-ge. Rgyal ba thams cad kyi thugs kyi dgongs pa zab mo dbll

34

THE TIBET JOURNAL

ur :
pa lI!Jes dOli rab gsal. , Collec ted W orks. R ajp
ma'i de kilo na nyid spyi' i IIgag gis slon
1 979. Vol.

____

5.

am par bshad pa sde bdllli rab gsa/,

. Tshad ma rigs pa'i gler gyi dka' ba'i gllas m

Collected Works, vol. 3 .

(O.N. Roerich, trans!.). D e l h i : 1 976 .
Oos lo-tsa-b a Ozhon- nu-dpal . The Blue A/IIw{s
sa skya pa chell p o kiln dga' slIyillg po'i
Orags-pa-rgyal-mt shan, Sa-skya Rje-btsun. Dpal
Vol. 1 (ka) , ff. 9 b . 3 - 1 6b. 1 .
ed.
Derge
bshad,
slob
'bras
Lam
mam Ihar,
alld Tibetan Buddhism . Dharam sala :
Khetsun Sangpo. Biographical Diclionary of Tibel
;

1 973-, 12 vols.
a'i mam Ihar kUIl m khyell rill
Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-dp al. Dpai sa skya pa{I(lil
ed. Vol. 1 (ka), ff. 38b. 1 - 57a. l .
Derge
bshad,
slob
'bras
Lam
pa,
mdzad
gyis
pa{
d
chell
Un iversity,
Mimaki K. Blo gsa{ grub ml"a'. Kyoto : Zi nbu n Kagaku Kenkyusyo, Kyoto

1982.
Ngag-dbang-blo -bzang-rgya-mts ho, Dalai V. Zab pa da/lC rgya eire ba'i dmn pa'i cllOS kyi
Ihob yig gaugga'; ellU rgYlln. 4 vols. Delhi : 1 97 1 .
Ngag-dbang-chos-grags. Bod kyi mkhas p a sllga phyi dag g i gmb II1lha'i slum 'byed mtha'
dpyod dallg beas pa'i 'bel ba'i glam skyes dpyod !dan mkhas pa'; Ius rgyall rill chell

mdzes pa'; phra Isham

Mod pa. Thimbu : 1979.

Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-bzang-po. Thob yig rgya mtsho, Sa skya pa'i bka'

'

bu m. Tokyo :

Toyii Bunko, 1 968. Vol. 9, pp. 44.4. 1 - 1 0 8 . 2 . 6 .

Rin-spungs-pa Ngag-dbang-'jigs-grags. 'Jam dbyallgs m i ' i srid pa 'clzin pa s a skya par;r/ita

kiln dga' rgyal IIltshatz dpal bzallg po'i rtogs pa brjod pa bskal pa bzang po'i legs lam ,

Lam ' bras slob bshad, Derge ed. Vol. 1 (ka) . IT, 67b. l - 1 45a .6 .

Sa-skya Pal)qita Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan. Bka' gdams do kor b a 'i zlllls Iml, S a skya pa'i
bka' 'bum. Tokyo : Tiiyo Bunko , 1 968. Vol. 5 , pp . 40 3 . 1 . 6-404.2 . 3 .

----

. Mkhas pa mams 'jug pa'i sgo, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum . Tokyo : T15yo Bunko,

1968. Vol. 5 , pp. 8 1 . 1 . 1 - 1 1 1 . 3. 6.

. Rje btslilt rill po elle'i mam /Iwr, Lam ' bras slob bshad, D erge ed. Vol. 1 (ka),
IT. 1 8aA-29aA. See also Bla ma rje blStlll rin po elle'i mam thar, S a skya pa'i bka' ' bum.
Tokyo : Toyo Bunko, 1 968. Vol. 5 . pp. 1 43 . 1 . 1 - 1 4 8 . 3 .4.

----

---- . Sc/om pa gstllIl gyi rab

lu

dbye ba, Sa skya pa' i bka' 'bum . Toky o : Toyo Bun k o ,

1 9 6 8 . V o l . 5, p p . 297. 1 . 1 -320.4.5.

---- . Tlrilb pa'i dgongs pa rab

III

gsa! ba, Sa sky a pa'i bk a' 'bum. Tokyo : Toyo

ilunko, 1 9G8. Vol. 5, pp. 1 . 1 . 1 .-50. 1 . 6 .

Scy rort Ruegg, D. The Literatllre of the Madhyalllaka Schoo! of Ph ilosophy in IUllia. A
History of II/diem Literature, vol. 7, fasc. 1 . Wiesbaden : O t t o Harrassowitz, 1 98 1 .
Shiikya-l11chog-ld an, Gser-mdog pan-chel). Dbtl ma'; 'bYlmg Ishlll maw par bshad pa'i

glam yid bzhill 1111111 po, Collected Works. Thimbu : 1 975 . Vol. 4, p p . 209-248.
. Rllgos 10 ts/slla ba chell pas bSfan pa ji lIar bsky allgs pa'i tslllli /lido tsam till
b),o btl /lgo J/Itslzar gtom gyi rol 11/0 , Collected Works. Thimbu : 1 975. Vol. 1 6, pp.

---

443-456.

Thu'u-bk wan Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-m a. Grub Illtha' Ilwms cad ky;

klllil/gs dallg 'dod
tslml stOlt pa legs bshad slzei gyi lIIe IOl/g, Collected Works. New Delh i : 1 969. Vol
. 2
pp. 5-5 1 9 .
Tsong-kha- pa 13lo-bzang-grags-pa. Rje ril! p o ehe blo
bZaJlg grags po'i dpal gyi gsan yig .
Collectcd Works. New Delhi : 1980.
Vol. 1 (ka), pp. 2 3 3-293.
Yar-klung s-pa Orags-pa- rgyal mtshan. Clzos kyi rje
sa skya pa!l(fifa kzm dga' rgyal mtshan
dpa/ bzwlg po'i mam par thar pa 'bring po, Lam '
bras slob bshad. Vol. 1 (ka),
pp. 32b- 3 8 b .

Zhang Rgyal-ba -dpal. Dpai ldall SCI skya pa/I(iita chen po';
mam par thar p a , Sa skya p a ' i b k a '
'bum. Tokyo : T6yo Bunko, 1 9 6 8 . V o l .
5, pp. 43 3 . 2 . 1 -438.4. 6.