A HOLISTIC THEORY OF NON-DUAL UNION:

THE EIGHTH KARMAPAS MAHMUDR VISION

AS REACTION, RE-APPROPRIATION, AND RESOLUTION

Joseph A. Faria Jr.

Master of Arts Thesis
Advisor: Karin Meyers
Centre for Buddhist Studies, Kathmandu University, Nepal
2015

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments....1
Abstract3
Introduction..4
An Intellectual Study of Mahmudr...6
An Introduction to Miky Dorj and His Recognizing the Blessings11
Literary Review.16
Chapter Outline..29
Chapter One:
Situating the Eighth Karmapa and His Mahmudr: The Historical and Doctrinal Context of
Mahmudr in Tibet..32
1.1. Gampopa and Early Kagy Mahmudr:
The Rhetoric of Absolute Transcendence..33
1.2. Sakya and Gelug Critiques of Mahmudr and Kagy Thought:
Demands for Doctrinal Coherence, Intellectual Rigor, and Adherence to Worldly
Conventions...38
1.3 The Context and Position of the Eighth Karmapa and Recognizing the Blessings.46
Chapter Two:
Recognizing the Blessings of the Union of Ground, Path, and Fruition...53
2.1. Articulating the Ground, Path, and Fruition...53
2.2. Union as Reaction: Distinguishing Between Authentic and Inauthentic Union.79
2.3. Resolution in Union: The Non-Duality of the Conventional and Ultimate in

Mahmudr.84
Chapter Three:
Concluding Remarks.98
3.1. A Comparative Analysis of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr Vision.98
3.2. Conclusion: The Holistically Non-Dual Union of Miky Dorj..107
Appendices:
Appendix 1: A Translation of Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr...110
Appendix 2: A Translation of A Response on the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya..125
Appendix 3: A Chart of Miky Dorjs Two Truth Schema129
Bibliography131

Acknowledgments:

I would like to take this opportunity foremost to thank my parents Joseph A. Faria Sr. and
Susan Cook, as well as my grandparents Donald and Margaret Doyle, who have given me so
much support over the years, both financially and emotionally, without which the present work
simply would not be possible. Of course I would also like to thank my entire family and all of
my friends who have also been a great source of encouragement for me in my recent studies.
I would especially like to thank my professors at the Centre of Buddhist Studies, in
particular Karin Meyers my thesis supervisor, but also Philippe Turenne, Susan Zakin, and James
Gentry who have all encouraged, guided, and counseled me on several occasions during my
graduate studies here. I also owe thanks to the rest of the students and staff at Rangjung Yeshe
Institute, many of whom have given me feedback on my translation work as well as for the ideas
present in my thesis. Additionally, I feel the need to offer my gratitude to my wonderful Tibetan
language teachers over the years who have helped me reach a competent level of Tibetan fluency
which has allowed me to translate the texts associated with this work and understand the nuances
of Tibetan terminology: in particular, Cinthia Font, Sonam Dikyi, Benjamin Collet-Cassart, Luke
Hanley, Tenzin Phuntsok, Tenpa Tsering, as well as too many others to mention in this limited
space. I would also like to thank my professors who instructed me in my undergraduate
Philosophy courses at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell for their great encouragement
regarding my pursuit of studies at the graduate level: in particular, Eric Nelson, John Kaag, and
Robert Innis.
I would like to especially thank everyone at the Khyentse Foundation and Tsadra
Foundation whose scholarships have provided me with more than enough financial means to

pursue my studies here in Nepal, and Tsadra Foundation in particular who have shown
remarkable concern for their beneficiaries welfare and education.
I also need to thank my spiritual teacher Yongey Mingyur Dorj Rinpoche and the Tergar
spiritual community which is under his guidance for their immense and incomparable spiritual
influence in my life; it is largely because of them that I decided to come to Nepal to study
Buddhist philosophy and Tibetan language in the first place. Furthermore, I would like to offer
my sincere thanks to Khenpo Gyurm of Tergar Oseling Monastery in Kathmandu, who gave me
an oral commentary on the text Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr which has been
translated for the present work. Many thanks go out to all of the many other spiritual friends in
my life who have imparted upon me their great wisdom and compassion.

Abstract:

This research investigates the Mahmudr interpretation of the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorj
(1507-1554), particularly regarding his text Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag
rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi ngos dzin). Drawing upon contemporary research, historical
developments, and textual evidence, this work argues that the Eighth Karmapas Mahmudr
thought can be understood as reaction, re-appropriation, and resolution. Though Miky Dorj
reacted to Sakya and Gelug critiques of Kagy Mahmudr, and accepted that one could reappropriate Mahmudr by incorporating aspects of stra and tantra onto the path of
Mahmudr, he ultimately sought to adhere to the subitist tendencies of early Kagy masters by
resolving all conventional tensions of the ground, path, and fruition via a holistically non-dual
union (Skt. Yuganaddha; Tib. zung jug). This demonstrates that both doctrinal eclecticism and
upholding the transcendence of Mahmudr were pillars of Miky Dorjs thought, and that his
theory of union provided rhetorical and philosophical consistency and justification for these
views.

Introduction

This work investigates the Mahmudr theory and views of the Eighth Karmapa Miky
Dorj (Mi bskyod rdo rje, b. 1507-1554), particularly regarding his text Recognizing the
Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi ngos dzin). Drawing upon
contemporary academic research on Miky Dorjs spiritual and philosophical views as well as
topics in Mahmudr and its relevant issues in Tibet, historical developments pertaining to
Kagy Mahmudr and Miky Dorj himself, and also a close examination of texts written by
Miky Dorj and other relevant scholars, this work argues that his Mahmudr thought can be
understood as reaction, re-appropriation, and resolution.
Reaction here is to be understood in terms of how Miky Dorj resisted, challenged, and
generally responded to critiques of the Kagy tradition of Mahmudr from Sakya and Gelug
scholars who demanded more adherence to scholastic and worldly conventions by Kagy
proponents of such a subitist form of Mahmudr. Reaction here is to be understood in the sense
of reacting to a perceived challenge while attempting to preserve or defend ones own tradition
and values, suggesting that Gelug and Sakya critiques had a strong impact on how Miky Dorj
formulated his Mahmudr interpretation and that responding to these challenges was important
for Miky Dorj as he attempted to clarify the intent of and remain true to his own lineage.
Re-appropriation is to be understood in terms of how Miky Dorj, in a manner of
speaking, acquiesced to some of these critiques by allowing for and often explicitly advocating
for views and practices of stra and tantra within the context of Mahmudr, demonstrating
Mahmudrs provisional compatibility with more mainstream Buddhist doctrines and praxis in
an effort to rebrand Mahmudr as not divorced from these other tenets and systems. In other

words, Miky Dorj believed that, contrary to the critiques of many scholars, it is appropriate
and even useful in many contexts to connect some of their doctrines and incorporate practices of
stra and tantra onto the path of Mahmudr. This represents a particular manner of integrating
more gradualist aspects of Buddhist theory and praxis with the suddenist aspects of Mahmudr.
Re-appropriation here is to be understood particularly in the sense of empowering a term or idea
(in this case terms and ideas used to identify a spiritual tradition) once used disparagingly: eg.
Kagy Mahmudr being characterized by others as the nihilist teaching of Hwashang or as
incompatible with stra and/or tantra. Moreover, such empowerment largely comes through
demonstrating anew that Mahmudr allows for other practices and has commonalities with
other doctrines. This suggests that, while Miky Dorj ultimately agreed with and sought to
adhere to the suddenist and transcendental rhetoric of early Kagy masters regarding the
realization of Mahmudr proper, he still accepted that, at least provisionally, stra and tantra
could be allowed onto the path of Mahmudr.
Resolution is to be understood in terms of how, even while incorporating convential and
gradualistic rhetoric and practices, Miky Dorj ultimately sought to adhere to the subitist
tendencies of early Kagy masters (specifically Gampopa) by resolving all conventional tensions
of the ground, path, and fruition (and coincidentally, all tensions between Mahmudr and other
forms of Buddhist practice and doctrine) via a holistically non-dual theory of union (Skt.
Yuganaddha; Tib. zung jug). Thus, Miky Dorj was attempting to resolve the conventional in
terms of the transcendent, in essence uniting transcendental wisdom and conventional means as
an ultimate non-duality. Resolution here is to be understood in the sense of progressing from
dissonance to consonance, which suggests that Miky Dorj viewed the conventional as
inherently conflicting and that all resolution is to be found in the ultimate which transcends

conditioned and limited phenomena. Additionally, this third aspect can also be seen as the
resolution of the first two points of reaction and re-appropriation, i.e. a resolution of the tension
between the ideal suddenist transcendence of the early Kagy masters that Miky Dorj was
reacting on behalf of and the Sakya and Gelug demands for gradualist and conventional
coherence for whom he was re-appropriating. That is to say that for Miky Dorj all of this
merely conventional conflict is best resolved in terms of the transcendent quietude of the
ultimate. In this sense then, the rhetoric and concept of union is pivotal for Miky Dorj and thus
has major implications for understanding his Mahmudr thought.
These points demonstrate that both doctrinal eclecticism and upholding the transcendence
of Mahmudr were pillars of Miky Dorjs thought, and that his theory of union provided
rhetorical and philosophical consistency and justification for these views. The latter point here
also demonstrates the pivotal importance of the theory of union in understanding Miky Dorjs
final view, and it suggests that all of Miky Dorjs views should be reconciled with and based
in an appropriate understanding of holistic and non-dual union which is the ultimate goal of all of
his other merely provisional and contextual hermeneutic methods.

An Intellectual Study of Mahmudr

The present thesis work is on the topic of Mahmudr, specifically with regard to the
thought of the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorj based on a careful study of one of his more obscure
texts entitled Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi
ngos dzin) which is essentially an exegetical work on the ground, path, and fruition (gzhi
lam bras) of the Mahmudr system. In the course of my review of the academic literature
available on Mahmudr, I have noticed that there seems to be a large consensus of the particular
6

difficulty of studying Mahmudr and ascertaining what it is, what it expresses, what it affirms
and/or denies and so forth. Dan Martin succinctly problematizes the study of Mahmudr thusly:
If Mahmudr differs from other types of views it would be in part at least
because the something it bases itself on does not seem to supply a very stable
cornerstone for a monumental structure of thoughtThose of us who use
philological, anthropological, philosophical and phenomenological approaches
can and should take heed of such alternative voices as those of the early Bka'brgyud-pa and allow them to have their say. This might prod us to ponder the
possible insufficiency of our approaches, to face with a more realistic humility the
range of possible knowables, and of possible ways to go about knowing them. 1
In this regard, it is clear that the study of Mahmudr is inherently problematic: for a system
which unabashedly proclaims the limits and often even the risks of conceptual, analytic,
philosophical, and conventional approaches, it appears that some serious consideration is called
for when considering how to approach an intellectual or academic study of such an
unconventional practice and set of doctrines. Even in Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr,
almost at the very beginning, Miky Dorj cautions the reader, Such conventional terms, the
black marks of my treatise, are comparable to an old dog gnawing on dry bones; there is no way
for [such conventionalities] to enter into ones experience2 Taking this into consideration, it
is very clear from Miky Dorjs perspective that, at least in terms of ascertaining Mahmudr
proper, a merely textual or philosophical approach is grossly insufficient. Yet, other than relying
on the text and the ideas put forth by their exegetes, there seem to be few other viable options
available for the scholar. At any rate it seems likely that proponents of Mahmudr would be just

Dan Martin, A Twelfth-century Tibetan Classic of Mahmudr: The Path of Ultimate Profundity: The Great Seal
Instructions of Zhang, The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15 (1992): 252-253.
1

nga gzhung nag tshig gi tha snyad de/ khyi rgan gyis rus skam mur ba dra/ myong thog la pheb par mi gda. Mi
bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039.
3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 1b1-2:
2

as quick to disapprove of any of the scholastic approaches available in our modern repertoire, as
bound up in conceptual and analytic processes as they are.
Though it is clear that the intellectual study of Mahmudr is problematic, it is not that it
is an impossible or pointless endeavor, for even those very same proponents of Mahmudr
engage in projects of expression, analysis, formulation, and theorizing. It is precisely this
supposed tension between Mahmudr properthat which is inexpressible and inconceivable
on the one hand, and the exegesis of Mahmudr on the otherthat which is expressed and
conceived ofthat drew me into this course of study. At the same time that a figure like Miky
Dorj decries theoretical and analytical approaches, declaring the transcendent nature of
Mahmudr, he is still engaged in that very project himself, to the extent that he is formulating it
and communicating that nature in a manner that is intelligible and relevant for his audience. It is
a project that is accomplished by means of and simultaneously bound by language, concepts, and
logic. Thus, it cannot be that such approaches are completely meaningless or inapplicable for
proponents of Mahmudr, but rather to what extent and under what circumstances they can be
justified or how they can and cannot be interpreted. Based on this, if it is a justifiably meaningful
endeavor for the exegetes themselves, then arguably modern scholars should be able to produce
something meaningful as well, in spite of all the perceived limits of our methodologies.
Considering these issues involved in the study of Mahmudr, I seek to take a rather
multifaceted approach that consists of historical, doctrinal, and textual analysis based on a
sympathetic interpretive approach of Miky Dorjs thought. Embracing the broad perspective of
Mahmudr, as elicited by Martin in the previous citation, this work acknowledges the
impossibility of any methodology restricted to a single approach, which would seem to be at
odds with Mahmudrs transcendental spirit which tends to reject any limited means for

realizing it. Given that it is within his treatises that we find the most explicit expression of his
thought, this work largely focuses on what is expressed by Miky Dorj textually. However, it
also considers historical conditions and doctrinal issues, such as divergent interpretations of the
two truths and debates over Hashangs influence on Kagy Mahmudr. These, I argue, have
greatly affected Miky Dorjs Mahmudr interpretation (or at least how he formulated and
expressed it), analyses which in turn act to balance the overall approach of this thesis, drawing
our attention to extra-textual phenomena.
The interpretative approach of this work binds these different aspects of analyses
together, forming them into a comprehensible and sensible whole, which even seems to be in
accord with the overall spirit of Miky Dorjs theory and rhetoric of union. This allows us to
appreciate much of the meaning and intention that is not made explicit by Miky Dorjs within
his own works, but which this thesis argues is critical for understanding his thought. However,
such an approach clearly risks projecting ones own assumptions and interpretations where they
do not apply, and because of this philological critiques of such qualitative research are indeed
considered here. As was mentioned earlier, this work is to a significant extant based in an
analysis of Miky Dorjs own words. Focusing on the written word of Miky Dorj helps to
prevent unwarranted interpretations by relating as much as possible any interpretation made in
this work to statements actually made by Miky Dorj himself. For example, in discussing the
doctrinal and scholastic conflicts Miky Dorj had with scholars in the Gelug and Sakya
traditions, I point out direct statements made by Miky Dorj himself in that regard, which lend
credence to claims I make further on about more specific issues and debates between Miky
Dorj and these traditions implicit in Recognizing the Blessings.

The interpretive approach here is also informed by an emphasis on sympathetic

hermeneutics, attempting to understand the thought of Miky Dorj on his own terms and how
his ideas and theories were meaningful and true for him, rather than taking a skeptical stance
towards his claims and theories in an attempt to discover an objective truth divorced from his
thought. A major project of this work is to demonstrate the overall consistency of Miky Dorjs
Mahmudr thought and to appreciate his scholastic and intellectual prowess. Such a project is
far better served by clarifying and elaborating upon how he expressed, formulated, and justified
his own views. Though it is ultimately impossible to realize the true intention (if there even is
such a thing) of any figure based merely on inference and furthermore to encapsulate such
meaning through limited conventions and expressions (a sentiment that is clearly in line with the
spirit of Mahmudr), this does not negate the value and import of the project of attempting to
represent or approximate Miky Dorjs thought, a project in accord with those of many
Mahmudr exegetes who attempted to convey inexpressible reality in terms that were relevant
and comprehensible for their contemporaries.
Finally, it should be noted that this research has to some extent depended on
interpretation from within the contemporary Tibetan Buddhist tradition, since I relied on the
counsel of Khenpo Gyurm of Tergar seling Monastery (Kathmandu, Nepal) to improve my
translation of Recognzing the Blessings. His explanation of the text proved invaluable for helping
me to understand the text itself, especially in those cases where I found it difficult to interpret
certain passages on my own. Students of Tibetan language know that classical Tibetan literature
can often be quite ambiguous and unclear in terms of grammatical structure, syntax, and
terminology. This can be further problematized by the prominent use of condensed terms (bsdus
tshig) for purposes of keeping to a strict meter or simply as a convention. This, of course, also

10

leads to the omission of particles and terms that English speakers might consider vital to
understanding what is being said in a particular phrase. Additionally, any particular term might
have several different meanings, leading in certain cases to an ambiguity of what the precise
meaning or intented understanding of the term is. In short, the use of an informed aid is often
necessary in interpreting any Tibetan text in order to make adequate use of it. Though Khenpo
Gyurms interpretation provided the framework that allowed me to properly translate the text,
my interpretation of Miky Dorjs thought for this thesis is based on my own research and
analysis. In closing, I would like to apologize in advance for any possible mistakes in my
interpretation of the text and Miky Dorjs thought, which are strictly my own. 3

An Introduction to Miky Dorj and His Recognizing the Blessings

Miky Dorj (1557-1554) was a prolific scholar and meditation master of the Karma
Kagy tradition. He was recognized as the eighth incarnation in the lineage of the Karmapas,
though it should be noted that when he was around five years old his status as Karmapa was
disputed by a rival candidate; the issue was eventually resolved in his favor.4 The Eighth
Karmapas intellectual contribution to the Karma Kagy school cannot be understated: he
commented on four of the five main stra topics,5 tantric doctrines, Mahmudr, as well as topics

To clarify issues I had in translation and where in particular I relied on Khenpo Gyurms interpretation, I have
provided footnotes in the translation included in the appendix.
3

For more, see: Jim Rheingans, Narratives of Reincarnation, Politics of Power, and the Emergence of a Scholar:
The Very Early Years of Miky Dorj in Lives Lived, Lives Imagined: Biography in the Buddhist Traditions, ed.
Linda Covill et al. (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2010), 241-297.
4

Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, Prajpramit, Vinaya, and Prama.

11

such as poetry and linguistics, with his oeuvre filling more than thirty volumes.6 His main
teacher was the first Sangye Nyenpa (Sangs rgyas mnyan pa, b. 1445/1457-1510/1525) whom
Miky Dorj praises emphatically throughout his works, providing a vivid demonstration of guru
devotion. His other instructors of note include Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (Dwags po bkra shis rnam
rgyal, b. 1512/1513- 1587) and Karma Trinlepa (Kar ma prin las pa, b. 1456-1539). Though
Miky Dorj is often renowned for his rather blunt and straightforward challenges to scholars of
other traditions, particularly in his commentary on the Madhyamakvatra for example, his
interest in other traditions has also been noted, especially as demonstrated in his life stories.7
More on Miky Dorjs life, political affiliations, and thought will be elaborated upon towards
the end of the first chapter.
Though a significant amount of modern scholarly work has been done on Miky Dorj,
most of this has focused on his Madhyamaka thought, especially his work on the
Madhyamakvatra, The Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas (dwags brgyud grub pai shing
rta), and to a lesser extent the debate over whether Miky Dorj was a proponent of otheremptiness (gzhan stong) or self-emptiness (rang stong). Given the significance of Mahmudr to
Miky Dorjs thought and to the Karma Kagy tradition as a whole, it is surprising that, until
very recently,8 little work has been done on his interpretation of Mahmudr.
The present work seeks to contribute to this lacuna by providing a detailed analysis of
Miky Dorjs little known yet ideologically significant Mahmudr treatise Recognizing the

Rheingans, Narratives of Reincarnation, 241.

Ibid., 242.

See for example: Jim Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal. (PhD
thesis, Bath Spa University, 2008).
8

12

Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi ngos dzin).9 This short yet dense
text contains a wealth of information clarifying the Eighth Karmapas views on Mahmudr and
tantric practice, specifically via the schema of ground, path, and fruition (gzhi lam bras).
Unfortunately, significant as the ideas in this text are for understanding the Mahmudr thought
of Miky Dorj, it is a relatively obscure text and few details about it are known, such as the
time and place of composition. Jim Rheingans has discussed this issue briefly and accepts this as
an authentic text of Miky Dorj:
Not much is known about the historical circumstances and the audience of this
work. The first pages of the text are missing and the second part starts with a
prostration to Sangs rgyas mnyan pa (ibid. fol. 1b: Pha mnyan pa 'i chen po'i
zhabs la dud). In the colophon, the name Mi bskyod rdo rje is not mentioned.
This title, however, is mentioned in both title lists (Mi bskyod rdo rje spyad pa
rabs, fol. 7b; dKar chag, fol. 7a). It is thus likely that the Eighth Karmapa
composed this text.10

This is a sentiment with which I agree, and thus I believe that this text is an authentic
composition by Miky Dorj. Furthermore, I find strong similarities in this work with ideas
found in Miky Dorjs other compositions, which will be evidenced further below in the present
work, further suggesting the likelihood that the author is indeed Miky Dorj himself. Although
it is currently impossible to precisely locate this text chronologically in Miky Dorjs lifetime,
it is at least doctrinally significant in helping to connect his Mahmudr views with other
significant areas of his thought such as in stra and tantra. Thus, I would argue that it certainly
merits the current analysis taken here, even given the ambiguity surrounding the text. Finally,
there is one small clue as to the time period in which this text was written: within the text itself

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13592$W8039
10

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life and His Interpretation of the Great Seal, 213.

13

Miky Dorj refers to himself as, this old man.11 If we take this statement literallyand I see
no reason why the Eighth Karmapa would refer to himself in this way were he actually in his
youth at the time of compositionit would suggest that it was composed sometime during his
final years. Considering his relatively short lifespan of forty-seven years (1507-1554),
commonsense would suggest that this was then probably written in his fortiesand, I would
imagine, more likely in his late forties to match a more common sense estimation of when to
consider someone as elderlyallowing us to conservatively estimate that that this text was
perhaps written sometime between 1547 and 1554.
This text in particular has been little studied, but it merits study due to its usefulness for
understanding Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought, which itself has been little studied. Although
Rheingans refers to this text in his doctoral thesis,12 other than mentioning its emphasis on tantric
Mahmudr and how this seems to contradict other of Miky Dorjs statements on the
relationship of Mahmudr and tantra, he mentions little about the text itself. Throughout his
thesis, Rheingans focuses largely on the contextual nature of Miky Dorjs question and answer
texts (dris lan) with his disciples on the subject of Mahmudr. By contrast, this work seeks to
emphasize the rather consistent and scholastic nature of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought by
focusing largely on the ideas found in Recognizing the Blessings; other of his exegetical texts
will be analyzed when necessary in order to help clarify his philosophical and doctrinal positions
on certain matters. I am aware of the inherent risks involved with generalizing a figures thought
over an entire lifetime and throughout different contexts, given the likelihood that any thinkers
ideas will evolve over time and be adjusted according to context. However, this also does not
rgas pa di. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo
rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 1b4.
11

12

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 213-216.

14

preclude the likelihood of significant similarities in thought over time and throughout different
contexts, and since one of the major purposes of this project is specifically to point out these
consistencies in Miky Dorjs thought, I feel this holistic hermeneutic is not only justified but
largely necessary. This should help scholars appreciate how Miky Dorj navigated and related
to different areas of doctrine and philosophy based on certain guiding principles (such as his
general cynicism towards conventional phenomena, his nature of mind theory, his interpretat ion
of the two truths, and so forth) and a grander vision of the finality of Mahmudr and its union
(zung jug) of all possible aspects of reality.
In particular, I will make frequent reference to another short text entitled A Response on
the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya (Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan).13
Though this text is quite brief (consisting of only two folios), it is significant in its explanatory
power of certain key points related to the present work, especially with regard to how to
understand Miky Dorjs two main categorizations of ultimate truth: a provisional categorized
ultimate (rnam grangs pai don dam) and an absolute or final uncategorized ultimate (rnam
grangs ma yin pai don dam).14 Furthermore, this texts identification of the final (mthar) view
as according with a particular theory of union (zung jug) and Mahmudr is in agreement with

13

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13570$W8039
It is interesting to note that therein Miky Dorj identifies Candrakrtis Madhyamaka thought as propounding the
categorized ultimate, which suggests that the rang stong view espoused by Miky Dorj in his dwags brgyud grub
pai shing rta is not the final (mthar) view for Miky Dorj, as certain scholars have suggested; See for example:
David Seyfort Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work on the Lineages and Tradition s of the Indo-Tibetan dbu ma
(Madhyamaka) in The Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle: Essays on Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka . (Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 2010), 355; Also: Cyrus Stearns, Buddha From Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the
Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 63.
14

Furthermore, though I am going with a more literal translation of these two terms, I acknowledge their ambiguity in
English. I choose this particular manner of translation simply due to convention. However, it should be clear from
the context of their usage that the categorized ultimate refers to a merely provisional pres entation of the ultimate
that does not represent the truth itself, whereas the uncategorized ultimate refers to the final and authentic
presentation of the ultimate.

15

statements made within Recognizing the Blessings, suggesting the finality and consistency of
such views, as I argue throughout this work.

Literary Review

There has been a considerable amount of academic research done on the life and thought
of the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorj, however, as indicated above, almost all of this has focused
on or emphasized his Madhyamaka thought 15 more on this below. While it certainly is the case
that his work on Madhyamaka has been highly influential on the Kagy lineage and the Tibetan
tradition on the whole, the overwhelming focus on this aspect of his thought somewhat belies the
significance and influence of his Mahmudr thought, with respect to both the tradition and the
level of importance it held for Miky Dorj himself. This is especially true when considering, for
example, how one of the more important projects for Miky Dorje was to demonstrate the
compatibility and common purport of Madhyamaka and Mahmudr.16 The focus on Miky
Dorjs Madhyamaka thought may simply be indicative of the intrigue of its controversial nature
due to his polemical exchanges with scholars of other traditions, in particular against the Gelug
tradition in his famous commentary on Candrakrtis Madhyamakvatra, The Chariot of the

Other scholars have noted this phenomena as well, for example: [Miky Dorj] was a prolific writer: his oeuvre
filled more than thirty volumes. Previous academic research on his doctrines has concen trated mainly on his wellknown Madhyamakavatra commentary and his rang stong Madhayamaka philosophical position. His gzhan stong
works, such as his Abhisamaylakra commentary and the Gzhan stong legs par smra bai sgron me, have also
been taken into account. But his Great Seal instructions have been relatively neglected. Jim Rheingans,
Communicating the Innate: Observations on Teacher-Student Interaction in Tibetan Mahmudr Instructions
(paper presented at the second International Association of Bud dhist Universities conference at the
Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Wang Noi, Ayutthaya, Thailand, Buddhist Philosophy and Meditation
Practice. May 31-June 2, 2012), 180.
15

16

See for example: Brunnhlzl, Karl. The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagy Tradition (Ithaca:
Snow Lion, 2004), 47.

16

Dwags po bKa brgyud Siddhas (dwags brgyud grub pai shing rta). 17 Whatever the intention in
focusing on one aspect of a particular thinker may be, it risks creating an unbalanced and onedimensional image of a figure and their thought, ignoring the multi-dimensional nature of the
thinker and the various influences on their thought and works. One of the purposes of this thesis
is to present the systematic and comprehensive nature of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought, in
which he makes considerable effort to relate it to stra and tantra, as well as specific
philosophical areas such as Madhyamaka. In this respect, a greater appreciation of the
comprehensiveness of Miky Dorjs thought, and the integrated nature and nuanced explication
of his Mahmudr interpretation will hopefully have been attained.
A pivotal overview of Miky Dorjs Madhyamaka thought in contrast to Gelug thought
is Paul Williams article A Note On Some Aspects of Mi Bskod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs
Pa Madhyamaka (1983) based on philosophical disputes brought up by the Eighth Karmapa in
his commentary on Candrakrtis Madhyamakvatra, the dwags brgyud grub pai shing rta
against the Tsongkhapa and the Gelug tradition. These issues chiefly pertained to interpretations
of emptiness and ultimate truth from a Prsagika Madhyamaka perspective. Williams notes the
transcendent and other-worldly rhetoric of Miky Dorj, which is contrasted with the
preoccupation towards the mundane phenomenal of this world that Tsongkhapa and his
followers adhere to in their explication of emptiness. The Gelugpa interpretation of emptiness for
Miky Dorj is wholly inadequate for achieving liberation and eradicating suffering, thus
highlighting the soteriological concerns underlying his critique. Williams also notes the
pedagogical nature of language for Miky Dorj, in that it represents a skill in means rather than

See for example: Paul Williams, A Note On Some Aspects of Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa
Madhyamaka, Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983), 125-145.
17

17

a position claiming doctrinal correctness. Ultimately, Williams concludes that Miky Dorjs
notion of emptiness and the absolute is seeking something that is independent of context and
conditionsthe opposite of Tsongkhapa and his followersthat is to say, an ultimate that is not
made dependent upon phenomena, but one that is an unconditional ultimate. Due to the focus on
a single text by Miky Dorj and a single aspect of his thought, i.e. his Prsagika interpretation,
this work presents a limited, albeit useful, understanding of Miky Dorjs thought. This work is
also pivotal for its presentation of Miky Dorjs doctrinal philosophical disputes with the Gelug
tradition, which are relevant for the current undertaking. Thus, I will expand upon these insights
and incorporate them into the realm of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr and tantric thought as well.
Finally, it should also be noted that Williams discusses possible political and power-based
motivations of the Eighth Karmapa in this work,18 something that, given the lack of explicit
evidence, I deem to be largely speculative and in any case is unhelpfu for examining the
coherence and development of Miky Dorjs thought.19
Another article focusing on the Madhyamaka thought of Miky Dorj is Michael
Broidos article entitled Padma dKar-po on the Two Satyas (1985), in which he mainly focuses
on the thought of Pema Karpo, yet also discusses Miky Dorjs thought in the Chariot of the
Dakpo Kagy Siddhas at great length in this work. Broido emphasizes the great importance of
Vajrayna in Miky Dorjs formulation of the two truths and his Madhyamaka thought in
general. He mentions that what differentiates Miky Dorj from certain other scholars, is his

18

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, 138.

19

Other scholars have presented alternative means for interpreting and understanding the polemical motivations of
Miky Dorj, which do not necessitate a Marxist or Foucauldian skepticism of power and authority. Karl
Brunnhlzl, for example, suggests not disregarding possible spiritual and soteriological reasons for debate between
religious figures, such as attempting to establish the proper view, i.e. searching for the truth. Brunnhlzl, The Center
of the Sunlit Sky, 553.

18

formulation of the ground (gzhi) and the view (lta ba); for him, the view of stra and the view of
tantra are different, only the view of the latter proclaims the spontaneous and non-discursive
nyat endowed with all qualities. Although Broido presents useful information on Pema Karpo
and Tsongkhapas understanding of the term union (zung jug), which is highly relevant for the
current work, his presentation on Miky Dorjs understanding of emptiness and the two truths is
unclear and seems to be mistaken at times, in spite of the fact that he is attempting to correct
some of Williams points on this matter. For example, he claims that nyat for Miky Dorj
merely amounts to svabhva-nyat20 which is a more appropriate understanding for
Tsongkhapas more objective conception of nyat, but not so well suited for Miky Dorjs
much more subjective interpretation of the key term.21 This is further problematized by the fact
that further on Broido acknowledges that the Karmapa emphasizes a cognition which is free from
mental elaboration (spros bral),22 a subjective interpretation of emptiness that distinguishes
Miky Dorj from Tsongkhapa. Broido also makes the rather bizarre claim that Miky Dorj is
much more inclined to accept a world (although he qualifies this by claiming it is a world that
lacks ontological status) than Tsongkhapa is, but as Williams 23 has pointed out, Miky Dorj was
very critical of Tsongkhapas attempts to relativize ultimate truth and preserve the existence of
phenomena- in-themselves, which are empty of mere true existence. As I will argue throughout

M.M. Broido, Padma dKar-po on the Two Satyas, The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies, 8 (1985): 32.
20

is not to suggest that Miky Dorj does not accept svabhva-nyat, but rather that the objective emphasis
on an entitys absence of nature is not the main emphasis nor the final import of his interpretation of nyat as
Broido seems to be suggesting. Rather, Miky Dorjs emphasis on nyat meaning freedom from mental
elaboration (spros bral) suggests the subjective orientation of his conception of emptiness in terms of emptiness
being an absence of mental constructs.
21 This

22

Ibid., 34.

23

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka.

19

this text, if we here understand world in the sense of such relevant Tibetan terms as srid pa
or jig rten, which both carry the connotations of conditionality, compoundedness, and
impermanence, these are ideas that Miky Dorj was eager to dismiss ontolologically and
associate with notions of falsehood and non-existence.
Continuing the academic emphasis on Miky Dorjs Madhyamaka thought, David
Seyfort Ruegg wrote an article entitled A Karma bKa brgyud Work on the Lineages and
Traditions of the Indo-Tibetan dbu ma (Madhyamaka) (1988), based on the same commentary
analyzed by Williams and Broido above (which further demonstrates the narrowness of
contemporary research on Miky Dorjs thought). He focuses on the concept of lineage for
Miky Dorjs understanding of Madhyamaka, as well as how he relates this to stra, tantra,
Mahmudr, and issues of rang stong versus gzhan stong. Ruegg makes the claim that this
commentary, composed circa 1545, was likely written in response to critiques made by Sera Je
Jetsn Chkyi Gyaltsan (Rje bstun chos kyi rgyal mtshan, b. 1469-1544), specifically towards
Miky Dorjs gzhan stong views on Prajpramit and the Abhisamaylakra, which is
significant in highlighting the tension between Miky Dorjs views and those of Gelugpa
scholars. In this regard, Ruegg also makes a problematic claim that Miky Dorj turned away
from his earlier views on gzhan stong, in favor of a stricter rang stong position later in life
(coinciding with his composition of the Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas).24 This claim I find
problematic mainly for three reasons: 1) it is clear that Miky Dorj held a deep affinity for the
views of both the Third and Seventh Karmapas, both of whom held or were at least believed by
their tradition to have held gzhan stong views, and he believed himself to be adhering to and

24

Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work, 355.

20

often defending their views;25 2) rang stong and gzhan stong are not necessarily mutually
exclusive categories, and therefore adherence to one does not imply rejection of the other; and 3)
Ruegg himself notes that in this commentary, Miky Dorj is merely silent about gzhan stong,
there is nothing implying an outright rejection of the doctrine. In my opinion, this silence more
likely reflects the context of engaging in a debate with a Gelugpa scholar who does not accept
such a gzhan stong position at all, and the discussion of Candrakrtis Prsagika Madhyamaka
thought, which is widely regarded as much less amenable for explicating a purely gzhan stong
position. Thus it need not imply a refutation of the entire gzhan stong philosophical position by
Miky Dorj. This work is also significant in discussing Miky Dorjs view that Madhyamaka
and Mahmudr can be seen as synonymous via Maitrpas non-mentation (amanasikra)
doctrine. Relevant for the current research, Ruegg mentions issues that Miky Dorj had with
Sakya Panditas critiques of Kagy Mahmudr, and he also points out that Miky Dorj was
critical of attempts to separate Mahmudr from Mantrayna, as some scholars such as G
Lotsawa Zhnu Pal had done with his explication of a stra-based Mahmudr.
In his article, The Canonization of Philosophy and the Tibetan Rhetoric of Siddhnta in
Tibetan Buddhism (1990), Jos Cabezn discusses Miky Dorjs gzhan stong position in the
Beacon That Thoroughly Distinguishes the Tradition Propounding Other-Emtpiness
Madhyamaka (dbu ma gzhan stong smra bai srol legs par phye ba'i sgron me) as an attempt to
present a modified version of the Cittamtra system of Maitreya, Asaga, and Vasubandhu as the

25

For more details on this subject, see: Klaus -Dieter Mathes. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: G Lotsawa's
Mahmudr Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhga (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008), 61-63; 415-416. Also:
Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life, 130.

21

ultimate philosophical view point,26 which Cabezn claims is a novel way of presenting
siddhnta doxography in the Tibetan tradition. He does this by presenting this form of Cittamtra
as Mahmadhyamaka, thus equating it with Madhyamaka which is widely accepted by Tibetan
scholars as the highest philosophical tenet one can hold in the Tibetan Buddhist doxographical
system.27 This is significant in demonstrating the nuanced nature of Miky Dorjs doxography,
and that his distinctions of rang stong and gzhan stong, Madhyamaka and Yogcra, for
example, are much more complicated and subtle than certain scholars have described,28 though
Cabezn himself admits he is uncertain about this matter.29
Karl Brunnhlzl wrote a work that emphasizes the Madhyamaka thought of the Kagy
tradition in general entitled The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagy Tradition
(2004), which although not a strictly academic work, contains a significant amount of detail on
the thought of Miky Dorj, and is thus invaluable for the present research. In the second chapter
specifically, Brunnhlzl equates the views of both Mahmudr and Madhyamaka; for example,
he states that the explicit teaching of this Mahmudr is the Madhyamaka of emptiness free
from discursiveness as taught in the stra system, the latter of which he equates with Maitripa's
notion of mental non-engagement,30 a position well-known to belong to Miky Dorj.
Brunnhlzl points out that Miky Dorj himself states that implicitly Mahmudr teaches the

Jos Ignacio Cabezn, "The Canonization of Philosophy and the Tibetan Rhetoric of Siddhnta in Tibetan
Buddhism." In Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota , ed. Paul J. Griffiths et al. (San Francisco:
Buddhist Books International, 1990), 24.
26

27

Ibid., 25

28

See Williams above.

29

Ibid., 24

30 Brunnhlzl,

The Center of the Sunlit Sky, 55.

22

profound actuality of both stras and tantras.31 Brunnhlzl also notes that Miky Dorj makes
a distinction between the buddhahood of the stras and that of the tantras. Specifically, Miky
Dorj comments that the luminous mind of the stras is different than that which is taught in the
tantras. Although the same names are used for the ground, path, and fruitio n for both the stras
and tantrasi.e. the Heart of the Blissfully Gone Ones, mind, and luminosity
respectivelywhat it is that is actually being labeled is different; in short, although distinctions
can be made in this regard with both stra and tantra, tantra is supreme in that it incorporates
both.32 This work also contains a useful discussion of the differences between Miky Dorj and
Tsongkhapas views on Madhyamaka, such as their disparate interpretations of emptiness, the
two truths, and how Miky Dorj categorized Tsongkhapas Madhyamaka views.
In another work, Gone Beyond Volume One: The Praj Pramit Stras, The Ornament
of Clear Realization, and Its Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagy Tradition, Brunnhlzl presents
an important analysis of Miky Dorjs gzhan stong thought is presented based on his
Abhisamaylakra commentary. It should again be noted that while this is not strictly speaking
a scholarly work, the analysis here is directed towards scholars, as well some of the claims that
Brunnhlzl is making. Here, he notes two distinct levels of discourse in Miky Dorjs gzhan
stong presentation: 1) a via negativa approach when discussing the ultimate at the level of
conventional philosophical parlance and 2) an affirmative approach when speaking about the
level of non-conceptual meditative experience and realization.33 Brunnhlzl also points out
Miky Dorjs significant statement that from the perspective of direct realization in meditative

31

Brunnhlzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky, 57.

32 Ibid.,

61-62.

Karl Brunnhlzl, Gone Beyond: The Praj Pramit Stras, The Ornament of Clear Realization, and Its
Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagy Tradition Vol. 1 (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2010), 147.
33

23

equipoise, neither of the terms rang stong nor gzhan stong applies;34 and it is in light of
statements like this that Brunnhlzl suggests that Miky Dorj should not be so emphatically
categorized as either rang stong or gzhan stong, but rather appreciated for how he treats these
issues and concepts in their respective contexts.35 As mentioned before, I strongly agree with this
sentiment, i.e. not pigeon-holing Miky Dorj with regard to either rang stong nor gzhan stong. I
also think that it is important to understand how Miky Dorj incorporates these and other
systems of thought into his Mahmudr presentation, though a thorough study of this lays
outside the scope of the present work. Brunnhlzl also points out that in his commentary on the
Abhisamaylakra, Miky Dorj equates the terms praj pramit and Mahmudr.36
Representing a shift in focus away from Miky Dorjs Madhyamaka thought in modern
academia, Klaus Dieter-Mathes wrote two works in particular that mention the Eighth Karmapa,
the first being Blending the Stras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrpa and His Circle
on the Formation of Stra Mahmudr in the Kagy Schools (2006) and A Direct Path to the
Buddha Within: G Lotsawa's Mahmudr Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhga (2008). In
the former work, Mathes states that Miky Dorj identified Maitrpa as having realised that his
doctrine of not becoming mentally engaged (which is tantamount to Mahmudr for Miky
Dorj) has the same meaning as the Madhyamaka taught by Saraha, Ngrjuna and Candrakrti,
which Mathes implies was in response to Sapans critiques of the origin and lineage of Kagy
Mahmudr.37

34

Brunnhlzl, Gone Beyond, 134

35

Ibid., 132

36

Ibid., 157

Klaus-Dieter Mathes, "Blending the Stras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrp and His Circle on the
Formation of Stra Mahmudr In The Kagy Schools." In Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its
Formative Period, 9001400: (Proceedings from the Tenth Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan
37

24

In the latter work, Mathes demonstrates how Miky Dorj followed the tathgatagarbha
thought of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorj rather closely. Mathes notes that in his
commentary on the Abhisamaylakra Miky Dorj distinguishes tathgatagarbha from
ordinary consciousness by defining the former as kun gzhi ye shes and the latter as kun gzhi rnam
shes, which Mathes equates with Miky Dorjs gzhan stong view of the mind in its pure and the
impure aspects.38 Mathes later quotes Miky Dorj in that same commentary as criticizing those
who interpret the Third Karmapa as asserting that the tathgatagarbha exists inseparably within
the dharmadhtu of the mind of sentient beings, and rather claims that mind has an impure
aspectpossessing consciousness (sems can) and not possessing the dharmadhtu, which is
tantamount to the adventitious stains that deviate from the dharmadhtu due to false
imaginationand a pure aspect that possesses the manner of being inseparable from the buddha
qualities which is related to such Mahmudr terms as natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa).39
Mathes also points out a distinction that Miky Dorj makes with regard to the important
Mahmudr concept of thoughts appearing as the dharmakya, in that this merely reflects the
realization that thoughts do not exist as anything other than their dharmat, not that thoughts can
actually appear as the real dharmakya, with this term being a mere convention to describe the
realization.40 It is a subtle point, but is clearly a distinction between the nature of thoughts as
they actually are and how they appear to deluded beings, with only the former being conducive
for realization. Taken in relation to the present work, this would mean that the ground (ie. the

Studies, Leiden/Boston, 2006), 206.

38

Mathes, A Direct Path to the Buddha Within, 61.

39

Ibid., 63.

40

Ibid., 65.

25

dharmat) is understood as the nature of thoughts, which is equivalent to the fruition (i.e. the
dharmakya), and that the fruition can never manifest as the deluded appearances of thought as
ordinary beings perceive them. Mathes also mentions how Miky Dorj was critical of Zhnu
Pals interpretation of Rangjung Dorjs thought, specifically with regard to his claim that
buddha nature in sentient beings is merely the six sense fields (yatanas) which resemble a
Buddha. Moreover, he states that for Miky Dorj the buddha element (dhtu) is nothing other
than the dharmadhtu or dharmadhtu wisdom, and is in no way to be interpreted as a cause.
Miky Dorj furthermore defines his and the Third Karmapas understanding of
tathgatagarbha as being identical with the all-pervading kyas.41 These points are significant in
pointing out the lack of a cause and effect relationship between the ground (i.e the
tathgatagarbha/dharmadhtu) and the fruition (i.e. the trikya), illustrating that Miky Dorj
should rather be seen as a subitist with regard to the ground and the fruition, a point to bear in
mind when investigating his conception of union (zung jug).
Perhaps most pertinent for the present undertaking is the recent work of Jim Rheingans
who has written two works solely on the Mahmudr thought of the Eighth Karmapa, making a
much needed advance in our understanding of Miky Dorjs non-Madhyamaka thought. The
two works are The Eighth Karmapa's Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal (2008) and
Communicating the Innate: Observations on Teacher-Student Interaction in Tibetan
Mahmudr Instructions (2012). Regarding the first work, Rheingans discusses at great length
the Mahmudr thought of Karmapa Miky Dorj, with a special emphasis on the context and
audience of his teachings in order to demonstrate the pedagogical and pragmatic nature of his
brand of Mahmudr. He makes three specific points regarding Miky Dorjs Mahmudr

41

Mathes, A Direct Path to the Buddha Within, 415-416

26

interpretation: 1) that Miky Dorj emphasizes the nature or essence of conceptualization as

being equal to the dharmakya and buddhahood; 2) that this teaching is taught differently based
on context, either as letting go of artifice in a stra based approach or as employing the tantric
path of means; and 3) that the common origin of these teachings is the instruction of the guru.
Although Rheingans notes that Miky Dorj attempted to secure the Kagy tradition by
grounding it more firmly in the Tibetan canon and the graded teachings of Atia (982-1054) in a
scholastic context, in his Mahmudr instructions and question and answer (dri lan) sessions,
there is a much more liberal use of the rhetoric of immediacy akin to earlier Kagy figures such
as Gampopa, Saraha, and the like. It should also be mentioned here that in this work, Rheingans
briefly discusses Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi
ngos dzin), the current text under analysis herethough his discussion consists of a brief
summary in order to point out that Miky Dorj interprets his Mahmudr differently based on
context and recipient of the teaching.42 Though I do not necessarily wish to dispute Rheingans
claim of the contextual and pedagogical nature of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr teachings, I do
wish to emphasize the rather consistent and coherent nature of his Mahmudr thought.
Furthermore, his work may have overstated the amount of influence that circumstance had on
Miky Dorjs teachings, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the difficult project of clarifying the
philosophical reasonings and doctrinal rationales that he favored, which a great scholar and
polemicist like Miky Dorj surely had to adhere to and uphold to a significant degree in order to
develop a coherent philosophical view and hermeneutical system, which very much influenced
his Mahmudr thought as this work will show. Especially within the context of the present
work, Rheingans thesis is problematized, because it is clear here that Miky Dorj is attempting

42

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life, 213-215.

27

to present Mahmudr as a coherent and rigorous system of thought that is broadly compatible
with Madhyamaka, stra, and tantra. Thus, for the purposes of the present work it is necessary to
recognize Miky Dorj as a serious scholar whose main views can be applied in a consistent
manner throughout different philosophical and doctrinal contexts.
Rheingans second work is largely a continuation of the first with elaboration on some of
the concepts therein. In particular, Rheingans discusses the role of the guru as being primary in
Mahmudr, with considerations of doctrine being secondary. Since the Mahmudr thought of
Miky Dorj is difficult to locate, he claims, the guru should be viewed as the crucial origin,
means, and unifying spiritual element for Miky Dorjs Mahmudr.43 Rheingans also
identifies key elements of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr which demonstrates commonalities with
Gampopa and Indian Siddhas, such as an emphasis on the removal of any clinging to experiences
resulting from empowerments or to emptiness, as well as the teaching of conceptualization as the
dharmakya.44 This is significant in that it helps to demonstrate that Miky Dorj attempted to
preserve the Mahmudr lineage of early Kagy masters, even though he was re-appropriating
his Mahmudr in response to critiques from Sakya and Gelug scholars. Again, though this
article provides a crucial overview of the Mahmudr thought of Miky Dorj insofar as it
emphasizes the contextual and sometimes contradictory aspects of Miky Dorjs thought it
neglects where he makes great efforts to present Mahmudr as a cohesive and coherent system
of thought and practice.

43

Rheingans, Communicating the Innate, 201.

44

Ibid., 207

28

Though a considerable amount of research has been done on Miky Dorje, considering
the extensiveness of his compositions and the variety of subjects he wrote about,45 as well as the
fact that almost all of the research performed until very recently has focused on his Madhyamaka
thought, there is still much to be explored and understood in order to fully appreciate the vast
breadth of Miky Dorjs scholarship and influence on such fields as tantra, Yogcra,
abhidharma, poetry, linguistics, and of course Mahmudr. One of the goals of the present work
is to present Miky Dorjs Mahmudr in detail as thoughtful and coherent and to clarify where
he saw it as necessary and/or appropriate to incorporate elements of various Buddhist systems
such as Madhyamaka, stra, and tantrain order to further demonstrate the relevance and
coherence of Kagy Mahmudr in the face of growing criticisms from outside traditions.

Chapter Outline

This thesis will consist of three main chapters, which will largely employ the trifold
interpretation of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought as reaction (i.e. to Sakya and Gelug
critiques), re-appropriation (i.e. incorporating stra and tantra onto the path of Mahmudr), and
resolution (i.e. of all conventional aspects in terms of their ultimate union). The first chapter will
detail some of the historical and doctrinal developments of Mahmudr in Tibet focusing on the
teachings of Gampopa, the critiques of Kagy Mahmudr by Sakya and Gelug scholars, as well

45

Of course focusing solely on written works is also a somewhat narrow appro ach and neglects other possible
aspects of his thought and spheres of influence, other research should be undertaken considering these as well. For
example his influence on the arts is known to be significant, as he is considered to be a founder of the Karma Gadri
style of Tibetan painting; however, such work falls outside the scope of the present research. For more, see: "The
Eighth Karmapa, Miky Dorj," Treasury of Lives, accessed November 02, 2014.
http://www.treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Eighth-Karmapa-Mikyo-Dorj/6230.

29

as the context of the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorj in particular. This will lay the foundation for
better understanding the element of reaction to these critiques and controversies in Miky
Dorjs Mahmudr thought.
The second chapter will consist of two parts that focus on Recognizing the Blessings: the
first section will analyze significant ideas and issues that appear in Miky Dorjs conception of
the ground, path, and fruition, and the second will analyze his theory of union. Both sections will
illustrate how Miky Dorjs thought may be further understood as reaction towards critiques
and re-appropriation of Mahmudr in terms of integrating its path with aspects of stra and
tantra. However, the latter section will convey in particular how his Mahmudr is to be
understood as resolution in terms of union: that all conventional aspects of the ground, path, and
fruition are ultimately and inseperably non-dual.
Finally, the third chapter will consist of a comparative analysis of different aspects of
Miky Dorjs Mahmudr interpretation with those of other relevant Mahmudr exegetes,
demonstrating how we can understand Miky Dorj as a figure who was essentially negotiating
between two poles: that of Gampopas transcendental or hierarchical Mahmudr vision and later
Kagy proponents more inclusive Mahmudr vision (particularly as found in Mahmudr
presentations by advocates of the non-sectarian ris med movement). In closing, the conclusion
will be presented that will summarize and integrate all of the crucial ideas in the present work,
characterizing Miky Dorjs Mahmudr theory as one of both perspectival and non-dual
presentations that are both based on his nature of mind theory, which leads to the resolution of all
conventional dissonance within the ultimate reality of holistic and non-dual union, thus
establishing the significance of understanding Miky Dorj as ultimately a proponent of union,
i.e. a Yuganaddhavdin.

30

31

Chapter One:
Situating the Eighth Karmapa and His Mahmudr:
The Historical and Doctrinal Context of Mahmudr in Tibet

The Tibetan Kagy system of Mahmudr (Tib. phyag rgya chen po; lit. The Great
Seal), a system of meditation which is said to produce a direct realization of the nature of the
mind (sems nyid), as well as its accompanying theories and rhetoric of the transcendental
nature46 of the absolute, often presents challenges to established spiritual and secular systems
alike, denigrating whatever is perceived to belong to the mundane and the conceptual spheres of
worldly existence. However, Mahmudr and its proponents were in turn challenged and
explicitly criticized for such anti-establishment rhetoric as well as for the infamous antinomian
behavior of certain yogins who adhered to its practice. These significant controversies and
debates had indelible effects on the Kagy tradition of Mahmudr and influenced one of the
major Karma Kagy figures, the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorj (1507-1554) who can be seen as
attempting to negotiate between these two poles: the transcendental aims of his Kagy
predecessors and the theoretical and doctrinal demands of rival scholars and traditions.
Therefore, by clarifying and properly understanding the historical context of Kagy Mahmudr
and its controversies preceding the Eighth Karmapa, we can better appreciate Miky Dorj
himself as well as his role in developing Mahmudr thought, and specifically how he presents
that thought in Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr (Phyag rgya chen poi byin rlabs kyi
ngos dzin). The current chapter will therefore focus on the development of Mahmudr starting

When I am using the term transcendental or transcendence I mean that which has the nature or quality of
being beyond the limits of expression, conceptual mind, and dualistic experience.
46

32

with Gampopa, as well as Sakya and Gelug critiques, followed by a discussion of Miky Dorj
himself and the significance of Recognizing the Blessings for understanding his Mahmudr
thought in light of this context.

1.1. Gampopa and Early Kagy Mahmudr: The Rhetoric of Absolute Transcendence

From the beginning of its appearance in Tibet, Mahmudr presented a challenge to the
other established spiritual systems of Tibet, in particular those that adhered to more gradualist or
scholastic approaches. The Mahmudr system of the early Kagypas was characterized in
particular by its strong rejection of the inferential and gradualist means of realizing ultimate
reality (such as the Madhyamaka reasonings found in stra) or more ritualistic approaches (such
as the system of empowerments found in tantra). What such figures strongly advocated for was a
non-conceptual means of directly realizing ultimate reality, i.e. the nature of mind, via the
pointing out instruction (ngo sbrod kyi man ngag) of the guru.
Particularly important for this tradition was Gampopa Snam Rinchen (Sgam po pa bsod
nams rin chen, b. 1079-1153), who many in the Kagy tradition recognize as the founding father
of their lineage, a fact which is exemplified by one of the names given to their tradition: The
Oral Lineage of Dakpo47 (Dwags po bKa brgyud).48 Gampopa is recorded as having identified

47

The term Dwags po is a reference to the birthplace of Gampopa, whom is often identified by the honorific title:
Dwags po Rin po che.
48

It should be noted here that Miky Dorj strongly identifies his tradition with that of Gampopa, as is evinced, for
example, by the title of his famous Madhyamakvatra commentary: The Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas
(dwags brgyud grub pai shing rta). Also, within the current work, Recognizing the Blessings (phyag rgya chen poi
byin rlabs kyi ngos dzin), Miky Dorj notably refers to followers of the Mahmudr he is addressing therein as
those who follow the tradition of Dakpo (dwags skor ba). Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi
ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a1.

33

three distinct Buddhist traditions: 1) the path of the perfections (pramit) which takes
inference49 as its path; 2) the method of mantra, which takes the gurus spiritual power as its
path, based on the generation and completion stages; and 3) the innately and simultaneously
arising (lhan cig tu skyes pa) luminosity of the mind of Mahmudr, which takes direct
perception (mngon sum) as its path.50 Due to its direct and non-conceptual approach, Gampopa
emphasizes this third manner of practice as supreme in its spiritual efficacy. David Jackson
describes the ingenuity of Gampopas Mahmudr as follows:

In the later part of his life, [sGam-po-pa] gave increasing attention to transmitting
directly the highest Great Seal insight, perhaps in part also as an outgrowth of his
own deepened and intensified spiritual insight. What was somewhat revolutionary
about the approach sGam-po-pa adopted was that he sought ways to transmit this
insight outside of the traditional Mantrayna method, which treated it as an
ultimate and highly secret fruit instruction to be conveyed only after full, formal
tantric initiation and in connection with special yogic practices.51

Likewise, the Tibetan scholar and historian G Lotsawa Zhnu Pal (Gos lo tsa ba gzhon nu
dpal, b. 1392-1481) described the teachings of Gampopa thusly:

Concerning that [teaching of the Great Seal], rJe-btsun Mid-la [sic] had not given
the Path of Means (thabs lam) and Great Seal [instructions] separately from one
another. But [sGam-po-pa] taught the instructions on the Path of Means to those
who were suitable recipients of the Mantra teachings, and he gave instructions on
the Great Seal to those who were suitable as recipients of the Perfection-Vehicle
The reference to Gampopa and the identification of his system of Mahmudr as the subject here is also highly
significant and peculiar given the tantric nature of Miky Dorjs text, which will be discussed further on in this
work.
Gampopas identification of the use of inference (rjes dpag) on the path of the perfections implies that it lacks
the use of direct perception (mngon sum) into the nature of mind that Mahmudr employs, instead relying on
reasoning (gtan tshigs) to establish the emptiness of outer and inner phenomena, thus investigating the cognitive
image of the universal object (don spyii rnam pa yul) but not the actual object (don dngos). See: David Paul
Jackson. Enlightenment by a Single Means: Tibetan Controversies on the Self-sufficient White Remedy (dkar Po
Chig Thub) (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994), 31-32.
49

50

Ibid., 26.

51

Ibid., 10.

34

(Pramityna) teachings, even though they had not received tantric initiation. He
composed then a step-by-step manual of practical instruction called the Lhan cig
skyes sbyor, which became popularly known also as Dags-pos Realization
Teaching (dags poi rtogs chos). He taught that although the scriptures mention
many essential qualities of teacher and students, a student need not have many
qualities; it is enough if he just has devotion. He quickly produced realization of
the Great Seal even in the minds of some unintelligent, poverty-stricken or evil
persons.52
Statements such as these illuminate the main teaching emphasized by Gampopa and how his
teachings were later interpreted: that Mahmudr was not exclusive to the path of Mantrayna,
thus demonstrating an attempt to open up the teachings of the Great Seal for a wider audience
through bypassing the need for tantric rituals and initiations. Indeed, this manner of transmantric Mahmudr, as mentioned above, was also generally taught with a rhetoric of
superiority over the teachings of both stra and mantra. At times, Gampopa even more explicitly
criticized both Pramityna and Vajrayna, stating:
[The teachings of stra and tantra degenerate] to the level of the cognitive image
of an object-universal, its object of knowledge. By becoming delayed in that, one
doesnt know how to impress it upon the mind and practice experientially.
Because one does not know that, [the teaching] will not become the counteragent
to the cognitive-emotional defilements and conceptual thinking. 53

Such a strong and clear statement conveys the heavily implied sense of superiority that Gampopa
imbued his direct and non-conceptual Mahmudr approach with over both stra and tantra alike,
which he furthermore distinguished as the path of the suddenist (cig car ba) which is of
definitive meaning (nges don) as opposed to the inferior teachings of the gradualist (rim gyis pa)
which are merely of provisional meaning (drang don).54 Gampopa is also said to have elsewhere

52

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 11.

de shes bya don spyii rnam pa la shor/ de la gyangs pas rgyud tho g tu bkal nas nyams su len ma shes/ de ma
shes pas nyon mongs pa dang rnam par rtog pai gnyen por mi gro bar dus pas dang po mi ston . Ibid., 34.
53

54

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 34.

35

stated that his Mahmudr instructions were greater even than the Three Greats (chen po
gsum): the Great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po), the Great [Vajrayna] Mahmudr (chag rgya
chen po), and the Great Perfection (rdzogs pa chen po).55 It is clear, therefore, that Gampopa
intended to demonstrate that his teachings were distinct from all other traditions and doctrines
extant at that time in Tibet, which were relegated to the mundane level of inference,
conceptuality, and ritual means. Finally, the anti-scholastic rhetoric of Gampopa should be
noted,56 for example with the following statement in the text Responding to the Questions of
Dsum Khyenpa (dus mkhyen shus len), One needs to forget all the technical terms of the
treatises (bstan bcos kyi tha snyad). Those whose learning is extensive are acute in words, but
obtuse in meanings. Their talents turn into faults.57 Such strong rhetoric of demarcation between
his own teachings and those of others on the part of Gampopa is substantially different from
Miky Dorjs more inclusive approach in the present work.
A brief mention here should also be made of the controversial figure Lama Zhang (Bla
ma zhang, b. 1122-93), since many later critics of Mahmudr may have had him specifically in
mind due to his infamy for both his extreme rhetoric and forceful conduct. Following Gampopas
anti-intellectual style, Zhang has for instance remarked, While falling short of the mark does not
mean an end to development, following what has not entered deep within will give rise to disease. Those contemplators who have mastered mind-made philosophies will be invaded by the

55

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 35.

56

This is not to suggest that Gampopa was not a scholar in his own right, but rather that he was ultimately critical of
a strict adherence to purely scholastic means divorced from authentic experience and direct non -conceptual
realization.
Martin, Dan, A Twelfth-century Tibetan Classic of Mahmudr: The Path of Ultimate Profundity: The Great
Seal Instructions of Zhang, The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15 (1992): 245.
57

36

chronic disease of partiality,58 and, [This truth] will not be fathomed by those tongue-users
who are conceited about what is a mere object of [conceptual] understanding [accessible]
through their critical investigations of mere [minor] experience and mere words, through the
bustle [?] of mere purposeful effort. Having concealed [this truth] through their own evil
thoughts, they acquire great demerit.59 Here, we should note that while the strong sense of antischolasticism is the same as Gampopas, the rhetoric employed is much more damning. Zhang
was also known for his antinomian and at times even violent conduct, which included armed
conflict and the use of military force against his opponents.60 Though such conduct was not
totally unprecedented given the history of the famously unconventional Mahsiddhas and divine
madmen (chos smyon pa), it was still quite remarkable for many Tibetans, apparently at one time
even requiring an intervention by the First Karmapa Dsum Khyenpa (Dus gsum mkhyen pa, b.
1110-1193), who viewed himself as a peacemaker in the conflict.61 However, Zhang did provide
a defense for his conduct via the rhetoric of transcendence so common to Mahmudr, as in the
following example:
I have abandoned the world. Many years have passed since the link with the
world has been completely severed and I have entirely gone beyond into unborn
space. Reckoning by these outer activities of mine, many others cannot
comprehend [or accept my behavior]Taken as objects within a worldly value
system, these things are all seen to be nothing but apparently worldly activities
such as metal casting, residence-bases, the closing off and controlling of roads,
[enforcing] secular law, theft, and fighting. But if there fundamentally exists any
connection with this world, it has died 62

58

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 247.

59

Ibid., 52.

60

Ibid., 61.

61

Ibid., 63.

62

Ibid., 62.

37

While Lama Zhang was seen by many to have resorted to extreme and unconscionable behavior,
his actions were not totally without precedent and are conceivably justifiable through the use of
such transcendental rhetoric familiar to adherents of Mahmudr. It was occurrences such as
these that prompted sharp critiques by powerful figures, and in turn required answers and
justification by figures such as the Eighth Karmapa, as we shall see.

1.2. Sakya and Gelug Critiques of Mahmudr and Kagy Thought:

Demands for Doctrinal Coherence, Intellectual Rigor, and Adherence to Worldly Conventions

The unconventional rhetoric and conduct of the tradition of Kagy Mahmudr prompted
very strong and damning responses from powerful figures, not least among them Sakya Paita
(Sa skya pa i ta, b. 1182-1251).63 In particular, in his famous text Differentiating the Three
Precepts (sdom gsum gyi rab tu dbye bai bstan bcos), Sakya Paita made very strong
arguments against the Mahmudr that was being touted in the Kagy traditions. Sakya Paita
identified strongly with the stric and tantric teachings of India,64 and saw Kagy Mahmudr as
a dangerous departure from these lineages, instead arguing that it was something modern and
novel (ta ltai),65 i.e. a fabrication and departure from accepted tradition,66 and he identified it

For more on Sakya Paitas influence in Tibetan religion and politics, see: Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan
Renaissance Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).
63

64

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 85.

65

Ibid., 84.

66

Ibid., 80.

38

pejoratively with the infamous teachings of Hwashang Mohoyen,67 who is renowned for losing
the famous debate with Kamalala (740795) at bSam yas Monastery due to advocating for a
purely suddenist approach and the suppression of thoughts in meditative equipoise.68
Sakya Paita very strongly differentiated what he understood as his own tradition of
Mahmudr from that of the Kagypas, stating for example that, Our Great Seal is the Gnosis
arisen from tantric consecration and the spontaneously arisen Gnosis that has arisen from the
meditative absorption (samdhi) of the two stagesThe Buddha taught no other understanding
of the Great Seal besides that.69 Such a claim clearly illustrates Sakya Paitas desire to isolate
Mahmudr within the realm of tantra, an approach in marked contrast to the Mahmudr of the
Kagypas. In his work on this matter, David Jackson presents three main doctrines that Sakya
Paita criticizes with respect to Kagy Mahmudr: 1) That a single method or factor (i.e. the
Single White Remedy dkar po chig thub)70 could ever suffice soteriologically; 2) That the
primordial wisdom (ye shes) of Mahmudr could arise through an exclusively non-conceptual

67

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 78.

Ruegg explains that the expression Hashangs theory is a typological designation in Tibet for gnoseological
nativism, philosophical ataraxia, etc., See: David S. Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of
Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet
(London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 1989), 130.
68

Furthermore, A later Sakya scholar, Gorampa Sonam Senge (Go rams pa bsod nams seng ge, b. 1429-1489)
followed Sakya Paitas lead and also described two traditions of Mahmudr: that of his own tradition (rang lugs)
and a Chinese version (rgya nag lugs) held by others (gzhan lugs). This latter tradition was in error due to its mere
facsimile of insight (lhag thong ltar snang) which fixates solely on emptiness (stong rkyang du lta ba). Gorampa
also saw this Mahmudr as characterized by the suppression of thought which rests in a blank void (stong pa had
de jog pai rtog pa kha tshom pa nyid). This is significant in demonstrating how the Sakya tradition and those who
perceived similarities between Kagy Mahmudr and the system of Hwashang characterized that tradition of
Mahmudr as one that has a false or extreme view of emptiness. For more see: Ibid., 105.
69

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 90.

The so-called Single White Remedy or dkar po chig thub, is a term associated with the Mahmudr teachings of
Gampopa meant to convey the soteriological self-sufficiency of the realization of the true nature of mind. As
mentioned, this term was heavily criticized by opponents such as Sakya Paita. For more, see: Ibid., 149.
70

39

meditative method; and 3) That Mahmudr could ever be taught apart from the Mantrayna.71
Jackson also rightfully pointed out that Sakya Paita had strong scholastic concerns as well,
claiming that doctrines should only be accepted on the basis of scripture and reasoning (lung
rigs):
Acceptance, too, should be done through scripture and reasoning. With scripture,
furthermore, take the definitive meaning as the decisive criterion. Dont rely on
provisional meaning! With reasoning, moreover, you should uphold objectively
grounded reasoning. Fallacious reasoning is pointless. To accept and reject after
examining the intention is the way of the learned. To hold as chief the teachings
of the non-Buddhist Indian sectarians and the tradition of the Old [Tibetans] is
the conduct of the ignorant.72

With the strongly anti-scholastic rhetoric having been employed by proponents of Kagy
Mahmudr, it is clear from statements like this that Sakya Paita took offense with such
sentiments. Such critiques aimed at the Kagy traditions were not taken lightly of course, and
this was compounded by the fact that they came from Sakya Paita. As Ulrich Kragh explains,
it was a criticism coming from one of the most influential persons in Tibet at the time, whose
power was felt both scholastically and secularly.73 Indeed a decade after writing Differentiating
the Three Precepts, Sakya Paita had received favor from the court of the Mongols, thus
establishing the Sakya tradition as the most powerful in Tibet at that time. While it is not the
intent of the current work to suggest or infer political or other worldly motivations for various
figures involved in these controversies, it is important to acknowledge the presence of these
more secular factors due to the demands and challenges they place on various figures and

71

Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 72.

72

Ibid., 118.

Ulrich T. Kragh, "Culture and Subculture - A Study of the Mahmudr Teachings of Sgam po pa." (Master's
thesis, University of Copenhagen), 1998: 42.
73

40

traditions for legitimation of their own tradition and philosophical or doctrinal positions. In short,
Sakya Paitas criticisms were clearly very significant for how Mahmudr was subsequently
perceived and demanded some kind of a response from Kagy apologists, lest their silence on the
matter appear damaging for their own tradition of Mahmudr. As Roger Jackson once put it, all
subsequent upholders of the Kagy traditions have been haunted by the ghost of Sa skya
Paita.74
Following these critiques made by Sakya Pandita were the philosophical challenges
brought forth by Je Tsongkhapa (Rje tsong kha pa, b. 13571419) and his followers in the Gelug
(a.k.a. Ganden) tradition. The Gelugpas in a sense extended the critiques of Sakya Pandita,
arguing against the more suddenist and transcendental language of Kagy Mahmudr75 (as well
as Nyingma Dzogchen) proponents in favor of a strictly gradual approach and insisting upon the
superiority of scholastic and analytical approaches to both theory and practice. Concerning the

74

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life, 246.

As David Jackson has pointed out, Gelugpa responses to the Kagy Mahmudr system itself and its validity
varied from outright rejection to more diplomatic approaches, with the latter approach largely due to the fact that the
Gelugpa had their own tradition of Mahmudr, sometimes referred to as the dGa ldan bKa brgyud,
demonstrating some affinity between the two traditions. However, even for those Gelugpas who accepted the Kagy
Mahmudr as a valid tradition, there were still doctrinal, philosophical, and practical issues. For instance, the
Gelugpa scholars Jangkya Rlpay Dorj (1717-1786) and his contemporary Thkwan Chkyi Nyima (1737-1802),
both seemed much more concerned with refuting the non -mentation doctrine associated with Kagy Mahmudr
than questioning the validity of the tradition on the whole, as Sakya Paita had done. Although these two figures
come after Miky Dorjs time, this still demonstrates the overall unease Gelugpa scholars felt towards the ideas,
rhetoric, and practices found within Kagy Mahmudr. See: Jackson, Enlightenment by a Single Means, 123-137.
75

Roger Jackson has also pointed out that the Gelug Mahmudr proponent the Fourth Pachen Lama
Lobsang Chkyi Gyaltsen (15701662) essentially sides with the Kagy tradition over Sakya Paita on the matter
concerning the legitimacy of a stra based Mahmudr outside of tantric practice, which further illustrates that the
Gelugpas in their entirety cannot be said to be against Kagy Mahmudr properalthough it should also be noted
that Lobsang Chkyi Gyaltsen seems to be exceptional in his attempts at demons trating commonalities between the
Gelug Lam Rim tradition and the Kagy Mahmudr, Roger Jackson further notes that later Gelugpa commentators
on Lobsang Chkyi Gyaltsens Mahmudr works emphasized a strictly Gelug approach to Mahmudr,
demonstrating their discomfort with displaying any commonalities with the Kagy tradition. See: Roger Jackson,
The dGe ldan-bKa brgyud Tradition of Mahmudr: How Much dGa ldan? How Much bKa brgyud? in G.
Newland (ed.) Changing Minds: Contributions to the Study of Budd hism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins.
(Ithaca: Snow Lion. 2001), 155-191.

41

influence of Tsongkhapa, Rheingans states, Tsong kha pa had a considerable impact on Tibetan
Buddhism, particularly on scholasticism and clerical education. With him, an era began
characterized by widespread scholastic activity and intellectual efflorescence: the beginning of
high scholasticism.76 Furthermore, the Gelugpas were very critical of non-conceptual,
suddenist, and transcendental rhetoric,77 theory, and any practice based therein, as evinced by
Tsongkhapas disciple, Khedrub Je (Mkhas grub rje, b. 1385-1438) in the following statement:

Many who hold themselves to be meditators of the Snow mountains [of Tibet]
talk, in exalted cryptic terms, of theory free from all affirmation, of meditative
realisation free from all mentation, of [philosophical] practice free from all denial
and assertion and of a fruit free from all wishes and qualms. And they imagine
that understanding is born in the conscious stream when because in a state
where there is no mentation about anything at all there arises something like nonidentification of anything at all one thinks that there exists nothing that is either
identical or different. By so doing one has proclaimed great nihilism where there
is nothing to be affirmed according to a doctrinal system of ones own, as well as
the thesis of the Hashang in which nothing can be the object of mentation. 78

Very strong anti-transcendental rhetoric such as this demonstrates that the Gelug critiques of
non-conceptual and non-dualistic philosophical and meditative approaches were very
condemning, and challenges made in this manner by the Gelug tradition produced many

76

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life, 50.

77

Sonam Thakchoe notes that the Gelugpa do have their own notion of transcendence which should be
acknowledged here, one that is much more epistemologically oriented rather than metaphysically oriented as are
other traditions. This is significant in that it still demonstrates the Gelugpas desire to preserve the status of the
phenomenal and the conditional, something that other traditions and scholarsincluding here Miky Dorjbeing
much more metaphysical in their notion of transcendence included in the category of what is to be transcended. For
more, see: Sonam Thakchoe, The Two truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Wa y (Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 2007), 110-111.
78

Though according to Sam Van Schaik, this kind of rhetoric was aimed specifically at the Nyingma Dzogchen
tradition as implied later on in the same text, Van Schaik also notes that this kind of rhetoric was targeted at the
Kagy tradition of Mahmudr as well. Regardless, the fundamental Gelugpa distaste for transcendental and non conceptual rhetoric is patently obvious here. See: Van Schaik, Sam, The Great Perfection and the Chinese Monk:
Nyingmapa Defenses of Hashang Mahyna. Accessed November, 18, 2014. http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang mahayana/

42

polemical and apologetic responses by notable figures such as Gorampa Sonam Sengey, Shakya
Chogden (Shakya mchog ldan, b. 1428-1507), and Miky Dorj himself.79 Again, the Gelugpa
order had risen to prominence already during the life of the Eighth Karmapa, and so their
criticisms were taken more seriously than they would be were that not the case. In order to better
understand what sort of views these scholars were reacting against, a brief presentation of
Gelugpa ideology is warranted.
For our purposes here, it is perhaps best to focus on how Tsongkhapa and his followers
interpret the important Madhyamaka doctrine of the two truths (bden pa gnyis)80 the
conventional truth81 (kun rdzob bden pa) and the ultimate truth (don dam bden pa)since this
topic is heavily discussed in Miky Dorjs Recognizing the Blessings, and is critical for
understanding the disparate interpretations of the term union (zung jug) central to the present
investigation. According to Sonam Thakchoe, Tsongkhapa is a philosophical pluralist when it
comes to interpreting the two truths; this is because Tsongkhapa wants to interpret both of the

See for example: Donald Lopez, Polemical Literature (dGag lan). in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed.
Jose Cabezon et al. (Snow Lion Publications, 1996). Also: Thakchoe, The Two truths Debate.
79

80

Although a deeper analysis of some of the unique philosophical and hermeneutical positions of Tsongkhapa and
his followers is perhaps warranted, it is not possible in the limited space here. A brief overview o f the particularly
relevant Gelugpa understanding of the two truths here should sufficiently provide a much needed basis for beginning
to understand where, how, and why Miky Dorj disagrees with Tsongkhapa and his followers. This understanding
will be supplemented by Miky Dorjs own understanding of their views as well.
81

A note on translation here: in translating the term kun rdzob bden pa, I am interpreting it in a manner more
conducive to Miky Dorjs understanding as a conventional truth rather th an as a relative truth which might be
more demonstrative of Tsongkhapas interpretation of it. This is so because, as he does in his dwag brgyud grub pai
shing rta for example, Miky Dorj strongly equates kun rdzob bden pa with ordinary beings (so skye), conceptual
mind (blo), and falsity (rdzun pa). See: Ari Goldfield et.al, trans., The Moon of Wisdom: Chapter Six of
Chandrakirti's Entering the Middle Way With Commentary from the Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorjs Chariot of the
Dakpo Kagy Siddhas, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2005).
Thus, by purposefully using the translation conventional truth I hope to emphasize and reflect Miky Dorjs
understanding of the term as something that is merely relegated to the mundane and conceptual world of ord inary
beings and not given an equal or relative status to that of the ultimate.

43

truths as truth proper, with neither one being conceived as more significant or truer than the
other. In other words, both of the truths are mutually interdependent and exist only in relation to
one another, thereby eliminating the need to proclaim the metaphysical superiority of one over
the other. Furthermore, Tsongkhapa does not accept that the ultimate truth is metaphysically
unconditioned, and therefore the two truths are identified respectively as empirically valid
cognition with respect to conventional truth and ultimately valid cognition with respect to
ultimate truth. Tsongkhapa also views the ultimate truth as conceptually knowable and effable (at
least to a certain extent), thus making a valid conceptual cognition possible. Tsongkhapa also
views transcendental knowledge of the ultimate as tantamount to realizing the interdependent
nature of empirically given phenomena. According to Thakchoe, this all culminates in the belief
for Tsongkhapa that an enlightened being attains the perfection of knowledge of both the
conventional and ultimate truths, thus finalizing the correct view of the equality of both truths.
As Thakchoe points out, such interpretations were in stark contradiction with the views of other
traditions and scholars.82 What is important to take away from these ideas is that Tsongkhapa
held a notion of the ultimate and the transcendent which are highly dependent upon and
conditioned by the relative and the conventional. As Paul Williams notes throughout his article
Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, Miky Dorj took offense at
such a relativized ultimate truth, and thus his formulation of a two truth theory and their unity
can be viewed as a reaction to the Gelugpa interpretation of this pivotal doctrine, a point which
will be elaborated upon below.
By reviewing the doctrinal and ideological critiques and challenges from monumental
figures like Sakya Paita and Tsongkhapa, we can begin to form a clear picture of the central

82

Thakchoe, The Two Truths Debate, 2-3.

44

demands being made on the Kagypas by their critics: 1) That their system of Mahmudr
should clearly demonstrate how it is related to Buddhist doctrine, particularly that found in stra
and tantra; 2) That it should be based on reasoning and more amenable to scholastic demands for
rational and doctrinal coherence; and 3) That it should rein in its transcendental fervor and
adhere more strictly to the conventions of the worldnot merely in an ethical sense (although
that was certainly part of it) but also in an epistemological and ontological sense by emphasizing
the ontological validity of the conventional truth. As will be demonstrated below, Miky Dorj
was certainly very aware of these critiques, and a large portion of his thought can be understood
as a reaction to these challenges by Sakya and Gelug scholars. Though there has been much
academic discussion of how Miky Dorjs Madhyamaka thoughtparticularly in his text the
Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhaswas a tract against the Gelugpa tradition and their unique
Madhyamaka interpretation,83 as mentioned above, very little research84 has examined how such
challenges impacted Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought and how he responded to these. The
current examination of Recognizing the Blessings will demonstrate this important aspect of
Miky Dorjs thought more clearly. In the section to follow, we will examine the context and
position of the Eighth Karmapa himself in light of these controversies and critiques. This will
allow for a better understanding of how to interpret his Mahmudr thought, which will prepare
us for a closer examination of Recognizing the Blessings itself.

83

See note 36, for example.

With the exception of some recent work by Jim Rheingans. See fo r example: Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas
Life, 192-210.
84

45

1.3 The Context and Position of the Eighth Karmapa and Recognizing the Blessings

The Eighth Karmapa was considered to be the supreme head of the Karma Kagy
tradition, and thus carried a tremendous amount of spiritual and scholastic influence within the
Kagy tradition itself. The first half of the fifteenth century was a time of nearly unprecedented
scholarly activity within Tibet,85 and Miky Dorjs own oeuvre filled more than thirty
volumes.86 Included among his own monumental scholarly projects was the composition of
commentaries on the first four of the five major non-tantric subjects.87 In this regard, it is clear
that the Eighth Karmapa was an accomplished scholar of his day, and that his influence also
crossed over into the political realm. In the decades preceding Miky Dorj's birth the religious
and political situation was characterized by tension and conflict between the Phagmo Drupa clan
of and the Tsang-based Rinpungpa clan. Yet, from the 1480s the Karma Kagy tradition under
the influence of the Fourth Zhamarpa, Chdrak Yeshe (Chos grags ye shes, b. 1453-1524), and
the Seventh Karmapa Chdrak Gyatso (Chos grags rgya mtsho, b. 1454-1507) enjoyed a time of
unprecedented honor and support from the Rinpungpa, which reached its peak in the period
between 1498 and 1517.88 This placed the Eighth Karmapa, born in 1507, in a position of
considerable power, extending his influence to wherever the Karma Kagy held large estates, yet
this was challenged by the rising influence of the Gelugpa tradition who were supported by the

85

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 48.

86

Rheingans, Communicating the Innate, 180.

The first four are: Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, Prajparmit, and Vinaya, with the fifth being Pram a. See:
Brunnhlzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky, 19.
87

88

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 49.

46

Phagmo Drupa of .89 Though it is certain that the influence and power held by these figures and
traditions mandated consideration and responses in order to maintain the legitimacy of the
apologists own traditions, as I mentioned before it is not the purpose of the present work to infer
political or secular motivations in these disputes. As will be demonstrated, there were also
serious doctrinal, philosophical, and perhaps most importantly, soteriological concerns at play
which were arguably the main concern of Miky Dorj.
In discussing these issues, it is of course improper to merely assume that Miky Dorj
was aware of such critiques, even when coming from such influential figures as they did. As it
turns out, Miky Dorj seemed to be very cognizant of the fact that Sakya Paita had criticized
the Kagy tradition of Mahmudr, as clearly demonstrated by statements such as the following,
It also turns out that basing themselves on the mere term [non-mentation], Sa skya pan
chen[has] developed a hostile attitude to the whole non-mentation cycle, which is the
Reverend Maitrpdas very pure Dharma90 This statement is especially significant for Miky
Dorj given the importance that he gave Maitrp in his Mahmudr thought, whose
understanding of amanasikra (non-mentation) he employed to demonstrate the connection
between Mahmudr and Madhyamaka.91 In fact, it is clear that Miky Dorj was sensitive to

89

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 50.

The political conflicts also included the Sakyapas (though there power and influence were on the decline at that
time), as David Higgins notes: The sixteenth century was marked by power struggles between the Karma pas and
dGe lugs pas for territory in Khams and gTsang. At this time the Karma pas, Sa skya pas and dGe lugs pas all vied
for patronage and assistance at the Mongol court of Gengzhiz Khan and his successors. The Brug pa sect of the
bKa brgyud was also drawn into the political turmoil. See: David Higgins, On the Development of the Nonmentation (amanasikra) Doctrine in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 29, (2006): 261.
90

Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work, 331-332.

91

Higgins, On the Development of the Non-Mentation, 286.

47

critiques of the Kagy from both the Sakyapas as well as the Gelugpas in their charges against
Kagy Mahmudr. For example, he states in his Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas:
[M]asters of the Sa [skya] and Dge [lugs]have asserted that this Mahmudr
theory and practice of the Precious Bka brgyud only is the theory and meditative
realization (lta sgom) of the Hva shang92 This is, however, not correct. Indeed, it
has been stated [by the Buddha] that among the four recoursesdharma rather
than an individualis to be had recourse to; but there has been a deviation from
this principle because of hostility [on the part of some masters to the Mahmudr
of the Precious Bka brgyud].93

What a statement like this clearly illustrates is that Miky Dorje was aware of and actively
challenged critiques against Kagy Mahmudr. Based on this fact, it is then within reason to
suggest that such challenges from the Sakya and Gelug traditions had affected Miky Dorjs
Mahmudr interpretation insofar as he was pressured to answer such critiques.
As indicated above, it is widely known that Miky Dorj was actively engaged in debate
with various Gelug scholars, and in this regard Paul Williams states confidently:

There can be little doubt that Mi bskyod rdo rje was concerned to establish firmly
the Abhidharma and Strayna teachings of the Karma bKa brgyud in active and
crusading opposition to the systematic and sophisticated interpretations dGe lugs
pa scholars were presenting, a crusading opposition seen most notably in the
invitation to debate issued by the twenty-three year old Mi bskyod rdo rje to the
sixty-one year old dGe lugs pa scholar, yig cha author for Se ra byes, Se ra rje

92

The polemics of Hwashang in Tibetan Buddhism is a well-documented phenomenon by modern scholars (See for
example: Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism). It began with a famous debate between
Kamalala and Hwashang Mohoyenwith the former representing the gradualist Indian approach of the pramits
and the latter representing the suddenist approach of Chan. Hwashang is said to have been defeated in debate and
his approach was thereby banned in Tibet. Since then, for a scholar to label an opponents view as Hwashang in
Tibet was essentially to suggest that it was nihilist in nature and ignored the la w of cause and effect as well as the
practice of the pramits. Miky Dorj was apparently so concerned with this label, that he wrote a text solely
devoted to detailing what views and theories he thought qualified as subscribing to the view of Hwashang, e ntitled
A Presentation That Points a Finger Toward the Meaning Mixed With Hwashang (Hwa shang dang dres pai don
mdzub tshugs su bstan pa).
93

Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work, 336.

48

btsun chos kyi rgyal mtshan, on the completion of the Karma pas commentary on
the Abhisamaylakra.94

Based on such a description, it is easy to see that Miky Dorj was more than willing to engage
his scholastic opponents in debate and to directly challenge their views. Keeping this in mind,
the question then is whether such an enthusiasm to oppose the views of others is presented in
how he explicated Mahmudr itself, which seems to be the case in Recognizing the Blessings.
Williams addresses what kinds of philosophical and doctrinal issues to which Miky
Dorj took exception in Gelugpa thought, focusing on his critique of the Gelugpa interpretation
of emptiness as found in his Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas. Williams notes that Miky
Dorj sees a divergence between philosophical investigation and the task of liberation, in that for
the Karmapa the mundane, phenomenal world has absolutely no theoretical or philosophical
foundation whatsoever, with liberation involving an otherness or going beyond.95 Miky Dorj
sees Tsongkhapas understanding of emptiness as an emptiness that is necessarily connected with
the world and with phenomena, which therefore grants these things an exalted status and an
established position at some level of philosophical or theoretical activity.96 For Miky Dorj
then, in arguing for an emptiness that is the mere emptiness of inherent existence of a given
entityan entity which must be afforded some existential status due to not being empty of
itselfTsongkhapa and his followers are preoccupied with the worldly and are ignoring the
actual state of emptiness which, for Miky Dorj, must be something transcendent to these

94

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, 125.

95

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, 129.

96

Ibid., 130.

49

phenomena.97 He even goes so far as to define the Gelugpa version of emptiness as a limited
categorical emptiness (nyi tshe bai rnam grangs pai stong nyid), one that is equal to the nonBuddhist (phyi rol pai) view of the Realists (dngos po smra ba) ,98 and in being so it is not an
authentic emptiness which is suitable as a support for the path of liberation,99 a most serious
critique in the world of inter-Buddhist scholasticism. Williams aptly notes that for Miky Dorj,
such a view of emptiness is limited because it depends upon the situation or context to which it
refers.100 This leads Williams to the conclusion that Miky Dorj is after an ultimate truth that is
not dependent upon context, one that is not relegated to the level of conventional truth; in other
words, not a conventional or relative ultimate, but rather an ultimate ultimate that is independent
of contexts, conditions, and conventions.101
What these points demonstrate is the clear unease that Miky Dorj felt with the
Gelugpas views, not only philosophically but also, perhaps more significantly, soteriologically.
Recall, for example, that Miky Dorj does not even consider the Gelugpa view of emptiness as
Buddhist and deems it to be inadequate for the path of liberation. Furthermore, it shows in this
case how he differentiated his own views from those of Tsongkhapa and his followers, in that
97

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, 132.

98

Ibid., 133.

99

Ibid., thar pai lam gyi rten du rung bai stong nyid yang dag pa ma yin te . See note 30.

Williams says that Miky Dorj justifies his application of the term limited (nyi tshe ba) to the Gelug view of
emptiness thusly, The first [quote Miky Dorj uses to justify his use of the term nyi tshe ba] is from the
Lakvatrastra, and refers to the itaretaranyat, the emptiness which occurs where things are mutually absent,
This isnt present here. This nyat Mahmati is exhorted to abandon. Obviously such an emptiness is mutual
exclusiveness in a particular context, limited to the situation referred to by its two terms. This needn t necessarily be
spatial limitation (cf. absence of thoughts, the absence of bad in good, etc.), it is simply that a situation is limited in
that an alternative (possible or impossible) is not at that time occurring in that locus. It could presumably be a
permanent, universal absencegive that there are no unicorns anywhere at all, and never have been, then it would, I
assume, be an example of itaretaranyat to refer to the permanent, eternal absence of unicorns at any point in
space. But, and this is the point Mi bskyod rdo rje is seeking to exploit, the absence is limited in that it depends upon
the situations referred to. Ibid., 134-135.
100

101

Ibid., 138.

50

like the Kagy masters of yorehe clearly felt the need to strongly assert an ultimate truth that
is utterly transcendent, beyond the phenomenal world and its conditionsan important point that
will be clarified further in the following discussion of Miky Dorjs conception of the two
truths and union (zung jug) in Recognizing the Blessings.
As indicated in the introduction, there are three ways in which I will present Miky
Dorjs Mahmudr thought explicated within Recognizing the Blessings, namely as: a) a
reaction to Sakya and Gelug critiques of Kagy Mahmudr in defense of the subitist tradition of
Gampopa; b) a re-appropration of Mahmudr so that it is provisionally able to accomodate
doctrines and practices of stra and tantra; and c) a resolution of all conventional and
conditioned phenomena (specifically here regarding the ground, path, and fruition) in terms of
their ultimate non-dual union. A close examination of Recognizing the Blessings in the following
chapter will demonstrate the presence and significance of these three aspects, and in particular
his theory of union and its significance for understanding his Mahmudr thought.

51

52

Chapter Two:
Recognizing the Blessings of the Union of Ground, Path, and Fruition

In Recognizing the Blessings, a short yet very dense text, Miky Dorj seems to make a
great effort to relate the Kagy system of Mahmudr to as many aspects of stra and tantra as
possible, as well as to the thought of the Indian Mahsiddhas, and even Madhyamaka and
Yogcra philosophical frameworks (though this last part is less explicit). This demonstrates the
remarkably inclusive approach Miky Dorj takes in formulating his Mahmudr thought,
especially considering the brevity of the current text in question. Yet, at the same time it is clear
that Miky Dorj still wants to place Mahmudr as the system above all other systems, using a
transcendental rhetoric quite similar to his Kagy predecessors such as Gampopa. With this in
mind, the present chapter will analyze how Miky Dorje describes the ground, path, and fruition
(gzhi lam bras), the pivotal role of his conception of union (zung jug) based on the two truths
(bden pa gnyis), and how this supports understanding Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought as
reaction (to Sakya and Gelug critiques), re-appropriation (of path Mahmudr to accommodate
stra and tantra), and resolution (of the conventional to the ultimate via union).

2.1. Articulating the Ground, Path, and Fruition

Recognizing the Blessings is categorized as a text of advice, training, or

instruction, (bslab bya), which suggests that it was intended to guide practitioners on the
practice of Mahmudr; indeed, it should be noted that the section on the path takes up about half

53

of the entire text, which is six folios total. Yet, much of the text also reads like a philosophical
treatise, in that Miky Dorj attempts to clarify many technical points of doctrine and
terminology. The intended audience appears specifically to be Kagy practitioners of
Mahmudr, yet, as will be demonstrated, the text seems implicitly to be in conversation with
those outside of this tradition as well, particularly those who doubt the authenticity and efficacy
of his system of Mahmudr and its concomitant views. With this last point, I am not suggesting
that we read this text as explicitly answering objections (dgag len), which is its own genre of text
in the Tibetan tradition, a genre in which Miky Dorj himself engaged enthusiastically,102 yet I
do wish to emphasize the significant degree to which certain controversies and debates affected
Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought and how he responds to these in the present work.
Furthermore, it is clear from reading the text itself that Recognizing the Blessings is
structured by the common Buddhist theoretical model of the ground, path, and fruition (gzhi
lam bras). Explicitly, the text is about blessings (byin rlabs), but Miky Dorj makes it clear
that such blessings are to be found via this three-fold rubric. In the introductory section, Miky
Dorj exhorts his audience to understand the importance of pursuing blessings when practicing
Gampopas system of Mahmudr. Immediately following that, he suggests that this necessitates
the phases (gros)103 of the ground, path, and fruition as well as their union. This model is an
interesting choice in that the very structure of it demonstrates the tension between subitist and
gradualist models of enlightenment in Buddhist thought. The ground and fruition, for Miky
Dorj in particular, represent the immediacy (in terms of the ground) and transcendence (in terms
of the fruition) of enlightenment that is to be realized (the view of the subitist) rather than
102

See for example: Lopez, Polemical Literature (dGag lan).

103

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2b2.

54

fabricated or engineered (the view of the gradualist). It is only the path that specifically entails
and caters to the contexts and conditions of ordinary beings (so so skye bo), which from their
perspective appears gradual and is a process of removing impurities and obscurationsa
necessary evil of sorts, to realize the unconditioned ultimate which was always present in the
ground104 and appears to re-emerge in the fruition.105 Herbert Guenther, in discussing this
concept with regard to Buddhist tantra in general, describes this mutual reinforcement between
the ground and fruition as circular causation, the idea that the goal is in no way different from
the foundation or starting-point, and the path, therefore, also is not some separate entity leading
from one extreme to another[a] conception which is often expressed in the words that The
effect is to be sealed by the cause, but also the latter by the former.106 This sentiment captures
the spirit of Miky Dorjs conception of union as well, in that the triad of ground, path, and

It should be noted that Miky Dorjs views about buddha nature should not be defined strictly in terms of
immediacy, as for example many strict gzhan stong pas might be categorized. As Klaus Dieter-Mathes rightfully
notes in A Direct Path to the Buddha Within, even though Miky Dorj accepted the doctrine of sugatagarbha, he
did not accept that all of the enlightened qualities of a buddha are possessed by sentient beings (55). In commenting
upon the thought of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorj, whose views he strongly claims to adhere to, Miky Dorje
states that sentient beings are actually equivalent to the impure adventitious stains and deviate from the
dharmadhtu, which is the pure natural mind, which is also clear considering his strict distinction between the
ordinary consciousness of the layavijna (kun gzhi rnam shes) and the primordial wisdom-laya (kun gzhi ye
shes). However, the strong perspectival approach that Miky Dorj follows in the present text in line with Sarahas
viewsfrom one perspective the ground is sasra (sentient beings lacking realization) and from another it is
nirva (ryas with realization)as well as Miky Dorjs insistence that buddha nature is not in any sense a cause
(415-416). This suggests that he rejected a strict gradualist model which would favor a causal understanding of the
sugatagarbha and also that he still adhered to a form of immediacy based on perspective rather than the existence of
essential qualities. See: Dieter-Mathes, A Direct Path to the Buddha Within.
104

In his commentary on the Abhisamaylakra, Miky Dorje cautions against adhering to a cause-and-result view
of something impure becoming pure, A presentation of the laya-consciousness as the cause and mirrorlike
wisdom as its result is not something that is obtained through reasoning. Rather, with respect to the mode of being of
causes and results in terms of [such] causes and results in the abdhidharma that actually fulfills these functions (that
is, what produces and what is produced), the laya-consciousness and mirrorlike wisdom are not adequate as a cause
and result that fully qualify as such. Also, since the very nature of the laya consciousness is [nothing but] the
adventitious stains, it is presented as impure. No matter how it may be refined by something else, it will not turn into
something pure. It is not possible within the sphere of knowable objects that something impure turns into something
pure, or that something pure turns into something impure. Karl Brunnhlzl, Luminous Heart: The Third Karmapa
on Consciousness, Wisdom, and Buddha Nature (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2009), 56.
105

106

Herbert Guenther, The Life and Teachings of Naropa. Translated from Tibetan with Philosopical Commentary
based on the Oral Transmissions, 189.

55

fruition are not merely mutually reinforcing yet actually distinct phases that a linear model of
causation might suggest. Rather, these phases of ground, path, and fruition are all primordially
inseperable as Guenthers circular model of causation suggests.
Miky Dorj addresses the intimate relationship and seemingly contradictory nature of
these three concepts (i.e. that something always present could be produced as a later result
through the conditions of the path) in an intriguing statement early on in the text: If one
authentically refines [the ground] by means of the path, since the fruition is Vajradhra, the
extraordinary being who has the power to appear as though re-emerging, it expresses the ground,
the pervasive lord Vajrasattva.107 Based on this statement it seems that Miky Dorj was quite
aware of the difficulties in negotiating these conceptual tensions involved in upholding the
ground, path, and fruition schema. Here he notes that the immediacy of the groundwhich he
describes as unalterable (gzhan du mi gyur ba), timeless (thog ma dang tha ma med pa), and
unblemished by ordinary consciousness (rnam par shes pai rgyun dang ma dres pa)108 is
something that nevertheless needs to be worked with in terms of the path that attains the
transcendent result.109

de lam gyis yang dag par sbyang nabras bu rdo rje chang slar byung du rung ba ltar snang bai nus pa khyed
par can gyi bdag nyid yin pas gzhi khyab bdag rdo rje sems dpa shes byao . Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen
po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004.
2b1-2.
107

108

Ibid., 2b1.

109

How Miky Dorj resolves this issue of needing to practice the path in spite of the immanence of the ground may
be clarified by how Rheingans discusses the Eighth Karmapas views of the manner of purity and/or impurity of the
minds of sentient beings, bodhisattvas, and buddhas respectively in his text Bla mai khams pa dris lan mi gcig
sems gynis: Referring to the Third Karmapa's Zab mo nang gi don, Mi bskyod rdo rje relies on a teaching well
known from the Ratnagotravibhga : the pure aspect, the Buddha nature inherent in beings, shows itself in the three
phases: impure (for ordinary beings), pure and impure (for bodhisattvas), and completely pure (for Buddhas). How
does the impure aspect of mind comes about? The mind is in essence (ngo bo) empty, its nature (rang bzhin) clear,
and its expression (rnam pa) is unhindered - but this is not known by itself (rang gis rang ma rig). Therefore the
mind at first (sems dang po) is timeless awareness (ye shes), and at the same time obscured by ignorance, which is
called 'consciousness' (rnam shes). Conventionally (tha snyad du), the former is an existing phenomenon, the
natural, self arisen inherent, undeluded Buddha nature. Thus, for Miky Dorj the path is merely a process of
coming to see what has always been there, rather than developing or producing something that was not there before.
56

It may seem odd that Miky Dorj here associates the fruition with the primordial
buddha, Vajradhra, but he only associates the dharmakya with enlightened beings.110 Since
Vajradhra is the dharmakya buddha (with Vajrasattva being the sambhogakya buddha,
representing the bliss and clarity of the ground), it makes sense that he would emphasize
Vajradhras context as being that of the fruition. Yet, it is also clear from the above statement
that Vajradhra as the fruition is not actually made to reappear subsequent to the stages of the
path, but rather that is simply how the manifestation of the fruition appears from the
unenlightened perspective. This latter notion also further demonstrates the primordial, or one
could say timeless, nature of Vajradhra that is never actually absent throughout any of the
phases of ground, path, or fruition. Unfortunately, Miky Dorj does not clarify the statement
any further; however, his theory of union (zung jug) may help shed light on this matter. Later in
the text he says, all the phases of the ground, path, and fruition of those aspects are inseparable
and in union.111 The implications of which will be discussed in-depth below.
Given the importance of the ground, path, and fruition within this text, it seems important
to at least briefly address how Miky Dorj defines and describes each of these phases and how
this relates to his Mahmudr thought overall. This will further allow us to see how he deals with
The path then is a process of shifting perspectives from ignorance to gnosis. See: Rheingans, The Eighth
Karmapas Life, 220.
For example, he states in his Response on Buddha Nature and the Dharmakya, as the buddha nature of the
cause is not the dharmakya, the dharmakya itself is the perfection of the two accumulations, it is what brings
about the final purification of the two obscurations, it is free from the obscurations of the five aggregates, the twelve
sense sources, and the eighteen elements, and being together with the three kyas which are the transformation of
the eight consciousnesses, the five wisdoms, and enlightened activity, these features are referred to as the
dharmakya. rgyu bde gshegs snying po ni chos kyi sku ma yin la chos kyi sku ni tshogs gnyis rdzogs/ sgrib gnyis
sbyangs pa mthar thug tu byas pa/ phung po lnga skyes mched bcu gnyis khams bco brgyad kyi sgrib pa bral ba/
rnam shes tshogs brgyad gnas gyur gri sku gsum ye shes lnga phrin las dang bcas pa de yi tshogs don zhig la chos
sku zhes sgra sbyar ba yin. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi
bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 1b1-3.
110

gzhi lam bras bui gnas skabs thams cad dbyer med zung jug yin. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin
rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4a1-2.
111

57

subitist and gradualist tendencies in this work, and to demonstrate how the text may be profitably
read as reaction, re-appropriation, and resolution.
Demonstrating the importance of union in his Mahmudr thought and ground, path, and
fruition theory, Miky Dorj sets out by defining each phase succinctly as some manner of
union. The ground, he says, is the union of clarity and emptiness (gsal stong zung jug), the path
is the union of the two accumulations (tshogs gnyis zung jug) i.e. the accumulations of merit
(bsod nams) and wisdom (ye shes), and the fruition is the union of the two kyas (sku gnyis
zung jug)112 i.e. the rpakya and the dharmakyawith each one of these pairs corresponding
to the conventional and ultimate truths respectively. Based on this concise manner of describing
the ground, path, and fruition, Miky Dorj then elaborates each phase in more detail.
When discussing the phase of the ground, Miky Dorj makes it clear that he is
discussing the intention of the Anuttarayoga tantras,113 revealing that there is indeed a strong
tantric element to this Mahmudr text, one which was already implied by the texts emphasis on
blessings mentioned earlier.114 In fact, tantric view and practice heavily influences Miky
Dorjs explication of Mahmudr here, which is interesting due to his remark that this text is
specifically intended for those who follow Gampopas system of Mahmudr.115 As readers will
recall, in the first chapter it was noted that Gampopa made a rather sharp distinction between
112

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a2.
rnal byor bla med kyi rgyud kyi dgongs pa. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In
gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a3.
113

114

Rheingans has already aptly noted that the use of the term blessings in this work indicates a strong connection to
Vajrayna practice. See: Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 215.
Though the Tibetan edition reads phyin instead of phyir for this last term, phyir which means for the sake of or
for the purpose of makes more sense in this context than phyin which is normally understood as the past tense of
the verb gro ba (to go), and thus is likely a misspelling. sgos dwags skor bai phyag rgya pa yin phyir. Mi bskyod
rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a1.
115

58

Vajrayna and his system of Mahmudr, yet here Miky Dorj seems to want to have his cake
and eat it too, in that he explicitly incorporates Vajrayna elements into his explication of
Mahmudr while also claiming it is in line with Gampopas Mahmudr system, which itself
would imply Mahmudrs supremacy over Vajrayna systems. Given that Miky Dorj was a
great scholar of the Kagy tradition as well as his own explicit self-identification with the
tradition of Dagpo Rinpoche, it is fair to say that he was probably well aware of Gampopas
strict distinction between Mahmudr and Vajrayna thought. Indeed, as Rheingans has pointed
out, the incorporation of tantra in this text even seems to contradict Miky Dorjs own thought
elsewhere.116 Yet, it is my view that Miky Dorj is not here trying to show that Vajrayna along
with its system of empowerments is an absolute necessity for Mahmudr, as Sakya Paita
claimed, but rather that Vajrayna and its practices can be merely incorporated onto the path of
Mahmudr (re-appropriation), which would still allow him to maintain the supremacy of
Mahmudrs realization over other systems (reaction). This idea will be expanded upon below
in this chapter.
To continue with our discussion of the ground, Miky Dorj describes it in basic terms
such as possessing the qualities of clarity, emptiness, and bliss (gsal stong bde bai khyad chos
dang ldan), as being the nature (rang bzhin) that exists primordially (thog ma nas yod pa), and
that it represents simultaneously the intrinsic purity of (ngo bo nyid kyis dag) and freedom from
(bral) conditioned or worldly existence (srid pa).117 Essentially, Miky Dorj is describing the

Rheingans analyzes a text by Miky Dorj, the gLing drung pa la dor bai dris lan (Answer to a Question Asked
by gLing drung pa La dor ba), in which Miky Dorj clearly expresses his view that the Mahmudr of Gampopa is
superior to the system of the four empowerments and all tantras except for the Klacakra. This will be discussed in
more detail further on in this chapter. See: Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 200-203.
116

117

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a3-5.

59

sugatagarbha (bde gshegs snying po),118 although it is curious that he does not use this term at
all in the section on the ground nor anywhere else in this text. In other texts, such as his Beacon
That Properly Elucidates the Tradition of the Other-Empty Madhyamaka Proponents (dbu ma
gzhan stong smra bai srol legs par phye bai sgron me), he applies the term quite generously,
further raising questions as to why Miky Dorj does not use it here. This issue may also be
related to why Miky Dorj chose to say so little about the ground in this text, the discussion of
which takes up hardly a single folio. Instead he chooses to emphasize the path and to a lesser
extent the fruition (although of course, he reminds his audience again and again that these
aspects are all inseparable). It seems that Miky Dorj is here much more concerned with
emphasizing the distinction between ordinary beings (those on the path) and the noble beings
(those who have attained realization), describing their disparate manners of perceiving reality.
The ground, meanwhile, is the fundamental state of reality that bridges the gap between these
two states of ignorance and enlightenment. It seems that within the context of the path that
Miky Dorj takes this perspectival approach to be much more useful for his audience.
This perspectival approach becomes much more apparent in the context of the path: as
Buswell and Gimello have noted about Buddhist path theory in general,119 discussions of the
For example, Brunnhlzl also emphasizes the doctrine of sugatagarbha in Miky Dorjs formulation of the
ground which is equated with luminosity or clarity: According to Miky Dorj, the basis that is intended by this
statement [As for the mind, it is no-mind. The nature of the mind is luminosity] is the luminous mind as it is
explained in the tantras. The purpose of saying that the actual nature of the mind (the six or eight consciousnesses) is
luminosity is to understand that one attains the buddhahood of the stra approach through the path of the stras.
Thus, the above quotation refers to the nondual wisdom mind that is without the mind that consists of apprehender
and apprehended. The luminous mind of the tantras resides in all sentient beings in an unmanifest way. However,
when it is about to become manifest, gradually all eight consciousnesses, including their nature, completely vanish,
until finally the luminous mind as described in the tantras dawns. Thus, in the Kagy lineage, in talking about
buddhahood in the stras and tantras, the same names are used for the ground based on which buddhahood is
accomplished, the path that accomplishes it, and the fruition that is accomplished. These names are the Heart of the
Blissfully Gone Ones, mind, and luminosity, each one in terms of ground, path, and fruition. See: Brunnhlzl,
The Center of Sunlit Sky, 61-62.
118

Robert E. Buswell and Robert M. Gimello, Paths to Liberation: The Ma rga and Its Transformations in Buddhist
Thought (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994), 10-11.
119

60

path tend to mediate between the ideal and transcendental example of enlightened beings on the
one hand and the experiences of ordinary unenlightened spiritual practitioners on the other. In
the section on the path in Recognizing the Blessings, we see a marked bifurcation between these
two modes of experience,120 particularly in terms of consciousness (sems) and primordial
wisdom (ye shes), sasra (khor ba) and nirva (myang ngan das), and what constitutes the
experience of ordinary beings (skye bo tha mal pa) and the ryas (phags pa) and/or the siddhas
(grub thob).121 Such a strong distinction between these two modes is very important for Miky
Dorj, as is made evident by his critiques of Gelug views on emptiness and the two truths
discussed in the first chapter. In light of this, it is no wonder that Miky Dorj strongly
emphasizes the path here to illustrate this distinction. That being said, it is critical to also note
that such a distinction is merely perspectival or empirical in its implications and so for Miky
Dorj the experience of an ordinary being does not have any ontological implications for reality.
For the Gelugpas on the other hand, the empirical validity of conventional truth means that the
existential status of conventionally valid phenomena is in some sense equal to the existential
status of the level of ultimate reality. By contrast, Miky Dorj does not claim that these two
perspectives actually exist in their own respective spheres, which would result in proclaiming a
duality and would contradict his project of a holistic and non-dual reality. Rather, though both
perspectives are operative on some empirical level, one perspective is ontologically false and the
other is correct. This allows him to uphold his theory of union while still emphasizing the
significance of maintaining this perspectival bifurcation on the path.

This is not to say however, that Miky Dorjs discussion of the path only involves this perspectival approach,
just that it is emphasized here where it is not at all found in discussions of the ground and the fruition.
120

121

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4b4-6.

61

Another important point to note here is that almost all of the scriptural citations occur in
this section of the text on the path; of the few quotations found in the last two sections of the
fruition and the concluding remarks, the only Indian sources,122 i.e. Ngrjuna and Maitreya,
occur within the discussion of the fruition. The manner in which Miky Dorj employs these
citations seems to be quite significant, in that it demonstrates his view that Mahmudr is able to
accomodate both tantra and stra. Within the path section, he variably employs quotes from the
Samdhirja Stra, works by Maitreya, tantric sources, ryadeva, Mahmudr siddhas such as
Saraha, Candrakrti, the Stra Requested by Sagaramati, Ngrjuna, and Asaga (with this last
figure demonstrating as well an affinity with Yogcra thought). Considering how cautious and
reserved Gampopa was in relating Mahmudr to stra and tantrainstead professing its
superiority over both of those systemsit is interesting to see how freely Miky Dorj here
makes these inter-doctrinal connections under the rubric of Mahmudr. Not only that, but he
explicitly makes it clear that what he is discussing is tantric in naturefor example, he begins
the section on the path by describing it as the path Mahmudr of the tantras of the exceptional
methods.123 However, he emphasizes that what he is describing is not necessarily exclusive to
the Vajrayna path: for example, before launching into a series of stric quotes he prefaces them
by clarifying that what he is discussing regarding the purification of dualistic appearances is
Not only [found] in the secret mantra124 This incorporation of both tantra and stra into his

122

I differentiate the Indian sources found in the section on the fruition from the Tibetan sources referenced in the
conclusion due to the general sense of authority the Indian sources carried in Tibetan exegesis. Reference to Tibetan
sources tended to be less compelling, especially in general discussions on stra and tantra. Therefore, it is significant
that Miky Dorj employs the authority of Indian sources almost exclusively in the context of the path, thus
demonstrating that he felt it necessary to supply that section with more authority and a strong basis in stra and
tantra.
123

khyad can thabs kyi rgyud lam phyag chen. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In
gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2b2-3.
124

gsang sngags su ma zad. Ibid., 5a2.

62

vision of Mahmudr is a clear demonstration of Miky Dorjs attempts at re-appropriation,

showing that he wished to demonstrate that stra and tantra are indeed applicable on the path of
Mahmudr.
Regarding the compatibility between these three systems, it seems especially clear from
the text that Miky Dorj feels that both Mahmudr and the Anuttarayoga tantras possess the
qualities of clarity, bliss, and emptiness. 125 While he emphasizes these similarities, he also
cautions that in relation to the Mahmudr of the tantras of the exceptional methods, it would be
insufficient on the path of Mahmudr merely to [engage in] the samdhis of bliss, clarity,
emptiness, and non-conceptuality which are dependent upon consciousness. 126 Since he feels
the need to qualify this form of tantric Mahmudr in such a manner, perhaps this suggests that
Miky Dorj deems tantric practices, even in the context of Mahmudr, to still engage and
involve mundane consciousness and thus not fully possess the transcendental qualities of
Mahmudr proper. This point is supported by statements made by Miky Dorj elsewhere
regarding the inferior methods of tantra, which will be discussed below, as well as other ways
that we may understand Miky Dorjs presentation of tantric Mahmudr. He mentions that
stra includes meditations on the non-elaborated and empty nature of appearances,127 with the
caveat that this alone does not complete the special qualities that Mahmudr possesses.128 Thus,
it is clear that Miky Dorj is making connections in this manner between these three systems,

khyed par rnal byor bla med kyi rgyud kyi dgongs pa ni/ rgyui rgyud gsal stong bde bai khyed chos dang ldan .
Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a3.
125

thabs khyad can thabs kyi rgyud lam phyag chen ni/ sems kyi steng gi gsal bai ting dzin ni/ bde bai ting dzin/
mi rtog pai ting dzin tsam gyis ni lam phyag rgya chen poi go mi chod . Ibid., 2b2-3.
126

127

snang bai rang bzhin spros bral stong par sgom pa. Ibid., 2b5.

128

phyag chen gyi khyad chos ma tshang. Ibid., 2b6.

63

re-appropriating Mahmudr so that it may involve aspects of stra and tantra, though this
incorporation does not seem to represent final Mahmudr for him.
Likewise, Miky Dorj emphasizes Mahmudrs supremacy at different points
throughout this discussion. For instance, he cautions that an inferior manner of combining
amatha and vipayanwhich he implies would be too focused on the aspects of clarity of
mind and non-distraction, ignoring the empty aspect of mindwould lead to the emergence of
many elaborate outer vehicles of dialectics.129 This heavily implies not only the systems of the
Hnayna but also of the Mahyna which would fall under the influence of their own conceptual
proliferations as a result of their own incomplete manner of meditation. Elsewhere, he more
explicitly states that:
It is not appropriate to merely meditate on the non-elaborated and empty nature of
appearances since it does not even arise as more profound or vaster than any of
those on the path of the rvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, nor even those of the
Pramit, and therefore the special qualities of Mahmudr would be
incomplete.130
Therefore, even while Miky Dorj claims that his presentation of Mahmudr here shares views
and doctrines in common with stra, such as possessing the teachings on the non-elaborated and
empty nature of appearances, the practice and attainments of those solely belonging to the
Strayna still do not compare with the transcendent realization of the nature of mind in the
context of Mahmudr. Specifically, there are special qualities such as transcendental bliss and
clarity present in Mahmudr that just cannot be found in stra.

phyi mtshan nyid kyi thek par zhib rgyas can mang po byung. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 3a5-6.
129

snang bar rang bzhin spros bral stong par sgom pa tsam gyis kyang mi chog ste/ nyen thos kyi lam ga zhig
dang pha rol tu phyin pa las kyang/ de lta bui zab cing rgya che ba du ma byung bas phyag chen gyi khyed chos
ma tshang. Ibid., 2b5-6.
130

64

However, the relationship expressed here between tantra and Mahmudr does not so
explicitly convey Mahmudr propers superiority. As has been mentioned, the Mahmudr here
is heavily tantric and Miky Dorj makes explicit statements in this regard, despite the fact that
he makes strong statements elsewhere that seem to contradict this view. Such contradictory
statements can be found, for example, in the gLing drung pa la dor bai dris lan (Answer to a
Question Asked by gLing drung pa La dor ba), where Miky Dorj is questioned about whether
or not the Mahmudr of Gampopa is the same or different than the fourth empowerment of the
Anuttarayoga adhered to by the Sakya tradition. He goes on to explain that there are two general
categorizations of tantra: mundane (jig rten pa) and transcendental (jig rten las das pa),131
with only the Klacakratantra being included in the latter category as superior (mchog).132
Interestingly, Miky Dorj then makes two somewhat contradictory statements regarding
Gampopas system in this regard. First, he seems to suggest that ultimately such distinctions do
not apply in the context of Kagy Mahmudr, stating, The Great Seal of the bKa' brgyud
Dwags po Lha rje cannot be harmonised with the question as either the same or different from
the supramundane and mundane fourth empowerment from the tantric scriptures.133 Later,
however, he reveals rather bluntly his disapproval of ritualistic means for the attainment of
Mahmudr realization:
Apart from [settling the mind in the unfabricated nature], there is [no way] that
one will realise the accomplishment of the Great Seal through tiresome [activities]
such as to go and ask for empowerment, to ring the bell, to recite [mantra] while
meditating on a Buddha aspect, and to collect yam-wood and make fire offerings;
or to carry out an [extensive] meditation ritual after having collected offering

131

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 198.

132

Ibid., 200.

133

Ibid., 200-201.

65

[substances].134
As should be fairly evident, these two statements seem to be somewhat at odds, claiming that
even though ultimately there can be said to be no distinction between tantric methods and
Gampopas Mahmudr, practically speaking there is a great difference. This demonstrates the
reaction aspect of the Karmapas thoughti.e. upholding the transcendence of Gampopas
Mahmudr over other systemsand the resolution aspecti.e. such questions of distinction are
ultimately irrelevant for what is beyond all such divisions and demarcations.
What is lacking in this text is something that we find quite strongly in Recognizing the
Blessings, namely the re-appropriation of Mahmudr in demonstrating how the tantras can be
incorporated onto the path of Mahmudr. We can take a look at one particularly explicit
statement in this regard, where Miky Dorj states, Since the meditation of Mahmudr is the
path of the Anuttarayoga one must take up the practice which is replete with all of the qualities of
the direct path of the Vajrayna.135 It seems pretty clear here that Miky Dorj is making a
strong connection between the higher tantras and Gampopas Mahmudr system. Yet, as noted
in the previous paragraph and implied throughout Recognizing the Blessings, he still ultimately
wishes to maintain Mahmudrs supremacy over both inferential (stra) and ritualistic (tantra)
means in accord with Gampopas categorization of stra and tantra. For example, in Recognizing
the Blessings he implicitly refers to stra as the belonging to the elaborate outer vehicles of
dialectics (phyi mtshan nyid kyi thek par shib rgyas can),136 which is reminiscent of Gampopas

134

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 203.

phya rgya chen po sgom ni/ rnal byor bla na med pai lam yin pas/ rdo rje theg pai nye lam gyi khyad chos
rnams tshang bar nyams su len dgos pa yin. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In
gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 3a6.
135

136

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 3a5-6.

66

understanding of stra as the dialectical path of the pramits, (mtshan nyid lam pha rol tu
phyin pa) which takes inference for its path (rjes dpag lam du byed pa).137 Likewise, as just
cited previously from Answer to a Question Asked by gLing drung pa La dor ba, with regard to
tantra Miky Dorj refers to practices such as receiving empowerments (dbang bskur zhur gro
ba) and meditative rituals (sgrub mchod) as being inferior to Mahmudr,138 reminiscent of
Gampopas classification of mantra as the path of blessing (byin brlabs lam).139 Thus, we find
both reactionary trends of maintaining Mahmudrs superiority in line with Gampopas
hierarchical classifications and attempts at re-appropriation to incorporate aspects of stra and
tantra onto the path of Mahmudr.
There seems to be a few inferences we can make to help resolve these conflicting
statements and ideas. First, in the above quotation Miky Dorj generally describes Mahmudr
as the path of the Anuttarayoga, which would include for him both the mundane and
transcendental tantras previously mentioned in the Answer to a Question Asked by Ling Drung
pa La dor ba, and as this description is in the context of the path it would be progressively
divided up into stages from lower to higher. This allows for the path to include and encompass
all the tantras within their appropriate context leading up to Mahmudr realization. In other
words, it is not necessary to see this statement as contradictory in the sense of suggesting that
Mahmudr does not in fact surpass inferior forms of tantra. This is, for example, similar to a
view held by Miky Dorjs contemporary, Pema Karpo (1527-1592), who claimed that even
though Mahmudr is superior to the path of tantric means, it must be preceded by

137

Jackson, Enlightenment By a Single Means, 26.

138

Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 203.

139

Jackson, Enlightenment By a Single Means, 26.

67

empowerment.140
An additional clarifying statement is found with Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (1511, 1512, or
15131587)a contemporary and in fact a tutor of Miky Dorjwho suggested in his famous
Mahmudr work, Moonlight of Proper Explanation Clarifying the Stages of Meditation of
Ultimate Mahmudr (Nges don phyag rgya chen poi sgom rim gsal bar byed pai legs bshad
zla bai od zer), that the Sakyapas, in criticizing Kagy Mahmudr, were actually mistaken in
upholding that a transient bliss which arises only from empowerment, which is contradictory to
the immutable great bliss described in the Klacakra (which is equivalent to Mahmudr) must
be accomplished by gaining perfect experience on the path with regard to that which lies hidden
in the existential foundation.141 Likewise, in his discussion of the ground Miky Dorj states
that, Such bliss is not like the occurrence of a blissful feeling dependent on an awareness
contacting an attractive object. However, the nature that is primordially present which is
established and abides together (grub bde gcig pa) with the mind of clarity is [non-dual] like a
sugar cane and [its] sweetness.142 Thus, we find that Miky Dorj describes this great bliss in
the same terms as Dakpo Tashi Namgyal does when equating it with what is detailed in the
Klacakra: as unproduced, independent, non-dualistic, and tantamount to the ground of
Mahmudr. Furthermore, by describing what this bliss is not, Miky Dorj here also appears to
be implicitly responding to an opposing view, likely the Sakyapas, as suggested by Tashi
Namgyals remarks. This further suggests such a statement is in reaction to such alternative
140

Mathes, Blending of Stras with the Tantras, 204.

Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, trans., Mahmudr The Moonlight: Quintessence of Mind and Med itation, by Dakpo
Tashi Namgyal, (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 107-109.
141

dei bde ba yang yul yid ong phrad pai rig pa la brten nas tshor ba bde ba byung ba lta bu ma yin gyi/ rang
bzhin od gsal gyi sems dang grub bde gcig par thog ma nas yod p a ste bu ram gyi shing dang mngar ba lta bu ste.
Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a4-5.
142

68

views of the Sakya scholars. We even find, shortly thereafter, Miky Dorj describing this
ground as the Mahmudr of union which is spoken of in a hidden manner of symbolic
means,143 reminiscent of Dakpo Tashi Namgyals elusion to what lies hidden in the ground.
All of this suggests that indeed, Miky Dorj is eluding to final Mahmudrwhich is also
discussed in the Klacakra as opposed to inferior tantraswhen he is speaking in ultimate terms
within Recognizing the Blessings. Referring to final Mahmudr here is for the purpose of
differentiating it from the merely provisional sense of Mahmudr, that which is re-appropriated
to accomodate tantric and stric practices and doctrines also endorsed by Miky Dorj and
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. Further below Miky Dorjs sense of what is final (mthar thug) and
what is provisional (gnas skabs) will become clearer in discussing his views expressed within A
Response on the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya.
To continue discussing Miky Dorjs incorporation of tantra into Mahmudr, the
remark mentioned above from Recognizing the Blessings equating Mahmudr with Vajrayna is
embedded within the discussion of the path, making it more perspectival. While Mahmudr is in
fact beyond all other systems, it is still applicable for those engaged in tantric practice, meaning
that one may still choose to incorporate tantric means onto the path of Mahmudr. Furthermore,
the path is the specific context in which the Mahmudr master and exegete relates to those on
the path, i.e. ordinary beings, and so it is an occasion for connecting to their experience using
skillful means which might not directly reflect the definitive meaning. In this regard it is notable
that Miky Dorj makes no explicit mention of the tantras when he discusses the fruition, an
occasion for relating the actual realization of ultimate Mahmudr.

143

brda thabs kyi sbas pa'i tshul. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum
of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a6.

69

To further support the idea of a merely provisional tantric Mahmudr, in A Response on

Buddha Nature and the Dharmakya, Miky Dorj clarifies that there are two ways of discussing
the ultimate: the categorized (rnam grangs pai don dam pa) and the uncategorized (rnam grangs
min pai don dam) ultimate. Therein, his understanding of what applies to the categorized
ultimate employs heavily perspectival language similar to that found in his discussion of the path
in Recognizing the Blessings, specifically drawing upon the strict distinction between sasra
and falsity on the one hand and nirva and truth on the other.144 Yet, in Recognizing the
Blessings we also find several statements that accord with Miky Dorjs understanding of the
final (mthar) uncategorized ultimatewhich is essentially the unconditional and non-dual union
of bliss and emptiness145 suggesting that both forms of the ultimate are applicable when
emphasizing different aspects or stages of Mahmudr theory and practice. With this
understanding, it seems plausible that the lower forms of tantra are still appropriate for

Well then, as for the empty nature of mind, when it arises as the various interdependent occurrences of
delusionthe fetters of the two obscurations there is sasra; when the empty nature of mind arises as the
various interdependent occurrences of accumulation and purification the non-deluded liberation from the two
obscurations there is non-abiding nirva. Well then, as nirva is true and sasra is untrue, delusive, and false it
therefore means that [sasra] does not infiltrate objective reality (yul gyi gnas tshul). Since nirva is undeceiving
and non-deluded it is presented as the ultimate truth. Likewise, this presentation of the falsity of sasra and the
truth of the ultimate, too, is not in the context of the uncategorized ultimate. However, it is within the context of
asserting the ultimate meaning of what is categorized. o na sems rang bzhin stong pa nyid la sgrib gnyis kyi ching
ba khrul pai rten brel sna tshogs su shar bai tshe na khor ba/ sems rang bzhin stong pa nyid sgrib gnyis las grol
bai khrul med kyi bsags sbyang gi rten bral sna tshogs su shar bai tshe na mi gnas pai myang das yin la/ o na
myang das bden la khor ba mi bden pai khor ba khrul pa dang brdzun pa yin pas yul gyi gnas tshul du ma zhugs
pai don gyis yin no/ myang das ni mi bslu ba dang ma khrul pas don dam bden par jog la/ de ltar khor ba rdzun
pa dang don dam lden par jog pa di yang rnam grangs min pai don dam pai skabs su ma yin gyi/ rnam grangs
pai don dam khas skabs su yin te. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum
of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a2-5.
144

145

In particular, consider the following statement as found in the context of the fruition and notice its emphasis on
non-duality, which differs from other statements in Recognzing the Blessings that emphasize the perspectival
understanding of reality: The primordial wisdom which is free from all conceptual elaborations of dualistic
phenomenasasra and nirva, self and other, acceptance and rejection, and so forthis the dharmakya, the
aspect devoid of any nature which is inseparable from the dharmadhtu, and is what fulfills one's own
benefit. khor das bdag gzhan blang dor la sogs gnyis chos kyi spros pa thams cad dang dral bai ye shes/ chos kyi
dbyings dang dbyer med pa rang bzhin med pai yan lag chos kyi sku rang don rdzogs pa o. Mi bskyod rdo rje.
Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776.
Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 6a2-3.
70

presenting the categorized ultimate in terms of path Mahmudr, but not in the context of
presenting the uncategorized ultimate of the actual realization of Mahmudr. In a similar vein,
in his commentary on Candrakrtis Madhyamakvatra, Miky Dorj emphasizes the merely
conventional nature of the laya-vijna (storehouse consciousness), and he then asserts in that
same spirit that:
In the same way that the Buddha taught using the words I and mine, he also
taught that all things from form through omniscience exist, even though they
really have no inherent nature at all. He taught provisionally in this way in order
to help the world understand the profound nature of reality. This understanding
should be applied to his explanations of the four truths, the two truths, the three
natures, and so forthto all the teachings that the Buddha gave. 146
This statement clearly expresses a pedagogical and provisional understanding of all the Buddhas
teachings, which would strongly suggest that Miky Dorj presumes that this also applies to the
teachings of Mahmudr (what is categorized and provisional) but not to the actual realization of
Mahmudr (what is uncategorized and final). Understanding this can help us to make sense of
how Miky Dorj could justify different applications and expressions of Mahmudr at the
conventional level while still refusing to imbue Mahmudr with such conventionalities at the
ultimate level.
To clarify how we can understand such an integration of Mahmudr, stra, and tantra,
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal wrote in the Moonlight of Proper Explanation Clarifying the Stages of
Meditation of Ultimate Mahmudr:
Concerning the manner of identifying the essence of the path, some of the
mystical songs and the transmission of symbolic Mahmudr recognize this
system as belonging to the tantric tradition as opposed to the stra tradition, and
specifically to the third subdivision of tantrathe path of directly perceiving
reality. The other two are the path of spiritual blessing and the path of giving inner
solace. It is said thatone is required to receive either a short or an elaborate
146

Goldfield et al., The Moon of Wisdom, 121.

71

initiation as a means of germinating [the hidden seeds of illumination].

It is further said thatsince the paths preceding esoteric mantra are
regarded as being stepping stonesone should meditate on any of the aspects of
these paths and not ignore them. According to the tradition of the secret mystic
practice, since there are three levels of spiritual traineesinferior, average, and
superiorthe path has been divided into three, viz.: the definitive vehicle of
wisdom-gone beyond, the vehicle of innermost mystical formula, and the vehicle
of unsurpassed essence. Mahmudr is regarded as belonging to the third. It has
been said that Mahmudr does not conform directly to the first, it is not in
conflict with the second, and while in accord with the third, it even surpasses all
three. It is said that oneshould receive a short or elaborate blessing and
initiation and should also meditate on a meditate deity [yidam] at an appropriate
stage
At certain times Mahmudr was also designated as the path of spiritual
blessing. That is to say that an awakened guru is required to guide his predestined
discipletoward liberation through Mahmudr, the only path of instantaneous
illumination that doesnt depend on the path of the stras and tantras. In recent
times, meditators of Mahmudr sought to make adjustments according to both
the stras and tantras. They have incorporated [in the Mahmudr tradition] many
practices that require preparations, such as the mystical empowerment that sows
the seeds of a spiritual blossom, devotion to preliminary exercises, and methods
of enhancing experiences. It is for that reason that it is not contradictory to regard
Mahmudr as identical with the common and profound path of the stras and
tantras, due to the fact that many superior and inferior minds are going to benefit
from it.147
Here, we should understand that for Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, the realization of Mahmudr is still
something that transcends all other systems, as is evident by his remark that Mahmudr
surpasses all three, i.e. which includes systems of stra and tantra, yet the practice or path of
Mahmudr allows for these other systems to be utilized, thus making them in a provisional
sense identical. This statement also makes clear that during the time of Miky Dorj, even
though there was a shift observed in how Mahmudr was being related to stra and tantra, this
was not viewed by its proponents as necessarily in contradiction with the transcendental spirit of
Mahmudr. Using citations, Tashi Namgyal even therein notes the strict separation that

147

Lhalungpa, Mahmudr The Moonlight, 109-112.

72

Gampopa used to distinguish Mahmudr from stra and tantra, yet still finds no fault with the
incorporation of these systems on the path of Mahmudror as I have been terming it, the reappropriation of Mahmudr. In particular, Tashi Namgyal states that even though Mahmudr
transcends all other systems, it is in harmony with (or at least does not contradict) the
Pramityna and the Mantrayna. We may also notice here that the rhetoric of the pathi.e.
perspectivalismis used to justify the re-appropriation of path Mahmudr. In other words,
since there are practitioners of lower and higher faculties, and since it may be of benefit for their
particular mindsets and capacities, the incorporation of stra and tantra on the path of
Mahmudr is indeed acceptable.
Also, a nineteenth century proponent of Kagy Mahmudr, Karma Tashi Chphel (Kar
ma bkra shis chos phel),148 in trying to reconcile three categories of Mahmudr (stra, mantra,
and essence) asserted that Mahmudr itself (associated with essence Mahmudr), being a
direct path for those of highest capacity, is dependent upon neither stra nor tantra. However, he
still maintained that it could be combined with either stra or tantra in order to be applicable for
many.149

148

I have been unable to locate a precise date of birth for this figure.

149

Rheingans. Communicating the Innate. (2012). 179.

Although Rheingans also notes this similarity between Miky Dorj, Tashi Namgyal, and Karma Tashi Chphel, he
emphasizes the contradictory nature of their approaches and that this suggests the pragmatic nature of Miky
Dorjs teachings with the guru being the basis of applying Mahmudr based on the context of the disciple.
However, I would like to stress that I am here emphasizing that it is not seen as contradictory by these figures
themselves (as suggested by the direct statements in that regard by Dakp o Tashi Namgyal cited above) but rather
reflects an understanding of the path as involving the bifurcation of distinct perspectives (t hose of ordinary beings
and ryas).
With Miky Dorj in particular, conventional phenomena are inherently false and contradictory and need to
be resolved in the quietude of the ultimate. This being so, the conventional needs of particular beings can be ca tered
to in a conventional manner as necessary (re-appropriation), yet it is also crucial to recognize the limited nature of
any such conventional approaches (reaction) since ultimately everything must be resolved in accordance with the
transcendental wisdom of the ryas (resolution).

73

Since other proponents of Kagy Mahmudr (contemporary and later) such as Dakpo
Tashi Namgyal and Karma Tashi Chphel explicitly expressed views similar to what Miky
Dorj seems to be demonstrating within Recognizing the Blessingsin brief that is, that
Mahmudr can be both transcendent and accommodatingit is not necessary to see this as in
contradiction with his views that Mahmudr surpasses stra and tantra (with the exception of
the Klacakra tantra, of course). To put it another way, its ultimate transcendence over other
systems does not preclude the possibility and/or utility of its conventional re-appropriation in
terms of the path, incorporating other systems and practices onto the path of Mahmudr.
Furthermore, in this regard Miky Dorjs rhetoric of the union of seemingly dualistic
phenomena within this text makes it clear that one can understand conventional phenomena that
appear to be in contradiction with one another to be in essence Mahmudr, which would allow
for discrepancies in doctrinal context to be ultimately resolved.

Rheingans approachemphasizing the pedagogical nature and doctrinal flexibility (243) of Miky
Dorjs approachseems to belie the consistency of the Eighth Karmapas thought in general and his Mahmudr
interpretation in particular, which I argue will seem more consistent here when understanding his perspectival
rhetoric based in these two modes of apprehension. Indeed, even Miky Dorjs rhetoric of union here seems to
imply that he sees no contradiction in the various ways he is describing Mahmudrthat is to say that all of these
apparently disparate aspects are ultimately inseparable. Specifically, Rheingans comments that these contradictions
suggest that at this stage of research it is hard to pin down the 'final' in terpretation or hierarchy of the Eighth
Karmapa's Great Seal. As it seems intrinsic to the study of Great Seal texts that it often evades classification, one
must ask oneself, whether such a research avenue does full justice to the material (242). Yet, fo r example, in his
Response on Buddha Nature and the Dharmakya , Miky Dorj explicitly defines his final view (mthar ni) which is
consistent with statements made in Recognizing the Blessings, he defines the absolute in terms of being a single
truth (bden pa chig pa), not something to be obtained (rnyed pa ma yin), the non-dual bliss and emptiness (bde
stong gnyis med) of the final mantric treatise(s) (sngags gzhung mthar thug) and Mahmudr (phyag chen), with
all of this being the uncategorized ultimate (rnam grangs min pai don dam) in contradistinction with the
categorized ultimate (rnam grangs pai don dam) which does not transcend conditionality (dus byas las ma das
pa); (See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje.
TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004., 2b1-3). This strongly suggests that we can find much more
consistency in Miky Dorjs thought than Rheingans claims.
In sum, though Rheingans makes important points regarding Mahmudr hermeneutics and sensitivity to
practical context and pragmatic concerns, which are certainly factors to be considered, we should understand that the
contextual nature of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr is based in a consistent emphasis on the futile and limited nature of
worldly conditions which ultimately must be resolved anyhow. Such an understanding provides a larger framework
to understand the Eighth Karmapas thought that is in fact more consistent than Rheingans seems to suggest. See:
Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapas Life, 228-229; 242-243.

74

To be sure, there is much more to be said about Miky Dorjs discussion of the path, but
due to the limited nature of this thesis, that is not possible here. However, some of the ideas
brought up therein will be discussed further on in this chapter in the context of Miky Dorjs
conception of union. In particular, there is much to be said about Miky Dorjs understanding of
amatha and vipayan, the formulation of the generation and completion stages, and the
incorporation of the four abhiekas into Mahmudr practice.
Miky Dorjs discussion of the fruition is based mainly on his conception of the three
kyas (sku gsum) which are solely the realm of the ryas and is the place where he discusses their
qualities. The dharmakya (chos kyi sku) is specifically equated with primordial wisdom (ye
shes) and is inseparable from the dharmadhtu (chos kyi dbyings dang dbyer med pa).150 It is
here in the context of the dharmakya that Miky Dorj exclusively employs the non-dualistic
language of the uncategorized ultimate, stating that it is free from all conceptual elaborations of
dualistic phenomenasasra and nirva, self and other, acceptance and rejection, and so
forth,151 and that it is devoid of any nature (rang bzhin med pa).152
Interestingly, however, Miky Dorj seems to emphasize the sambhogakya (generally
the second of the three kyas) insofar as he lists it first. This could be due to the fact that at the
outset of the text Miky Dorj identified the fruition as the union of the two kyas, a concept
perhaps best represented by the sambhogakya which is in a sense the intermediary between the
dharmakya and the nirmakya. This seems correct in that the rhetoric of union is rather
strong here: Miky Dorj identifies the sambhogakya as the union of bliss and emptiness (bde

150

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 6a3.
151

khor das bdag gzhan blang dor la sogs gnyis chos kyi spros pa thams cad dang bral. Ibid., 6a2-3.

152

Ibid., 6a3.

75

stong zung jug), the unified equality of primordial wisdom (ye shes mnyam par sbyor ba), as
including the aspect of coalescing (kha sbyor gyi yan lag) and as not wavering from [the state
of] great unchanging bliss (gyur med bde chen po las mi gyo ba).153
Additionally, the sambhogakya represents the union of appearance and non-elaboration
for Miky Dorj, as he makes clear in the previous section on the path when he says, even
though the sambhogakya of the buddhas is the svbhvikakya free from mental elaboration, it
still continues to appear.154 This statement is particularly interesting in that it seems to be an
admonition for ordinary Mahmudr practitioners to not overemphasize the rhetoric of nonduality and non-conceptuality, reminding them that there is still the ever-important aspect of
compassioni.e. appearing to beings for their benefit. Indeed, this is preceded by a rather strong
statement appearing to condemn practitioners who blather on about there being no such
distinctions as good or bad (bzang ngan dang khyad par med pai cal col), which Miky Dorj
seems to take as a denigration towards the nature of all appearances (snang ba tham cad ngo
bo la).155 To be sure, Miky Dorj accepts that the nature of such appearances actually is nondual (recall his description of the dharmakya in ultimate terms); again, however, this particular
admonition is in terms of the path and is directed at ordinary beings who lack the realization of
the ultimate and endanger their spiritual progress by denigrating appearances. In emphasizing the
sambhogakya here, Miky Dorj is using the clearest example of the union of appearance and
emptiness in order to quell any nihilistic or unethical interpretation of Mahmudrlikely a
direct response to figures like Lama Zhang (specifically, those who might emulate his brand of

153

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 6a1-2.
154

sangs rgyas kyi longs sku yang ngo bo nyid sku spros bral gyi snang bar byas gdao. Ibid., 5b2.

155

Ibid., 5a6-5b1.

76

antinomian behavior justifying it in light of Mahmudr rhetoric), but also a response to figures
like Sakya Paita who openly criticized those figuresin other words, Miky Dorj clarifies
that such behavior is not the ideal for and is not representative of Kagy Mahamudra. In any
case, this is clearly an example of reaction: Miky Dorj wants to emphasize that Mahmudr
does not advocate engaging in reckless behavior for those who are merely ordinary beings,
contrary to how it might be portrayed by certain charlatans posing as advanced practitioners.
This is made especially clear in his concluding remarks, when he says for example, while one
has not gained resolve in the presence of the supreme nirmakya and one's mind-stream has
not been liberated, it is a grave mistake to pretend to be a destroyer of delusion and then engage
in the yogic discipline of dogs and pigs.156
Finally, Miky Dorj addresses the nirmakya, which he primarily discusses in terms
of its relationship to ordinary beingsi.e. as being replete with compassion, the great
[enlightened] compassion which is expressed equally towards all sentient beings, and as
including the aspect of the perpetual engagement in enlightened activity in order to tame beings
in whatever way necessary until sasra is emptied.157 These two points also implicitly provide
a basis for Miky Dorjs eclectic Mahmudr approachenlightened beings teach a variety of
methods and doctrines out of compassion for beings with varying inclinations and dispositions.
Taken together with what we discussed earlier regarding the statement found in the his
Madhyamakvatra commentary on the provisional nature of the Buddhas teachings (as
opposed to the Buddhas final realization), we find both an emphasis on the pedagogical nature

mchog gi sprul skui drung du gdar sha mi gcod par rang rgyud ma grol bzhin du khrul zhig ltar bcos nas khyi
phag gi brtul zhugs byed pa di nyes dmigs shin tu che. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos
'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 6b1.
156

sems can thams cad la mnyam par jug pai thugs rje chen po snying rje gang bai yan lag/ khor ba ma stong kyi
bar du gang la gang dul phrin las kyi jug pa rgyun mi chad pai yan lag . Ibid., 6a3-4.
157

77

of the teachings, which is necessary in order to relate to needs of the disciple, as well as a taking
for granted of the conditional nature of anything semiotic in natureincluding even the most
sacred of the Buddhas teachings. Particularly, this latter point is supportive of Miky Dorjs
overall view of the limited nature of conditional existenceas noted in the first chapter when
discussing his qualms with the Gelugpas implication that the ultimate truth is relative to and on
par with the conventional truth. Understanding this ontological cynicism towards the
conventional helps us to understand why Miky Dorj occasionally allows for seemingly
disparate and contradictory views and practices to be incorporated along the path to
enlightenment: it is not purely out of pedagogical or pragmatic concern (which is indeed part of
it), but also due to recognizing that such methods and teachings are intrinsically conditional and
limited no matter how they are presented, with the lot of them ultimately needing to be
abandoned in order to realize the transcendence of the absolute. Any discussion or formulation of
the path therefore necessitates involvement with limited causes and conditions, contradictory
though they may seem at times. In fact, by recognizing the contradictory nature of such teachings
Miky Dorj enhances his cynical position towards the limited conditions of the world, allowing
him to finally emphasize the transcendent nature of the absolute. How Miky Dorj finds
meaning and utility in contradiction is in stark contrast to the approach of Gelugpa scholars who
sought to strictly adhere to logical consistency throughout all their various presentations.
Once again, this has been a brief overview of Miky Dorjs conception of the fruition,
and there is a lot more that could (and should) be said. What we have found thus far is that
Miky Dorj appears to be discussing two forms of Mahmudr throughout his explication of the
ground, path, and fruition: a categorized Mahmudrso to speakinvolving bifurcation
between ordinary and enlightened perspectives that is mainly applied to the path, and an

78

uncategorized Mahmudr that is completely non-dual and emphasized particularly within the
contexts of the ground and the fruition. What brings these two categories of Mahmudr together
is Miky Dorjs conception of union, which is what will be discussed in the following section.

2.2. Union as Reaction: Distinguishing Between Authentic and Inauthentic Union

In the previous section, I alluded to Miky Dorjs union as being a form of reappropriation, in that the use of the term union provides at least a rhetorical basis for him to
incorporate stra and tantra into his Mahmudr system. In this section, we will emphasize how
this same conception of union is also reaction and resolution. Before discussing how Miky
Dorjs conception of union is a form of resolution, however, it is important to see how it is first
a form of reaction, which will also allow us to clarify precisely what he means by the term.
Tucked away in the form of an interlinear note (mchan bu) is one of the most intriguing
and perhaps significant lines found within Recognizing the Blessings. In discussing the fruition
as the attainment of the unified state of no-more learning (mi slob pai zung jug) of Vajradhra
and the consummation of the two-fold benefit (don gnyis mthar phyin pa),158 Miky Dorj
mentions two disparate manners of interpreting the term yuganaddha as follows: there are
those who say the so-called yuganaddha is not meant to be a non-duality, however in terms of
being coupled together they are the same, i.e. the pair is to be understood as unitary.159 What
this tells us is that Miky Dorj identifies two distinct interpretive trends for this critical term
158

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 5b6.
159

zung du gcig paam gnyis gcig gi go don yin gyi gnyis med pai don min ces smra ba rnams zer . Ibid., 5b6.

79

yuganaddha: one which is dualistic and one which is non-dualistic,160 with the latter being
deemed the correct interpretation. Since Miky Dorj is being indirect here, the difficulty lies in
identifying who he considers to be adhering to an incorrect interpretive trend.
Michael Broido discusses the term yuganaddha at great length in his article Padma
DKar-po on Integration as Ground, Path, and Fruition, in which he also discusses Padma
Karpos critique of Tsongkhapas unique vision of yuganaddha, For Tsong-kha-pa the notion
[of yuganaddha] is one of combination, the constituents being as it were primary and their
combination, as a product of those constituents, secondary.For Tsong-kha-pa (as Padma Dkarpo sees him) what is primary are the components, say the two satya or the krama, and it is only
when these are known separatelythat they can then be combined in yuganaddha.161 This
understanding of yuganaddha is similar to the dualistic interpretation of the term that Miky
Dorj refers to in Recognizing the Blessings. In his terms, an incorrect interpretation of
yuganaddha emphasizes union as a duality, as a separable combination of two parts in
dependence upon one another, and this understanding seems to match how Padma Karpo
characterizes Tsongkhapas conception of the important term.
David Seyfort Ruegg also identifies Tsongkhapa as adhering to a similar paired notion of
yuganaddha in the context of amatha and vipayan meditation specifically, [Tsongkhapa]
observes that amatha and vipayan are realized separately, and are made to alternate (spel mar

This can be gathered from the phrase gnyis med pai don min, [yuganaddha] is not meant to be a nonduaity,representing the dualistic position, and the phrase zung du gcig paam gnyis gcig gi go don, in terms of
being coupled together they are the same, i.e. the pair is to be understood as unitary, which represents the nondualistic position. This latter phrasing may seem oxymoronic, as it literally states that two are one, but it
essentially points to the inseperability of any aspects that are present together, i.e. the sameness or non-duality of
these seemingly disparate aspects.
160

M. M. Broido, Padma dKar-po on Integration as Ground, Path, and Goal, Journal of the Tibet Society, 5
(1985): 25.
161

80

byed pa) with each other, there being no rule at this [beginning] stage that Inspection and
Fixation should be realized [together] in a single mental continuum (rgyun gcig)But in a later
stage there follows the yoking together [(zung du brel ba: yuganaddha)],162 or syzygy, of
amatha and vipayan, when they merge and operate together ([mnyam du jug pa]).163
Furthermore, Ruegg explains that from Tsongkhapas point of view, This Fixation-Bhvan that
initially alternates and then finally coincides with analytical Inspection, in the form of a regular
sequence and then of a syzygy of amatha and vipayan, is not, therefore, to be confused
Darkness-Bhvan (mun sgom) and with non-construction known as tsom jog gi mi rtog
paThese last two expressions are used to describe that one-sided form of totally nonanalytical, and practically cataleptic, non-mentation [amanasikra] and non-construction so
often attributed in the Tibetan treatises to [Hwashang]164 What this demonstrates is
Tsongkhapa did indeed emphasize a form of yuganaddha based in rather dualistic terms with an
insistence on analytical means for its attainment, which is contrasted with the system of
Hashang, of which the Kagy Mahmudr tradition is accused of adhering to in some form or
another, particularly by the Gelugpa. What this suggests is that, similar to (and likely connected
to) the controversy over the term amanasikra, the hermeneutics of the term yuganaddha had
also become a cause for debate between the various traditionsin this case between the Gelugpa
and the Kagypa.
It turns out, in fact, that Tsongkhapa wrote an extensive commentary on the Guhyasamja

To be sure, the term employed by Tsongkhapa here zung du brel ba is not the same as that is used by Miky
Dorj, zung du jug pa, however both are used to translate the Sanskrit term yuganaddha, and reflect the disparate
interpretations of the term.
162

163

Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism, 115.

164

Ibid., 115.

81

Tantra (which is heavily emphasized by Miky Dorj in Recognizing the Blessings as well),
which heavily involves the concept of yuganaddha. It turns out as well, that Miky Dorj was at
least aware of, if not familiar with, this commentary.165 Furthermore, both Tsongkhapa and
Miky Dorj quote a verse from the Pacakrama, a text attributed to Ngrjuna on the five
stages of the Guhyasamja,166 which suggests contention over the proper interpretation of this
verse. In Tsongkhapas Guhyasamja commentary, A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages
(gsang dus rim lnga gsal sgron), Tsongkhapa defines the term yuganaddha thusly, The Sanskrit
for union is yuganadva. Yuga means pair and adva means not two. This means that the
individual parts of the pair are not two in the manner of alternating but are together
simultaneously, and this, as explained above, is union.167 To be sure, Tsongkhapa appears to be
advocating for a weak form of non-duality in his description of union, and indeed following this
statement he clarifies, Ngrjunas Five Stages speaks of many types of union where
conceptualization of sasra and nirva and other pairs of dual phenomena are eliminated and
become a union of nonduality not separated by those conceptualizationsthe nondual exalted
wisdom of having eliminated all holding-as-real conceptualizations, together with their seeds,
focused on persons and phenomena is this type of union.168 To be fair to Tsongkhapa, he is
clearly advocating for a non-dual understanding of yuganaddha. However, his understanding of
non-duality in this sense must be qualified, and in contrasting his views from those of Gorampa

165

Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work, 345-346.

166

Of further interest, this verse is also quoted by Padma Karpo In his discussion of the term yuganaddha, Broido
suggests the doctrinal significance of this particular text in justifying ones interpretation of the term itself. See:
Broido, Padma dKar-po on the Two Satyas, 30.
Gavin Kilty, trans., A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages: Teachings on Guhyasama ja Tantra , by Tsongkhapa,
ed. Thupten Jinpa, (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2013), 497.
167

168

Kilty, A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages, 497-498.

82

Snam Senge, Sonam Thakchoe reminds us that Tsongkhapas interpretation of non-duality is

unique insofar as is only an epistemic non-duality, and has no ontological implications:
Tsongkhapa regards the nondual realization of ultimate truth as an epistemic
event. In his understanding nondual realization is possible, yet the apprehending
consciousnesstranscendent wisdomretains its ontological distinctness as
subject, and the cognitive sphereultimate realitylikewise retains its
ontological distinctness as object. Gorampa contends that nondual realizatio n
forms a single metaphysical realitya total integration of subject and object.
Only such a complete integration, according to him, resolves the problem of
duality. Thus Tsongkhapa and Gorampa agree that, from the standpoint of
nondual wisdom, the meditator experiences a total dissolution of even the subtle
duality between subject and object, but they disagree on the implications of this
nondual experience. Tsongkhapa does not hold the achievement of nondual
wisdom as equivalent to the cessation of cognitive activity, whereas for Gorampa
it means exactly thatTsongkhapa holds that even the highest level of wisdom
preserves duality and diversity. He asserts that Prsagika Madhyamaka draws
our attention to empirical dualitiesamong them the duality of morality and
immoralityand takes them as the indispensable basis for any genuine search for
liberating wisdom.169
Thus, for Tsongkhapa, the non-duality of yuganaddha is a purely epistemological state of union,
with no implications for the ontological status of phenomena (other than their lack of inherent
existence), and in fact the duality and diversity of phenomena is preserved. Bearing this in mind,
we see that Miky Dorjs critiques still apply: for although Tsongkhapa advocates for a kind of
epistemic non-duality in his yuganaddha, it lacks the metaphysical non-duality that Miky Dorj
emphasizes as qualifying for an authentic kind of non-duality and union. Recall from the first
chapter how Miky Dorj defined the Gelugpa version of emptiness as a limited categorical
169

For Gorampa, non-dual realization implies the complete dissolution of the knowing subject and apparently outer
objects, which are in fact merely the minds constructs (in accord with a Yogcra interpretation of non-duality).
Thus, all of reality, whether conventional or ultimate, becomes a single entity in terms of ultimate reality and
ultimate wisdom, and the individuality of cognizing consciousness and objects of cognition cease. Thakchoe also
notes the similarity here between this theory of nondual wisdom and Miky Dorjs conception of it. For
Tsongkhapa, however, meditation on non-duality merely involves the meditator engaging with their own psycho physical aggregates and not engaging with the external world, thus resulting in a dissolution of subject and object in
terms of I and mine, thinker and thought, mind and body, etc. For Tsongkhapa, this is important in that it still allows
the rya to engage with dualistic phenomena and engage with dualistic conventions in the post-meditative state.
Emphasis added. Thakchoe, The Two Truths Debate, 115-119.

83

emptiness (nyi tshe bai rnam grangs pai stong nyid): in their attempt to preserve the ontological
status of conditioned phenomena themselves, the Gelugpas relativize the ultimate truth and
relegate it to the status of conventional and worldly phenomena, limited to particular conditions
and contexts, thus not qualifying as the unconditional and transcendent ultimate that Miky
Dorj advocates for. With this in mind, it is clear how Miky Dorjs interpretation of the term
yuganaddha is a form of reaction: for Miky Dorj, Tsongkhapa and his followers adhere to a
dualistic notion of union and thus denigrate the pure non-duality of union in its ultimate and
metaphysical sense. Thus, Miky Dorj feels it necessary to distinguish his own view from that
of the Gelugpas in order to clarify his intention. Having contrasted Miky Dorjs understanding
of union from that of Tsongkhapa and his followers, i.e. clarifying how it is a reaction against
such views, we may now begin to analyze how it is a form of resolution.

2.3. Resolution in Union: The Non-Duality of the Conventional and Ultimate in Mahmudr

Throughout this thesis, I have alluded to the fact that within Recognizing the Blessings,
the idea of union or yuganaddha is pivotal for Miky Dorjs articulation of Mahmudr. I
have alluded to the fact that his conception of union is heavily reliant on his interpretation of the
two truths doctrine, and in turn his understanding of emptiness (i.e. of ultimate reality).
Furthermore, I have alluded to the fact that Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought is also based on
two different ways of understanding the absolute: as a categorized ultimatewhich is highly
perspectivaland as an uncategorized ultimatewhich is strictly non-dual and transcends all
such distinctions. Therefore, within this section we will draw out all of these connections and

84

clarify how Miky Dorj sees Mahmudr as a union that resolves all of the tension of
conceptual categories and transcends the limits of conditional and mundane phenomena.
As mentioned before, much of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought in Recognizing the
Blessings is reliant upon a theory of perspectivalism: the ground, path, and fruition can be
bifurcated into two distinct perspectives or experiences, that of ordinary beings and that of the
ryas. One particularly significant passage in Recognizing the Blessings, which occurs in the
context of the path after expressing the equality of sasra and nirva (a significant fact in
itself, which will be discussed further on), reads:
As for the meaning that is found within the tantras and songs of the siddhas, such
as the many texts [mentioned here] before, they refer to the appearances of the
impure minds of ordinary beings that arise as external objects. Thus, that which
produces obscurations which prevent one from clearly seeing both subject and
object as in essence the dharmakya (chos kyi skui ngo bor) are the adventitious
stains. That being so, from the point of view of the insight of the ryas who
perceive the truth of the dharmat directly and the siddhas who obtain the
supreme siddhis of Mahmudr, [such things] are an emanation of primordial
wisdom.170
Again, we see here a clear distinction between these two modes of experience, which is pivotal
for Miky Dorj. This bifurcation between these two modes illustrates his cynicism towards the
conditional, dualistic, and conceptual phenomena of ordinary beingswhich are described
negatively with such terms as impure (ma dag pa), ordinary (tha mal pa), and are tantamount to
the adventitious stains (glo bur gyi dri ma yin)which is to be contrasted with the exalted

rgyud dang grub thob kyi glu du mar di drai lung mang po byung bai don ni ske bo tha mal pai sems ma dag
pai snang ba phi rol yul tu shar ba yin pas yul dang yul can gnyis ka chos kyi skui ngo bor gsal bar mthong ba la
sgrib byed glo bur gyi dri ma yin la/ chos nyid bden pa dngos su gzigs pai phags pa dang phyag rga chen po
mchog gi dngos grub brnyes pai grub thob rnams kyi gzigs ngo na ye shes kyi rnam phrul dang thabs khyad par
can gyis zin pai lam zab mos nyon mongs pai rang bzhin shes nas gnad du bsnun pas rgya mtsho la rlabs zhi bar
ltar nyon mongs pa gnas su dag cing/ yul dang yul can gyi snang ba thams ca d la bde stong phyag rgya chen pos
rgyas thebs pai snang ba zhig dgos te. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung
'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4b5-5a2.
170

85

transcendence of the enlightened beings who solely experience what is true (bden pa)i.e. the
dharmat (chos nyid), which is the manifestation of primordial wisdom (ye shes rnam phrul).171
Such a bifurcation is also more poetically expressed in the introduction when Miky Dorj
cynically laments such worldly trappings as his own disciples, offerings made to him, and even
his own seemingly reprehensible condition, and then praises encountering the Buddha and the
path to enlightenment itself. Thus, by clearly delineating the line between mundane and exalted
states of experience Miky Dorj emphasizes renunciation (nge byung) and disillusionment
(skyo shas) towards worldly phenomena, a critical aspect of Buddhist soteriology.
For Miky Dorj, this bifurcation is strongly related to the two truths, with the
perspective of ordinary beings relegated to conventional truth and the exalted position of
enlightened beings placed into the category of ultimate truth. This is how it is stated in Miky
Dorjs commentary on Candrakrtis Madhyamakvatra:
Genuine truth is described as being simply the authentic object of the noble ones
original wisdom that sees what is authentic and true; there is no identity actually
established there for conceptual mind to find. Relative truth is the false object
seen from the perspective of the conceptual mind whose eye of wisdom is
completely covered by the cataract of ignorance, as is the case with ordinary
beings. It is therefore posited as being this conceptual mind. The object perceived
does not exist in the way that this mind perceives it to be. 172
Notice here the similarity to the statement from Recognizing the Blessings that was just
discussedspecifically, ultimate truth is defined as being non-conceptual, authentic, true, and

171

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4b5-6.
don dam ni phags pa yang dag pa gzigs pai ye shes de ngor yul yang dag par jog go zhes brjod par zad kyi/
rang gi bdag nyid du grub pa zhig blos rnyed byar yod pa ma yin no/ kun rdzob ni so skye ma rig pai ling tog gis
blo mig ma lus khebs pa rnams kyi blo ngor yul brdzun pa mthong bay is blor jog go/ blo des mthong bai dzin
stangs dang mthun par yul de ltar grub pa ni ma yin no . Goldfield et al., The Moon of Wisdom, 75
172

86

the object of primordial wisdom; whereas the conventional truth is false, conceptual, and
ignorant.
Given such a strong bifurcation, it seems odd to stress that the two truths are in union, as
Miky Dorj frequently does throughout Recognizing the Blessings. If the conventional truth
the realm of ordinary beingsand the ultimate truththe realm of enlightened beingsare as
distinct as Miky Dorj makes them out to be, it seems antithetical to proclaim their union. In his
commentary on the Abhisamaylakra, Miky Dorj makes it clear that there are two
perspectives with regard to this issue. In regard to the first case:

The nature of phenomena (ultimate reality) and the bearers of this nature (seeming
reality) are not one because they have mutually exclusive features in that the
ultimate nature of phenomena exists in an undeceiving manner, while the seeming
bearers of this nature are deceiving instances of nonvalid cognition, that is, they
lack a nature. This excludes that the ultimate and the seeming are one.173
This passage again demonstrates the strong demarcation between these two modes that Miky
Dorj emphasizes in his Mahmudr thought, and, to be blunt, this seems to precisely contradict
his idea of the union of the two truths. However, Miky Dorj also stresses that, just as they are
not one, the two truths are not actually distinct either:
The nature of phenomena (ultimate reality) and the bearers of this nature (seeming
reality) are not separate either for the following reasons. (a) The ultimately
existing nature of phenomena cannot be determined through being any superior
existence that is other than being characterized through the seeming being
nonexistent. Therefore, from the perspective that any seeming which is other
than the mere nonexistence of the seeming bearers of the nature of phenomena is
not established, the two realities are not separate. Or they are not separate because
(b) a seeming that is other than the existence of the ultimate nature of phenomena
is not established and thus there is no seeming that is different in nature from the
nature of phenomena alone being really existent. 174
173

Brunnhlzl, Gone Beyond, 154.

174

Brunnhlzl, Gone Beyond, 154.

87

Thus, it is due the fact that characterizations of existence and non-existence are inextricably
linked as well as the fact that conventional reality is non-existent, and thus there is nothing to be
distinguished from ultimate truth anyhow. Thus, it seems that from this perspectival
interpretation of the two truths, there is at least some manner to understand the non-duality of the
two truths, largely based on the non-existence of conventional reality. Regardless, to divide the
two truths this way still seems antithetical to the entire project of union because of its dualistic
framework, in that it makes such a stark distinction between the two truths. Though it certainly
seems that way, it is important to remember that this bifurcation is based merely on perspective
and nothing more. Furthermore, these perspectives are both manifestations of the nature of mind,
as Miky Dorj clarifies in his text, A Response on the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya:
Well then, as for the empty nature of mind, when it arises as the various
interdependent occurrences of delusionthe fetters of the two obscurations
there is sasra; when the empty nature of mind arises as the various
interdependent occurrences of accumulation and purificationthe non-deluded
liberation from the two obscurationsthere is non-abiding nirva. Well then, as
nirva is true and sasra is untrue, delusive, and false it therefore means that
[sasra] does not infiltrate objective reality (yul gyi gnas tshul). Since nirva
is undeceiving and non-deluded it is presented as the ultimate truth.175
This statement clarifies that neither sasra nor nirva is separate from the empty nature of
mind, whichfollowing Sarahas Mahmudr doctrine of the equality of sasra and nirva
as Miky Dorj doesprovides a basis for understanding the union of these dualistic pairs based
on the realization of the nature of mind. In fact, in Recognizing the Blessings, Miky Dorj

o na sems rang bzhin stong pa nyid la sgrib gnyis kyi ching ba khrul pai rten brel sna tshogs su shar bai
tshe na khor ba/ sems rang bzhin stong pa nyid sgrib gnyis las grol bai khrul med kyi bsags sbyang gi rten bral
sna tshogs su shar bai tshe na mi gnas pai myang das yin la/ o na myang das bden la khor ba mi bden
pai khor ba khrul pa dang brdzun pa yin pas yul gyi gnas tshul du ma zhugs pai don gyis yin no/ myang das ni
mi bsul ba dang ma khrul pas don dam bden par jog la. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i
dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a2-4.
175

88

quotes Saraha twice on this topic: When it is realized, it is everything; Searching for something
other than this, it is not found,176 and, Whatever is sasra is nirva.177 Given that these
quotes precede his discussion of the two perspectives of ordinary and enlightened beings, it
seems that he emphasizes understanding that these disparate modes of experience, such as
sasra or nirva, conventional or ultimaty reality, are simply manifestations of the nature of
mind which is itself empty.
In A Response on the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya, Miky Dorj elaborates that
any such dualistic discussion separating the two truths is not the final word on the matter:
Likewise, this presentation of the falsity of sasra and the truth of the ultimate,
too, is not in the context of the uncategorized ultimate. However, it is within the
context of asserting the ultimate meaning of what is categorized. As for the
context of presenting it as the conventional truth in the tradition of Glorious
Moon [Candrakrti], it is not possible for both to be the final sense, and so it is
presented provisionally as the truth of the ultimate itself and within that context it
is the subject being characterized (mtshan gzhi), which is exclusively the truth of
nirva. Though this is how it is stated, even [this so-called] final nirva is not
the genuine absolute.178
Here we see that Miky Dorj recognizes that emphasizing the falsity of the conventional and
the truth of the ultimate is merely provisional. He clarifies that it is the same kind of presentation
of the two truths that we find from Candrakrti, which matches the definition that we cited earlier
from Miky Dorjs commentary on the Madhyamakvatra. Such a description emphasizing

rtogs par gyur na thams cad de yin te/ di las gzhan du btsal du rnyed ma yin. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya
chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N.,
2004. 4b4.
176

177

khor ba gang yin de nyid mya ngan das. Ibid., 4b4.

de ltar khor ba rdzun pa dang don dam bden par jog pa di yang rnam grangs min pai don dam pa i skabs su
ma yin gyi/ rnam grangs pai don dam khas len pai skabs su yin te/ dpal ldan zla bai rang lugs la kun rdzob bden
par jog pai skabs ni gnas skabs mthar thug gnyis kar mi srid la/ gnas skabs su ni don dam nyid bden par jog cing
dei tshe dei mthsan gzhi ni/ mya ngan das pa bden gcig bu shes gsungs kyang mthar thug myang das kyang don
dam mtshan nyid pa min te. Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi
bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a4-2b1.
178

89

distinction is merely an expression of the categorized ultimate (rnam grangs pai don dam), i.e.
framing the ultimate in definite terms that can be understood intellectually, which as he plainly
states is not itself the genuine absolute. Miky Dorj goes on to explain why this is not the final
view:
Since that does not transcend compounded phenomena, what is final (mthar) is a
single truth and is not something to be attained (rnyed pa ma yin). The nonduality of bliss and emptiness taught in the final mantra treatise(s) and
Mahmudr as well is what is meant by the inseparable, the union of bliss and
emptiness as a single flavor, as the emptiness of the enlightened mind of the
ultimate sense that is free from elaboration and the bliss of the enlightened mind
of the conventional sense, which is the wisdom mind of love without reference,
leading up to the noble minds of the Mantrayna. 179
It is because the bifurcated model of the two truths expresses compounded phenomena, rather
than transcending them, that it is not the final view; in other words, it does not reflect the
perspective of absolute union. At the same time, we must also remember that even the bifurcated
model, representing disparate yet empty modes of experience, is comprised of merely
interdependent occurences of the empty nature of mind, and as such does not in actuality imply
any separation from final absolute reality. Here it becomes clear that when Miky Dorj
emphasizes union in Recognizing the Blessings, he is basing it on an understanding of the
uncategorized ultimate (rnam grangs min pai don dam), and this uncategorized ultimate
transcends compounded phenomena, is not something to be attained (since it is unfabricated),
and is holistically non-dual.
This also clarifies that, while not explicitly mentioned, Miky Dorjs conception of

de ni dus phyas las ma das pai phyir des na mthar ni bden pa gcig paang rnyed pa ma yin/ sngags gzhung
mthar thug gi bde stong gnyis med phyag chen du bshad pai bde stong gnyis med deang rdo rje theg pai phags
rgyud yan chad kyi thugs rgyud dmigs med kyi brtse ba kun rdzob byang sems kyi bde ba dang spros bral don dam
byang sems stong nyid du ro gcig pa la bde stong zung jug bya ba dbyer med kyi don to . Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde
gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa:
S.N., 2004. 2b1-3.
179

90

absolute union allows for the hermeneutical interpretation of an authentic conventional truth
(yang dag kun rdzob bden pa) which is non-dualistic in contrast with the incorrect conventional
truth (log pai kun rdzob bden pa) which is dualistic. Recalling how he defines the conventional
truth in The Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas, we can see how he would likely define the
incorrect conventional:
Relative truth is the false object seen from the perspective of the conceptual mind
whose eye of wisdom is completely covered by the cataract of ignorance, as is the
case with ordinary beings. It is therefore posited as being this conceptual mind.
The object perceived does not exist in the way that this mind perceives it to be. 180
This is the way that conventional reality appears to ignorant beings with their dualistic mind, and
such beings would grasp at the duality of sasra and nirva, for example. However, as we just
saw, Miky Dorj describes the conventional differently in A Response on the Sugatagarbha and
the Dharmakya as the bliss of the enlightened mind of the conventional sense, which is the
wisdom mind of love without reference.181 This conventional belongs to the realm of final
(mthar) enlightened realization which is free from any grasping at duality, and is thus an
authentic conventional.
As Miky Dorj mentions in the quote above, this authentic conventional mode is
inseparable from the ultimate truth of unelaborated emptiness, and is the bliss of the enlightened
mind which is love without reference. We find this sentiment similarly expressed in Recognizing
the Blessings as well, for example, when Miky Dorj discusses the conventional and ultimate
aspects of tantric deity practice and states that, Since all the phases of the ground, path, and
fruition of those aspects are inseparable and in union, the emptiness of the manner of embrace is
180

Goldfield et al., The Moon of Wisdom, 75.

181

thugs rgyud dmigs med kyi brtse ba kun rdzob byang sems kyi bde ba . Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po
dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2b1-3.

91

sealed with bliss, and the bliss being empty of nature is understood as the quintessence of a
single flavor.182 Based on the similarity between these statements, it is clear that Miky Dorj is
advocating for a similar understanding of absolute union in both cases. 183
All things considered, it seems that we can condense the ideas presented in Recognizing
the Blessings in the following manner:
1) Ordinary beings are necessarily involved in conditions, conceptions, and duality
which are false while enlightened beings transcend all of these and represent the
ultimate truth, which is truth proper. Conveying these two perspectives provisionally
expresses the incorrect relative and the categorized ultimate.
2) Both of these are equal in being mere perspectives or manifestations of the nature of
mind: while not realized it is sasra and when realized it is nirva. All distinctions
do not exist as such and are fabrications of mind.
3) The uncategorized ultimate which is absolute (as well as the authentic conventional of
enlightened love and bliss inseperable from it) is the union of all conventional and
ultimate aspects, which is holistically non-dual, unconditioned, and is the final
meaning of Mahmudr.184
From this, we can understand how Miky Dorjs theory of union is a form of resolution:
anything categorized, conditional, or dualistic is inherently problematic and limited. Yet, at the
same time these kinds of phenomenabeing mere perspective, interdependent manifestations

de rnam gzhi lam bras bui gnas skabs thams cad dbyer med zung jug yin pas khyud pai tshul gyis stong
paang bde bas rgyas debs bde baang rang bzhin stong pa ro gcig pai bdag nyid du shes pa dang. Mi bskyod rdo
rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776.
Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4a1-2.
182

Refer to Appendix 3 for a chart of Miky Dorjs descriptions and qualifications of the two truths in their various
categories.
183

184

This formula is reminiscent of a statement made by Mipham Rinpoche which explains how such a process would
work sequentially in terms of advancement along the path. Thus, it may help explain th e pragmatic role and
soteriological purpose of such disparate models on reality. As stated by Dorji Wangchuk, [Mipham Rinpoche]
explains, a beginner is required to generate a sense of fear in the face of the sufferingassociated with [sasric]
existence (srid pai sdug bsngal la jigs pai yid) and a sense of delight in [nirvic] tranquility (zhi ba la dga
bai yid), but once one becomes a highly advanced bodhisattva who realises the homogeneity (or: equality) of
[sasric] existence and [nirvic] tranquility (srid zhi mnyam pa nyid), one should abandon both fear and thirst
for, [respectively,] sasra and nirva (khor das la jigs sred). See: Dorji Wangchuk, Was Mi-pham a
Dialectical Monist? Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2012): 33-34.

92

that arise based on the empty nature of mindare never separate from the absolute state of
Mahmudr which is not at all bound by such conditions or duality. Emphasizing this thoroughly
non-dual and inseparable form of union thereby allows Miky Dorj to resolve all manner of
contradictions and dichotomous conditions, which are adventitious and limited, in the quietude
of the transcendent ultimate. Therefore, by advocating for this form of union as resolution,
Miky Dorj is still able to provisionally engage in the project of re-appropration which allows
for stra and tantra to be incorporated into Mahmudr, while emphasizing adherence to ultimate
transcendence against such conventional phenomena as reaction against those who reify duality.
Dorji Wangchuk finds a similar use of the theory of union in the nineteenth century
Tibetan scholar Mipham Rinpoches thought, describing it as a form of dialectical monism:
If we understand the resolving of tension between any two opposed or juxtaposed
poles by seeking one common substrate, or else a level (or dimension) that
transcends both, to be dialectical monism, then Mipham can justifiably be
regarded as a dialectical monist. This observation is indeed crucial, not just for
understanding Mi-phams thought but also in understanding the fundamental
doctrines of the rNying-ma school as perceived by him. Any potential semantic
ambiguities of dialectical monism, at least in Mi-phams case, may be precluded
if we bear in mind that we are dealing here with how Mi-pham exploits and
employs the concept of unity (zung jug: yuganaddha) to resolve Buddhist
philosophical or doctrinal tension, be it real or virtual. In fact, Mi-phams greatest
contribution to the rNying-ma school seems to be his setting the entire spectrum
of Buddhist doctrines into a yuganaddha framework, thereby furnishing his
school with the essential tools and techniques for explaining and accepting not
only major Indian Buddhist (primarily Mahyna) philosophies but also their
various (and occasionally even diametrically opposed) Tibetan interpretations. It
thus seems in my eyes to be fully justified to designate Mi-pham a
Yuganaddhavdin (zung jug tu smra ba). Mi-pham maintains that his rNyingma school upholds the religio-philosophical system (grub pai mtha: siddhnta)
of yuganaddha, and it alone, at all levels, namely, the ground (gzhi), path (lam),
and result (bras bu), which clearly suggests that he perceived or defined his
rNying-ma school as a Yuganaddhavdin school.185

185

Wangchuk, Was Mipham a Dialectical Monist? 31-32.

93

Whereas I do not find Miky Dorj explicitly defining himself or his tradition as
Yuganaddhavdin in the same way that Mipham Rinpoche does, it is very clear based on the
textual evidence that he considers union (of the two truths, bliss and emptiness, etc.,) to be his
final view, which is tantamount to the realization of Mahmudr. It also seems clear that the
rhetoric of union allowed Miky Dorj to resolve contradictions as well as bring together
disparate elements of Buddhist theory and doctrine. While his conception of union itself seems at
times to be slightly different from Mipham RinpochesMiky Dorj frequently refers to it as
the union of bliss and emptiness (bde stong zung jug) which seems to imply a stronger relation
to tantra and specifically the Klacakra186 than Mipham Rinpoches emphasis on the union of
appearance and emptiness (snang stong zung jug)187 it seems appropriate to understand Miky
Dorj as a Yuganaddhavdin in the sense that Wangchuk is describing here, i.e. one who uses the
concept of yuganaddha to resolve doctrinal tension and maintains this concept at all levels of the
ground, path, and fruition. Again, Miky Dorj is advocating for the inseparability of the two
truths (bliss and emptiness specifically), and the entire ground, path, and fruition via their
inseperable union. I would, of course, stress the importance of understanding the supremacy of

As Roger Jackson notes, in the Klacakra, Mahmudr is the inexpressible, unchanging bliss transcending other
mudras, as well as the empty-formed buddha-aspect in which one awakens See: Roger Jackson, Mahmudr:
Natural Mind in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, Religion Compass 5 (2011): 289.
186

It is interesting that Miky Dorj does not ever use the term union of appearance and emptiness explicitly in
Recognizing the Blessings. He chooses instead to proclaim the union of bliss and emptiness , and once refers to the
ground as the union of clarity and emptiness (gzhi gsal stong zung jug)and thereafter often implies that the
term clarity is interchangeable with the term bliss by using them in tandem. He on ly uses the term appearance
(snang ba) once in discussing the conventional and ultimate aspects of tantric practice, equating appearance with
method (thabs), clarity (gsal ba), and bliss (bde ba)this implies that he ultimately sees appearance as aspects of
clarity and bliss, i.e. in union with emptiness. However, he generally seems to associate the term appearance (snang
ba) with the experience of ordinary beings, distinguishing this from the emanation (rnam phrul) of primordial
wisdom (ye shes) which is solely the domain of the ryas (phags pa). This kind of distinction suggests to me that
Miky Dorjunlike Mipham Rinpochewas generally uneasy with the idea of equating the dualistic appearances
of ordinary beings with the ultimate appearances of enlightened ones, though he at times concedes that ultimately
such distinctions do not apply. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum
of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2a2; 3b6-4a1; 4b5-6.
187

94

Mahmudr in conveying and/or realizing union in Miky Dorjs conception of union, just as it
is important to understand Dzogchen as the pinnacle of Miphams union theory. For Miky
Dorj then, union acts as the common basis for which all manner of controversies and
contradictions can be dealt with and ultimately resolved in Mahmudr. Since union is reality,
and nothing is separate from this reality of union, everything is embraced in union.
In closing, one pressing question seems unresolved at this point: If everything is truly and
inescapably in non-dual union, how is it possible to make any distinctions at all, even merely on
a temporal or conventional level, using such categories as ground, path, and fruition, or even
stra and tantra? This is, after all, a substantial reason why Gelug scholars wished to assert the
validity of conventionl truth itself, so that all of the relative categories of the path leading
towards enlightenment would remain valid and coherent as well. In his commentary on the
Abhisamaylakra, Miky Dorj raises a possible objection regarding the indivisibility of the
dharmadhtu (synonymous with ultimate reality), which for such interlocutors would preclude
the possibility of ever making such divisions as the three ynas and the like, which Miky Dorj
clearly advocates for in his exegesis. To this, the he replies with a clever analogy of the space in
a jar:
For example, even though a jar (the foundation) is a single one, by virtue of the
divisions of the phenomena that are contained in it and founded on it (such as
honey or ground sugar), the divisions of this foundation are expressed as it
sometimes being a honey jar and sometimes a sugar jar. Likewise, though the
disposition to be realized is a single one, by way of being founded on it, different
superior and inferior ways of realizing it occur. Therefore, it is divided in these
ways.188
Therefore, for Miky Dorj, since the foundation (union) is unitary, whatever is based upon it is

188

Brunnhlzl, Gone Beyond, 291-292.

95

also necessarily unitary in nature, though it is if course possible to base apparently different
things upon it. This helps clarify how Mahmudr may accomodate seemingly disparate
circumstances: all of the various paths, categories, and vehicles (though they may be understood
as superior and inferior) are founded upon ultimate union. It also clarifies how these disparate
categories are ultimately resolvable in union. Such things as perspectives of ignorance and
enlightened wisdom, and categories of false dualistic appearances of the incorrect conventional
and the authentic conventional experience of love and bliss, for example, are merely provisional
contents within the expanse of everlasting union. For critics of Miky Dorjs brand of nonduality such as the Gelugpa, the existential status of such categories and perspectives needs to be
in some sense preserved in order for them to apply and remain coherent at all. Yet, for Miky
Dorj, it is the totality of non-dual union which both accommodates all of these various
conventional expressions and allows them to be ultimately resolved. The finality and totality of
union accommodates for and binds together all of these various expressions, experiences, and
perspectives, which do not exist at all apart from that all-pervasive union. To denigrate this
holistic non-dual union or exaggerate the status of conventional dualistic phenomena would
leave dualistic and conceptual tensions unresolved for Miky Dorj, perpetuating the delusions
of ordinary experience and preclude final liberation. Holistic and non-dual union is thus the
starting point, the final destination, and everything in between for Miky Dorj: it is both the
ultimate basis and the final resolution for all.

96

97

Chapter 3
Concluding Remarks

3.1. A Comparitive Analysis of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr Vision

In discussing Miky Dorjs Mahmudr interpretation, much has been said here in terms
of how to understand it in relation to Sakya and Gelug critiques of the Kagy tradition, as well as
in relation to Gampopas characterization of the hierarchy of Mahmudr, stra, and tantra. With
this in mind, at least a brief overview of how Miky Dorjs Mahmudr compares and contrasts
with other scholars and masters of Kagy Mahmudr seems in order. This will allow for a more
refined contextualization of the Eighth Karmapas Mahmudr thought, allowing us to appreciate
the distinct and unique aspects of his interpretation.
Padma Karpo (1527-1592) was a contemporary of Miky Dorj, and as then head of the
Tibetan Drukpa Kagy tradition his thought was quite influential and remains so to this day. One
interesting area of comparison here for the two figures is that Padma Karpo identifies two
manners of discussing Mahmudr: Mahmudr in its deluded form (khrul lugs phyag chen)
and Mahmudr as it is (gnas lugs phyag chen).189 The former essentially represents the dualistic
mind and the latter the realization of the nature of mind, i.e. of non-dual reality. This is also
significant in that these categories are strongly related to Padma Karpos conception of
yuganaddha. This formulation seems to be compatible with Miky Dorjs own understanding of
Mahmudr, however at this point I am not aware of Miky Dorj employing these terms
specifically. Whatever the case may be, this description seems to match his understanding of an

189

Broido, Padma dKarpo on the Two Satyas, 27.

98

ultimate that is categorized (rnam grangs pa) and that which is not (rnam grangs min). In this
case, Miky Dorjs preference for the categorized distinction may represent his penchant for
polemicsas the reader will recall he referred to the Gelugpas view of emptiness as a limited
categorical emptiness (nyi tshe bai rnam grangs pai stong nyid).190 Broido is quick to point out,
however, that for Padma Karpo these two forms of Mahmudr are inextricably united, with
neither one being good nor bad.191 As I have tried to clarify, Miky Dorj ultimately agrees
with this idea. However, at least provisionally he seems much more cynical than Padma Karpo
about the conventional truth that is categorized or incorrect, which he has condemned as falsity
and non-existence. This explicit cynicism towards the conventional seems to demonstrate the
soteriological significance of renunciation of such dualistic and conventional phenomena for
Miky Dorj and its pivotal importance for those on the path, as I have mentioned before. In
other words, renunciation of such phenomena is not possible as long as one ascribes to them any
kind of validity (as the Gelugpas do, you may recall). This is just another form of grasping
embedded in conceptuality and mental elaborations. Thus, Miky Dorjs cynicism towards the
conventional aids in liberating one from grasping at truth where there is none. Yet even the
conventional truth in that sense is not ultimately divorced from the all-encompassing embrace of
union; if it were, then it would be antithetical to Miky Dorjs ultimate project of such union.
Recall that even these phenomena are interdependent manifestations of the empty nature of mind
for Miky Dorj. In his Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas, he elaborates on the conventional
truth:
Bewilderment is that which causes sentient beings to be ignorant about the
abiding nature of reality. Alternatively, it is that which imagines the abiding nature
of reality to be something other than what it actually is and in this way obscures
190

Williams, Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa Madhyamaka, 133.

191

Broido, Padma dKarpo on the Two Satyas, 28.

99

the view of its true nature. Such a phenomena is called relative...[For noble ones]
the relative is of a nature that resembles fabricated things rather than being
something true, because they do not wrongly assume it to be true. Relative truth
deceives immature beings, but the noble ones know it to be illusory, merely
relative, and of the essence of dependent arising.192
Here we can understand that the conventional is true in two ways for Miky Dorj: that it
is true merely for ordinary beings who perceive phenomena in a deluded manner, i.e. it is
a commonly accepted truth which is in actuality false (in accord with his perspectival
theory), and that its essence is true as emptiness or dependent arising (in accord with his
vision of union), which describes how it is true epistemologically and ontologically,
respectively. In defining it as such, Miky Dorj is keeping with the classical sense of the
term for the conventional or relative, kun rdzob, as something that conceals the true
nature (which can be contrasted to how the Gelugpa scholars understand the conventional
as a truth of equal ontological and epistemological status to the ultimate).193
Another important figure for our purposes here is G Lotsawa, particularly since
Miky Dorj was at times critical of his ideas.194 As Ruegg has noted,195 G Lotsawa

gti mug ni sems can rnams gnas lugs la rmongs par byed paam/ gnas lugs las gzhan du sgro btags nas gnas lugs
kyi rang bzhin mthong ba la sgrib par byed pai phyir/ chos de lta bu la ni kun rdzob ces byar jog ste rgyu mthsan
bshad zin to/ gti mug gi rang bzhin kun rdzob des dngos po gang rang bzh in med bzhin yod par shen nas don la ma
zhugs kyang bcos mar btags pai rten brel gyi dbang gis bden par snang ba de ni kun rdzob kyi bden pa zhes thub
pa des gsungs so/ kun rdzob kyi bden pa de yang nyen thos dang rang sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dp a nyon
mongs pa can gyi ma rig pa spangs pa dus byed gzugs brnyan la sogs pai yod pa nyid dang dra bar gzigs pa
rnams la ni bcos mar gyur pai dngos po ta bur gyur pa ni rang bzhin yin gyi/ bden pa ma yin te bden par rlom pa
med pai phyir/ byis pa rnams la ni slu bar byed pa yin la/ phags pa rnams la ni sgyu ma ltar rten byung nyid kyi
kun rdzob tsam du gyur ro. Goldfield et al., The Moon of Wisdom, 85.
192

Thakchoe explains, for example, [Tsongkhapa] accords equal significance to both the epistemolo gical and
ontological issues involved in the relationship between the two truths. To say that they share a single ontological
identity with different conceptual identities does not mean, therefore, that the distinctions at issue are purely
epistemological. This is consistent with his position that the two truths have equal status and do not constitute an
ontological or epistemological hierarchy. Thakchoe, The Two Truths Debate, 21.
193

194

See for example: Mathes, Direct Path to the Buddha Within, 51.

195

Ruegg, A Karma bKa brgyud Work, 348.

100

made a strict distinction between Mantrayna and Mahmudr by formulating a sutrabased Mahmudr, resulting in a radical separation of Mantrayna and Mahmudr
with which Miky Dorj seemed uncomfortable. Considering the heavily tantric tone of
Recognizing the Blessings, I would say that Miky Dorjs favoring of a tantric
Mahmudr (which still may accommodate the stras) has been made evident, with the
caveat that according to this research Miky Dorj did view Mahmudr as something
that ultimately transcends even the tantras, with the exception of the Klacakra. For G
Lotsawa at least, his preference for stric Mahmudr perhaps demonstrates his affinity
for the sugatagarbha theory found in the Ratnagotravibhga, which Gampopa designated
as a basic text for understanding Mahmudr .196 Mathes also explains that G Lotsawa
reads the gradual path of the four Mahmudr yogas into the Ratnagotravibhga.197
Miky Dorjs preference for tantra seems to be based in his view that only the tantras
express the spontaneous and non-elaborated emptiness that is endowed with all qualities,
whereas stra only teaches the non-elaborated aspect198 a view which is similarly
expressed in Recognizing the Blessings. Miky Dorj also strongly criticized G
Lotsawas sugatagarbha theory as treating buddha nature as a real cause (specifically as
being merely the six sense fields or yatanas of sentient beings) and not as identical with
the all-pervading buddha kyas.199 In sum, it seems that G Lotsawa emphasized a
gradualist understanding of Mahmudr via his particular sugatagarbha interpretation

196

See: Mathes, Direct Path to Buddha Within, 34.

197

Ibid., 45.

198

Broido, Padma dKarpo on the Two Satyas, 17.

199

Mathes, Direct Path to Buddha Within, 415-416.

101

based on the stras, which Miky Dorj took exception with since it would seem to
contradict his theory of the union of cause and result (i.e. the ground and fruition) based
on the tantras (specifically the Klacakra).
As for the other Karmapas, Mathes has already done a fair amount of analysis on the
strong relationship between the thought of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorj (1284-1339) and
Miky Dorj,200 which I do not feel I have anything significant to add at this point. In brief,
Mathes demonstrates how Miky Dorj followed the tathgatagarbha thought of Rangjung
Dorj rather closely. Mathes quotes Miky Dorj in his commentary on the Abhisamaylakra
as criticizing those who interpret the Third Karmapa as asserting that the tathgatagarbha exists
inseparably within the dharmadhtu of the mind of sentient beings, and rather claims that mind
has an impure aspect, i.e. that which possesses consciousness (sems can) and does not possess
the dharmadhtu, which is tantamount to the adventitious stains that deviate from the
dharmadhtu due to false imagination. For Miky Dorj and his interpretation of Rangjung
Dorj, mind also has a pure aspect that possesses the manner of being inseparable from the
buddha qualities which is related to such Mahmudr terms as natural mind (tha mal gyi shes
pa).201 Accordng to Mathes, this clear-cut distinction between the pure and impure minds,
centering on a distinction between an ordinary laya consciousness (kun gzhi rnam shes) and an
exalted laya (kun gzhi),202 represents an essential part of Miky Dorjs other-emptiness
interpretation. Thus, according to Mathes research, it seems that Miky Dorj held Rangjung
Dorjs theories in particularly high regard, and used his Yogcra and Mahmudr

200

Mathes, Direct Path to Buddha Within, 51-74.

201

Ibid., 63.

202

Miky Dorj terms the latter as a primordial wisdom-laya (kun gzhi ye shes). Ibid., 61.

102

interpretations to complement his own thought.

It is of particular interest to make a comparison of Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought to
that of his successor the Ninth Karmapa Wangchuk Dorj (15561603). It seems that Wangchuk
Dorj was more systematic than Miky Dorj regarding Mahmudr, and indeed it was the Ninth
Karmapa who formulated the popular four-fold pointing out instruction in his Ocean of the
Definitive Meaning (nges don rgya mtsho), which are in short: 1) Recognize appearances to be
mind (snang ba sems sun go phrod); 2) Recognize mind to be empty (sems stong par
ngo phrod); 3) Recognize emptiness to be spontaneously present (stong pa lhun grub tu
ngo phrod); 4) Recognize spontaneous presence to be self-liberating (lhun grub rang grol du
ngo phrod).203 While I am not aware of Miky Dorj employing these phrases specifically,
particularly in such a methodical manner, we can find some analogues in his writings. For
example, when he discusses amatha and vipayan in Recognizing the Blessings, we find some
very similar ideas at play:
As for vipayan, understanding that there are no phenomena apart from the
mind, since the minds aspects of clarity and awareness is this present mind that
distinguishes between the three times [yet] is empty of a cause, fruition, and
essence, it is the wisdom of fully discerning phenomena: a bare (rjen lhag gi)
awareness that is unconditioned, inconceivable, and cannot be expressed as
anything whatsoever.204
To be sure, as I just mentioned, the terminology that Wangchuk Dorj employed is not explicitly
mentioned here either. However, we can see some striking similarities. The first two of the

Anne Burchardi, The Logic of Liberation: Epistemology as a Path to the Realization of Mahmudr,
Himalayan Discoveries 1 (2013): 40.
203

lhag mthong ni sems las ma gtogs pai chos med par shes nas/ sems gsal rig gi cha de la dus gsum du bcad pai
da ltar gyi sems di la rgyu bras ngo bo gsum gyis stong zhing/ dus ma byas pa cing yang ma dmigs shing gang
duang brjod du med par rjen lhag gi shes pai chos rab tu rnam byed kyi shes rab yin la . Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag
rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa:
S.N., 2004. 3a3-5.
204

103

pointing out instructions are clearly there, as in the statement to the effect that no phenomena is
separate from mind and that this mind is empty of cause, fruition, and essence. The last two of
the pointing out instructions are not so clearly illustrated here, however there are similar ideas
here. For instance, the idea of being spontaneously presentor more literally spontaneously
accomplishedcan be compared to Miky Dorjs emphasis that this empty clarity and
awareness is none other than this present mind (da ltar gyi sems di), which while not
technically the same is similar in its subitist emphasis on immanence. The fourth instruction is
the least obvious within the text, though the idea here of bare awareness being unconditioned
does imply through the rhetoric of immanence that enlightenment is not fabricated, and hence
not other-liberatedand there is also a later instruction that subject and object are in essence
the dharmakya (chos kyi skui ngo bor)205 both of these ideas at least implicitly accord with
the spirit of the final pointing-out instruction of Wangchuk Dorj. This demonstrates, implicitly
though not explicitly, that Wangchuk Dorjs formulation of the four instructions has an
ideological precedent in his immediate predecessor. It is of course possible that these ideas are
more explicitly expressed elsewhere, though that is not clear at this time due to the limited
amount of research available on Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought.
In the previous chapter, I mentioned the nineteenth-century Mahmudr scholar Karma
Tashi Chphel who adopted a tri-fold categorization of Mahmudr (phyag chen rnam pa gsum)
into stra (mdoi phyag chen), mantra (sngags kyi phyag chen), and essence (snying poi phyag
chan). This system was also popularized by Jamgn Kongtrul Lodr Thay (1813-1899) in his
text The Treasury of Universal Knowledge (shes bya kun khyab mdzod). Mantra Mahmudr is

205

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4b5.

104

the generally accepted category of Mahmudr, and is transmitted via the Vajrayna path of
means, involving tantric empowerment. Essence Mahmudr is the sudden realization of the
nature of mind via the empowerment of vajra-wisdom given by a realized guru to a qualified
disciple. Stra Mahmudr is based in the Strayna (sometimes even said to be hidden in the
stras), yet is also said to accord with mantra. It is different from standard Strayna in that it is
able to produce a direct realization of emptiness even for beginners who have not obtained the
first bhmi. Many modern scholars have noted that such a classification of Mahmudr was not
extant at the time of Gampopa, though Gampopa did employ a similar formulaas was
mentioned previously in the first chapterof a path of inference (rje dpag lam, i.e. stra), a path
of blessing (byin rlabs kyi lam, i.e. mantra), and a path of direct perception (mngon sum lam, i.e.
Mahmudr proper).206 The difference between these sets of categories lies in the fact that
Gampopa wanted to distinguish Mahmudr proper as a direct path apart from the general stra
and tantra approaches, while figures like Karma Tashi Chphel and Jamgn Kongtrul wished to
distinguish between three different ways to apply Mahmudr which are appropriate in their
particular contexts.
As we have seen, Miky Dorjs approach seems to meet somewhere in the middle of
these: 1) he generally sees Mahmudr as superior to the Pramityna (even while according
with it); 2) Tantric Mahmudr is generally favored, though, only on a provisional basis (with the
exception of the Klacakra); and 3) Ultimately, Mahmudr proper (which is presented in the
Klacakra as well) transcends both the inferential means of stra and the ritualistic means of
tantra. This last point in particular accords with Gampopas vision.

For more on both Jamgn Kongtrul and Gampopas categorizations of Mahmudr, see: Mathes, Blending o f
Stras and Tantras, 201-203.
206

105

In light of research available to date, Miky Dorjs approach to Mahmudr appears to

be less explicitly systematized than later approaches, which involve clear categorizations of
Mahmudr (such as Wangchuk Dorjs set of four pointing out instructions or Karma Tashi
Chphels trifold classification of Mahmudr). Nevertheless, it does have a significant
hierarchical element (such as his emphasis on the inferiority of the stra approach as well as
tantras inferior to the Klacakra), which is largely lacking in later formulations. Miky Dorjs
hierarchical approach here accords with Gampopas as well. The lack of hierarchical emphasis in
these later formulations may be due to the spirit of the non-sectarian (ris med) movement in Tibet
that arose shortly after Miky Dorjs time, though this is just speculation.
Thus, we may see Miky Dorj as negotiating between the two poles of Gampopas
transcendental Mahmudr vision and the kind of inclusive vision emphasized by later figures.
Taken together with his contemporaries attempts at formulating or interpreting Mahmudr in
rather novel ways, we can understand Miky Dorjs time as a period of adaptation for
Mahmudrwith different proponents of Mahmudr adopting different formulas,
hermeneutics, and categorizations. Compared to figures like Gampopa, Lama Zhang, and
Chdrag Gyatso, in particular, Miky Dorjs approach is distinctive for its largely scholastic
and theoretical approach (though it should be noted that this approach is at all times with praxis
and soteriology in mind) that is based in his vision of uniondistinguishing him from G
Lotsawa, for exampleand is employed to justify both hierarchical categories of systems, tenets,
and views as well as how to explain their integration and fundamental commonalities. Though
figures like Padma Karpo also heavily emphasized union in their Mahmudr thought, Miky
Dorjs vision was unique in its strong cynicism towards conditional existence and conventional
approaches to the ultimate. Again, this demonstrates his Mahmudr thought as reaction to such

106

elements, which nevertheless may be re-appropriated, though ultimately culminating in the

admonition that all conventional tension needs to be pacified via their resolution.

3.2. Conclusion: The Holistically Non-Dual Union of Miky Dorj

Throughout this work, I have alluded to Miky Dorjs thought as reaction, reappropriation, and resolution. This interpretation is largely based on the Mahmudr thought
contained within his text Recognizing the Blessings, but also of course relies on relevant
statements and theories found elsewhere in his other works, as well as on the historical context of
pertinent doctrinal disputes. The element of reaction is demonstrated in Miky Dorjs
transcendental approach; it is his general cynicism towards merely conventional means limited
by worldly conditions and leads him to defend the subitist Mahmudr tradition of Gampopa
against critiques made by Sakya and Gelug scholars calling for more scholastic and doctrinal
consistency, as well as disputes about how to approach the interpretation of conventional and
ultimate truths. The element of re-appropriation is demonstrated in Miky Dorjs inclusive and
eclectic approach; it is his acknowledgement of the provisional usefulness of incorporating other
doctrines and practices onto the path of Mahmudr, and thus it is also an empowerment of
Mahmudr by answering critics who claimed that Kagy Mahmudr is detrimentally divorced
from stra and tantra. This represents a rather distinct approach towards Mahmudr,
demonstrating how one may accommodate aspects of stra and tantra within the system of
Mahmudr.
Finally, the element of resolution represents Miky Dorjs ultimate view, and his desire
to resolve all tensions and distinctions (here in particular, those of the ground, path, and fruition)

107

within the quietude of the unconditioned and non-dual reality of union. His union theory is both
holisticit includes everything, both conventional and ultimate truthsand it is non-dualit is
not a mere integration or connection of two (or more) elements, but the essential singularity of
all aspects, it is the substrate of all phenomena consisting of their unconditional inseparability
throughout all seemingly distinct and disparate phases and contexts. This holistically non-dual
union is based in Miky Dorjs nature of mind theory, which recognizes all perspectives on the
path as aspects of the empty nature of mind, and it is only by realizing the holistic and non-dual
union of all such aspects that one may attain final liberation. The perspectival and non-dual
modes are defined by Miky Dorj as categorized and uncategorized, respectively, with the
former being provisionally useful on the path and the latter being ultimate reality as it is. This
demonstrates the pivotal importance of the theory of union in understanding Miky Dorjs final
view, and it suggests that all of Miky Dorjs views should be based on an appropriate
understanding of holistic and non-dual union which is the ultimate goal of all of his other
approachesand in that sense, Miky Dorj is a proponent of unity, a Yuganaddhavdin, as it
were. Miky Dorj recognized the futile and contradictory nature of conventional approaches,
yet maintained their provisional utility along the path because such approaches ultimately lead to
his vision of unity which is the resolution of any and all tensions. Understanding this may aid
scholars of Miky Dorj to reconcile the various (and at times, seemingly contradictory)
approaches that he employed, which would hopefully result in an appreciation of his grander
vision and the general consistency of his thought.

108

109

Appendix 1: A Translation of Recognizing the Blessings of Mahmudr207

Homage
You who are not deluded, with your vast knowledge of the two scriptural traditions, you
are the one who bestows the jewel of the profound meaning; I bow to the feet of the great father
[Sangye] Nyenpa, the indisputable buddha Vajradhra.

Introduction to the Blessings of Mahmudr

Such conventional termsthe black marks of my treatiseare comparable to an old dog

gnawing on dry bones.208 As there is no way for [such conventionalities] to enter into ones
experience, those who understand this should focus on supplication. This heap of malignant
attendants and disciples of mine209 are like a hundred wicked sons assaulting their own mother.

207

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13592$W8039
A brief mention should be made here for the help that I received from Khenpo Gyurm of Tergar seling Monastery
in Kathmandu, Nepal. Khenpo read through the entire text with me, providing a line by line explanation of this text
and answering any questions that I had as well. I would like to note, however, that I already had a rough translation
of the text by the time that I had met him, and his explanations were used only to supplement my own original
translation when there was something that I had not understood well o r noticed that I had misinterpreted based on
Khenpos commentary. Thus, my translation is not based entirely on what Khenpo explained to me, but only as I
deemed necessary to improve the accuracy of my interpretation. For more details on this, please see my discussion
of this in the introduction.
208

According to Khenpo Gyurm, this metaphor plays on the image of an old dog that gnaws on dry, meatless
boneseven though the dog may enjoy the flavor and the activity, there is not much benefit for the dog, as th ere is
no meat there to provide sustenance. In fact, as the old dog probably does not have healthy teeth, or any teeth at all,
such activity could actually harm it. Likewise, one might enjoy reading the scriptures, but if there is no experience
of what is being explained then there is not much benefit and it could even be harmful or counterproductive for the
individual.
209

The text uses the agentive/instrumental case here with ngas but is probably an error (especially since there is no
verb that goes along with it), which should instead here be possessive, as in ngai. There are other instances of this
basic error in the text, and this will be my only mention of it. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin
rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 1b2.

110

Since there is no way [for me] to ripen [their] mind-streams, those who understand this should
focus on aspiration. This food offered to me is like consuming boiling molten bronze, the food
and drink of hell-beings and hungry ghosts. Since I have no ability to return such favors (yon
sbyong ba), those who understand this should give without attachment. I, a heretical old man, am
like a shaman who sacrifices animals (gshen pa) for a sinful king. Since I have not been able to
liberate my mind-stream in accordance with the dharma, those who understand this should focus
solely on devotion. This undeluded (smyon med) meeting of mine with the buddha210 is like
passing over to the dense Akaniha pure land. Since there is no deviation (gol sa) on this path,
those who understand this should focus on joy and delight. Please look upon your son Miky
Dorje!
If one were to rely on a complete faade of the dharma, would its purpose be fulfilled?
For those who adhere to the Mahmudr tradition,211 especially those who follow the tradition of
Dagpo [i.e. Gampopa]which is above all a tradition of practicemust they earnestly strive to
receive blessings? If one does not have a sense of such blessings, if one does not know what
blessings refer to, then there is no way to incorporate [Mahmudr] into ones own experience.

The Ground of Mahmudr

As I understand it, the phases (gros) that seem to be necessary are those of the ground
the union of clarity and emptinessthe paththe union of the two accumulationsand the

210

Here the term sangs rgyas is likely referring to his own root guru, sangs rgyas mnyan pa, playing on both the fact
that he considers him to be enlightened and that his name contains the term sangs rgyas. See: Ibid., 1b6.
211

The line reads: phyag rgya pa yin phyin but this last term phyin, normally understood as the past tense of the verb
gro ba (to go), is likely a misspelling in this edition of the term phyir, which can be translated as for the sake of,
or for the purpose of, and makes more sense in this context. See: Ibid., 2a1.

111

fruitionthe union of the two kyas. As for the intention of the exceptional Anuttarayoga
tantras, it is necessary to be introduced to the causal principle 212 which possesses the qualities of
clarity, bliss, and emptiness. Thus, the meaning of all the tantras without exception are
exemplified by the two syllables: 'E Va.'213 Such bliss is not like the occurrence of a blissful
feeling dependent on an awareness contacting an attractive object. However, the nature that is
primordially present which is established and abides together (grub bde gcig pa) with the mind
of clarity is [non-dual] like a sugar cane and [its] sweetness.214 From the perspective of this bliss,
the great being who is without beginning or end is said to be Vajrasattva of great joy; from the
perspective of emptiness, it is said that conditioned existence (srid pa) is intrinsically pure which
results in it being free of conditioned existence by its very essence. [What is referred to here] is
what abides primordially as method and wisdom; being represented by the vajra and bell it is a
demonstration of the coupling of the great vajra and bell that is graced by the vajra blessing. The
Mahmudr of union (zung 'jug phyag rgya chen po) is spoken of in that way; it is spoken of in a
hidden manner of symbolic means (brda thabs kyi sbas pa'i tshul).
Likewise, ground Mahmudrthe causal principleis bliss, clarity, emptiness, and
perpetuality (rgyun mi chad pa). [This] nature (ris)215 is unalterable, it is without beginning or

212 rgyu'i rgyud: The

reality of mind that abides unchangeable like space within the minds of sentient beings and
Buddhas. According to stras this refers to the Tathgata essence...According to the highest yoga tantra this
principle is known as the union of E-Va Tsepak Rinzin, Tibetan-English Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology
(Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2008), 57.
213

The syllables E and Va refer to thabs (skillful means) and shes rab (wisdom) respectively.

214

As Khenpo Gyurm explained, this example refers to the fact that sugar cane and sweetness exist in dependence
on one another, never existing apart. That is, if one were to disappear the other would be gone as well.
The text reads ris (usually translated as bias, form, class, or division) but it seems possible that this could
also be a misspelling for the term rigs (usually translated as class, potential, division, or lineage), which is a
common synonym for buddha nature. Even so, these two terms would seem to be similar in meaning here, meant to
denote something that is of its own kind or species. Khenpo Gyurm did not seem to find issue with t he term ris,
however, and equated it with the term bde gshegs snying po (sugatagarbha) and so I am loosely translating it here as
nature, to both reflect its connotation to buddha-nature theory and the idea of something of its own kind, with its
215

112

end, and it is not corrupted by the mental stream of ordinary consciousness, i.e. the mind, the
mental factors, and so forth. If one authentically refines that by means of the path, since the
fruition is Vajradhra, the extraordinary being who has the power to appear as though reemerging, it expresses the ground, the pervasive lord Vajrasattva.

The Path of Mahmudr

As for the path Mahmudr of the tantras of the exceptional methodsthe methods
which actualize [the ground]it would be insufficient on the path of Mahmudr merely to
[engage in] the samdhis of bliss, clarity, emptiness, and non-conceptuality which are dependent
upon consciousness. Even with regard to the mere enjoyment of such things, there is the
potential for remaining in the middling kalpas (bskal pa'i bar gnas). In the Samdhirja Stra it
says:
Though one may cultivate a worldly samdhi,
It will not eradicate the perception of a self.
Due to the afflictions, conceptual signs arise in full force.
It would be like cultivating the samdhi of Utraka.
[Such a samdhi] is explained in the commentaries of the tantras as a deviation into a formless
samdhi, [as in the case] of those who arrogantly assume that absolute nothingness is emptiness.
It is not appropriate to merely meditate on the non-elaborated and empty nature of
appearances since it does not even arise as more profound or vaster than any of those on the path
of the rvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, nor even those of the Pramits, and therefore the special
qualities of Mahmudr would be incomplete. Even in terms of the mere unification of amatha

own special qualities. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi
bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 2b1.

113

and vipayan it would not suffice. As the sublime regent Maitreya has said:
Due to resting the mind in terms of a mind based in genuine abiding,
And due to fully discerning phenomena,
One has amatha and vipayan.
Since one rests in the single taste of mind within the clarity and awareness which are the defining
qualities of the mind, as if blending water and milk, it is the amatha which pacifies all of the
afflictions. Here, the amatha which apprehends (dmigs pa) external [objects] features the
apprehension of purity and impurity. By visualizing the form of the deity, meditating on your
own body as the form of the deity, and meditating on [forms of] skeletons, and then allowing the
imprints (rjes yel)216 of the variable mental states (sems byung gzhan rnams)217 to fade away, one
generates thoroughly purified mental states.
As for vipayan, understanding that there is no phenomena apart from the mind, since
the minds aspects of clarity and awareness is this present mind that distinguishes between the
three times [yet] is empty of a cause, fruition, and essence, it is the wisdom of fully discerning
phenomena: a bare (rjen lhag gi) awareness that is unconditioned, inconceivable, and cannot be
expressed as anything whatsoever. That being the case, it would be ineffective to merely perceive
the clarity of mind while not being distracted by something else. One may unite amatha and
vipayan in such a manner, yet it would result in the emergence of many elaborate outer
vehicles of dialectics (phyi mtshan nyid kyi thek pa).218 Since the meditation of Mahmudr is the
path of the Anuttarayoga (rnal byor bla na med pai lam), one must take up the practice which
The text reads rje yal, but this may be an error and so on Khenpo Gyurms advice I have changed it to rjes yal
which seems more appropriate, the rjes here being similar to the terms zhabs rjes or rkang rjes (i.e. footprints)
according to Khenpo. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi
bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 3a3.
216

This probably refers to the sems byung gzhan gyur bzhi, which are as follows: regret (gyod pa), sleep (gnyid),
coarse conceptual understanding (rtog pa), and refined conceptual understanding (dpyod pa). See: Ibid., 3a3.
217

218

I.e. rvakayna, Pratyekabuddhayna, and Bodhisattvayna. See: Ibid., 3a5-6.

114

is replete with all of the qualities of the direct path of the Vajrayna.
Moreover, at the beginning one should bring about the maturation of ones mind-stream
by properly obtaining abhieka [from] a qualified spiritual master. Following that, concerning the
path of the vase abhieka, the physical body and external objects mainly appear as obstructive
matter which is [in fact] nothing other than mind; this ordinary subject and object duality which
apprehends in that manner is purified through the illusion- like path of the generation stage. The
meaning is [contained within] the saying:
All thingsanything and everything that appearsare the sovereign one, ones
own superior deity [i.e. ones yidam]. Observe that all phenomena are of a
completely pure nature, the primordial wisdom of buddhahood.
Moreover, it must be done by sealing it with emptiness. Thus, as it is said in the Mother Tantras:
Day is lord Vajradhra;
Night, likewise, is the yogini.219
Also, as it is said in the Father Tantras according to the Summary of Conduct 220 :
Whatever arises is the conventional truth.
Whatever has the name of cessation is the ultimate truth. 221
Through the spiritual master's kindness the two stages222
Are obtained which later results in buddhahood.
As the Brahmin Saraha said in the Sdhan of the Buddha's Skullcup223 :

According to Khenpo Gyurm, Vajradhra represents the aspect of the form or appearance of the deity (lha yi
skui rnam pa) and the Yogini represents wisdom (shes rab) and emptiness (stong pa nyid), which must be realized
together.
219

220

Skt. Caryamelapakapradipa. Tib. sbyod bsdus. An esoteric Buddhist text attributed to one of the founding
Madhyamaka scholars ryadeva.
221

Here, according to Khenpo Gyurm, the conventional aspect is the conceptual aspect (rnam rtog) which relates to
the form of the deity (lha yi sku), and the ultimate aspect is the aspect of its non-established nature (rang bzhin ma
grub pa) and emptiness (stong pa nyid).
222

The two stages refers to the generation stage (bskyed rim) and completion stage (rdzogs rim).

The text reads bram ze sa ra has mdzad pai sangs rgyas thos pai sgrub thabs but on Khenpo Gyurms advice I
have changed thos pa to thod pa. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung
'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 3b4-5.
223

115

Imagine the flavor224 of the quintessence of the dharmadhtu in the center of a

hundred petaled lotus blossom. Heruka shines like the moon and radiates like a
jewel. The bliss of the various wisdom consorts consists of the embrace with
Heruka, the spiritual family of total bliss.
Thus, while not wavering from the state of the empty dharmadhtu, the form of the male
consort, the method taught conventionally as day and arising consists of the aspects of
appearance, clarity, and bliss. The form of the female consort, the wisdom taught conventionally
as the womb, night-time, and cessation, consists of the aspects of emptiness, non-conceptuality,
and the uncompounded.
Since all the phases of the ground, path, and fruition of those aspects are inseparable and
in union, the emptiness of the manner of embrace is sealed with bliss, and the bliss being empty
of nature is understood as the quintessence of a single flavor. In brief, one must meditate by
properly joining the complete purity of the styles of the colors of their forms with their symbolic
implements. Whatever the case may be (ci yin), meditating on the male or female deities
individually when they are in fact inseparable (cha med) would never manifest as the path to
buddhahood.
Based on the path of the second and third abhieka, the impurities of the defiled elements
of the body gradually dissipate, and following that the arising of the primordial wisdom of the
four joys (dga' ba bzhi)225 is sealed as the sense objects, sense faculties, and everything that
appears and exists. Thereby, the beginner meditates in the manner of conviction and [divine]
pride, incorporating them onto the path.

I translate ro here as flavor (as opposed to one of its other possible meanings such as residue or elixir),
which is likely a reference to the third yoga of Mahmudr, ro gchig the single flavor. Though it is not
immediately clear from the context of this quote that this interpretation is correct, the fact that shortly thereafter
Miky Dorje refers to the single flavor doctrine supports this understanding of the term. See: Ibid., 3b5.
224

The four joys are: joy (dga' ba), supreme joy (chog dga'), unique joy (khyad dga'), and spontaneous joy (lhan
skyes kyi dga' ba).
225

116

With familiarity, one sustains the primordial wisdom which arises from what has been
sealed as being united by the path226 of the four abhiekas, and therefore one attains the siddhis
of supreme Mahmudr. Thus, as one becomes skilled in the higher tantras and the oral
instructions, by your own accord you will not have any doubt regarding the profound definitive
meaning. Thus, one must diligently rely on those who have the ability to guide disciples on the
authentic path. As it says in the Brilliant Lamp227 :
Even the imaginatively constructed 228 deity yoga [i.e. generation stage practice]
transcends all concepts. It is the individual self-knowing awareness.229 It is the
domain of the buddhas. Abiding within the womb of the precious aggregates, it is
free from all positions of existence and non-existence. It is not within the reach of
those who adhere to words or philosophical speculation. It is to be realized based
exclusively on the instruction of the sacred spiritual master.
Therefore, as those who engage in ignorant meditations do not enter onto the path of
liberation, the completion stage that is based on such a profound generation stage is the complete
path of practice in terms of its union of bliss and emptiness. Following that, as the supreme lord
of siddhas [Maitrpa?]230 has said:
Like a crane gliding in space,
One is liberated within the expanse of the equality of sasra and nirva.
The text reads dbang bzhi pai las, but Khenpo Gyurm read it as dbang bzhi pai lam, which makes sense given
that this is the section on the path, and more specifically the path of the vase abhieka. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje.
Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776.
Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4a5.
226

Skt. Pradipoddyotana-namatika. Tib. sgron gsal. A text attributed to Candrakrti, an extensive commentary on
the Guhyasamja Tantra.
227

228

The text reads yong su brtags pa but should almost certainly read yongs su brtags pa. See: Ibid., 4a6.

229

The text reads so so rang rigs gis rig pa but is most likely a spelling error meant to read so so rang rig gis rig pa.
See: Ibid., 4b1.
Grub thob mchog gi lha. I am unsure whether or not this statement is actually attributable to Maitrpa. I have not
been able to verify as of yet who the supreme lord of siddhas could refer to here. Khenpo Gyurm was only able
to tell me that he remembered this quote as belonging to one of the Indian Mahsiddhas. Given the loftiness of this
name and the importance of Maitrpa to Miky Dorjs Mahmudr thought, however, it seems to me that Maitrpa
is an appropriate guess. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi
bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 4b3.
230

117

It is that which is free from all hope and fear.

As the Great Brahmin [Saraha] has said:
When it is realized, it is everything;
Searching for something other than this, it is not found.
And:
Whatever is sasra is nirva.

As for the meaning that is found within the tantras and songs of the siddhas, such as the
many texts [mentioned here] before, they refer to the appearances of the impure minds of
ordinary beings that arise as external objects. Thus, that which produces obscurations [which
prevent one from] clearly seeing both subject and object as in essence the dharmakya (chos kyi
skui ngo bor) are the adventitious stains.
That being so, from the point of view of the insight of the ryas who perceive the truth of
the dharmat directly and the siddhas who obtain the supreme siddhis of Mahmudr, [such
things] are an emanation of primordial wisdom. Thus, realizing the nature of the afflictions by
means of the profound path which is embraced by exceptional means, those who adhere to the
essential point naturally purify the afflictions, as if pacifying waves in an ocean. This being so,
some experience of sealing all appearances of subject and object through the Mahmudr of bliss
and emptiness is necessary.
Not only [is this spoken of] in the secret mantra; as it is said in the Stra Requested by
Sagaramati:
For example, there is no substance (gzugs su snang ba) which is not considered to
be medicinal by the king of doctors. Likewise, there is no phenomena which is not
considered to be enlightenment for the bodhisattvas that engage in the
Prajpramit.

118

And in the Ornament of Stras:

The childish obscure the true nature,
Thus, [for them] falsity is all that appears.
Since [the true nature] is illuminated by231 the bodhisattvas,
[For them] the true nature is all that appears.
As the protector Ngrjuna has said:
Other than the precious and genuine mind,
There is no other deity to be accomplished (lha gzhan sgrub bya).
Since the mind is pure it is the supreme deity.
rya Asaga has said:
Even if the yogin has not put an end to the cognitive act of bifurcation (tha dad
sems) which concerns the great conceptual marks of the outside world, based on
the immaculacy of seeing things which are pure, and that what the buddhas
perceive is pure, the buddha-realms as well are completely pure.
It should be understood in accordance with these sayings.
Therefore, with respect to the essential nature of all appearances[regardless of whether
or not they] are pure or impure, full or devoid of [ones own] mental elaborationsI humbly
request that one not act like a vomiting dog, 232 speaking [in such a way that] one mixes up the
fish and the turnips,233 applying the example of the hat to the foot, 234 blathering on about there

The text here reads byang chub sems dpa de gsal nas, but it seems much more likely to me that the genitive
particle here should be an agentive, which would instead read as byang chub sems dpas de gsal nas. See: Mi bskyod
rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 5a4.
231

232

It is fairly clear from the context that this metaphor refers to certain individuals who indiscriminately spew forth
any kind of nonsense, as if they were vomiting like a dog.
233 nya

dang nyung ma bsres pa literally means blending or mixing up the fish and the turnips. According to Khenpo
Gyurm this phrase implies that someone is heedlessly or indiscriminately mixing things together (for example,
mixing meat into a vegetarian dish), and that for this context it implies that those who are discussing Mahmudr
should be much more careful in how they are defining or expressing it. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i
byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 5b1.
234

zhwa dpe lham bkab In other words, according to Khenpo Gyurm, this phrase means that if one were to hear an
example of something about a hat, one would try to apply it to the foot, which would be a misinterpretation of the
metaphor being given. See: Ibid., 5b1.

119

being no such distinctions as good or bad. According to rya Candrakrti himself:

The embodiment of peace [i.e. the dharmakya] is clear like a wish-fulfilling tree,
It is non-conceptual like a wish-fulfilling jewel.
Remaining for as long as existence it endures to liberate beings,
It appears while being free from conceptual elaborations.
[In other words,] even though the sambhogakya of the buddhas is the svbhvikakya free from
mental elaboration, it still continues to appear.

The Fruition of Mahmudr

Concerning the principle of the fruition of Mahmudr, through gaining familiarity in the
path of bliss and emptiness which is based in the maala cakra, the [physical] body (lus) is
lucid like the colors of a rainbow and being unobstructed like the moon reflected in the water it
pervades all. The bliss and emptiness of the mind endowed with the three dharmas of the vajra
(rdo rje'i chos gsum)which are as indestructible as a shadowtransforms into a single taste as
changeless, indivisible great bliss. Thus, the enlightenment that combines the conventional truth
of the generation stage with the ultimate truth of the completion stage is known as the supreme
siddhi. As rya Ngrjuna has said:
By understanding the individual aspects
Of the conventional and ultimate truths,
And truly merging them correctly
That is said to be union.235
Thus, following the attainment of the unified stage of the path of training (slob pa'i zung
'jug) one perfects the stages gradually, and then on the thirteenth bhumi of the vajra holder,
endowed with the unified stage of no more learning, the three kyas, and the seven factors [of

235

From the Pacakrama (Tib. Rim pa lnga pa).

120

enlightenment]236 one obtains the consummation of the two-fold benefit [of self and other]; there
are those who say the so-called yuganaddha is not meant to be a non-duality, however in
terms of being coupled together they are the same, i.e. the pair is to be understood as unitary.237
Regarding that, there are three [aspects of the sambhogakya]:
1) The aspect of enjoyment, with regard to the wealth of accomplishing the activities and
appearances of undefiled great bliss, the purity of the buddhafields;
2) The aspect of coalescing (kha sbyor) by means of the union of bliss and emptiness, as
well as the unified equality of primordial wisdom; and,
3) By not wavering from [the state of] great unchanging bliss, there is the aspect of great
truth.
Due to these three aspects the sambhogakya properly performs the benefit of those disciples to
be tamed.
The primordial wisdom which is free from all conceptual elaborations of dualistic
phenomenasasra and nirva, self and other, acceptance and rejection, and so forthis the
dharmakya, the aspect devoid of any nature which is inseparable from the dharmadhtu, and is
what fulfills one's own benefit.
The three aspects of the nirmakya are:
1) The aspect of being replete with compassion, the great [enlightened] compassion
which is expressed equally (mnyam par 'jug pa) towards all sentient beings;
2) The aspect of the perpetual engagement in enlightened activity in order to tame
beings in whatever way necessary until sasra is emptied; and,

236

1)The seven factors of enlightenment (byang chub kyi yan lag bdun pa):1) Pure recollection (dren pa yang dag);
2) Thorough discernment of phenomena (chos rab tu rnam phyed); 3) Pure diligence (brston grus yang dag); 4)
Pure joy (dga ba yang dag); 5) Pure ecstasy (shin tu sbyangs pa yang dag); 6) Samdhi (ting nge dzin); 7)
Equanimity (btang snyoms).
This is an interlinear note (mchan bu) in the text that reads: Zung du gcig paam gnyis gcig gi go don yin gyi
gnyis med pai don min ces smra ba rnams zer. See: Mi bskyod rdo rje. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos
'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. 5b6.
237

121

3) Unlike the cessation of the ceasing kind of nirva that belongs to the Hnayna
likened to a butter lamp that has exhausted its wick and oilthere is the aspect of the
ceaseless nature of the five primordial wisdoms.
In this and future lives it performs the benefit of a majority of the classes [of beings], the impure
ones to be tamed. As the sublime regent Maitreya has said:
The nirmakya of the Capable One [i.e. the Buddha] is unceasing.
Likewise, it is asserted to be unceasing
From now until however long sasra may last.
Thus, as it may be how you yourself understand it, do not think that somewhere beyond
some [other] supreme nirmakya exists besides the Vajra-crya who establishes us in
ripening and liberation.

Concluding Remarks

Therefore, while one has not gained resolve in the presence of the supreme nirmakya
and one's mind-stream has not been liberated, it is a grave mistake to pretend to be a destroyer of
delusion and then engage in the yogic discipline of dogs and pigs. For those who practice
Mahmudr, it is important to investigate just a bit of such sayings as these:
Not realizing suchness as it is,
Those who distort something so marvelous
Will, after their death,
Wander the infernal realms for as long as space remains!
And as the bodhisattva Nglchu Chdzong has said:
Learn to subdue all thoughts arising from the three poisons in post-meditation.
For those in whom the dharmakya of all thoughts and appearances does not
dawn,
This training is indispensable and it should be recalled whenever necessary.
Do not give free rein to deluded thoughts, mani-reciters!

122

As Wntn Rinchen Gangpa has said:

Do not feel scorn for any spiritual system.
To rush after the higher teachings would be
Like a small boy mounting a wild horse.
What is most important is what is appropriate for ones own mind.
Just a little bit of investigation into phrases such as these is quite important. This being so, this is
what recognizing the blessings of Mahmudr appears to be. Thus, having here assimilated the
virtue of striving with a mind for spiritual practice, please grant your blessings so that I and all
others may attain the state of the great Sangye Nyenpa. Shu Bha Satu Sarva Dzaga Ta!

123

124

Appendix 2: A Translation of A Response on the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya238

In answer to your question, there is a context for which the fruition-sugatagarbha, and
the dharmat-kya (chos nyid kyi sku) are of the same nature. However, as the sugatagarbha [in
the context] of the cause is not the dharmakya, the dharmakya itself is the perfection of the
two accumulations, it is what brings about the final purification of the two obscurations, and it is
free from the obscurations of the five aggregates, the twelve sense sources, and the eighteen
elements. Consisting of enlightened activity, along with the five wisdoms and the three kyas
which are the transmutation of the eight consciousnessesthese are the features that are referred
to as the dharmakya.
Thus, the fruition is sugatahood, which possesses both the ultimate aspect of the
svbhvikakya and the conventional aspect of the rpakya. Regarding that, the first topicthe
svbhvikakya [in the context] of the causedoes not abide as the essence of the afflictions of
the natural and primordial purity of the minds of all sentient beings. As for its name, it is called
the sugatagarbha in the context of the tantras of the naturally present affinity (rang bzhin du
gnas pai rgyud), in the treatises of mantra it is given names such as original buddhahood
(dang poi sangs rgyes) and Hevajra of the ground (gzhi kye rdo rje).
As for the second topicthe cause of the rpakyathe existence of the eleven virtues
of love, faith, and so forth dependent upon the minds of all sentient beings are the habitual
tendencies of studying which are aroused based on other conditions, namely the appearance of
the buddha in the world.
238

Mi bskyod rdo rje. Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje. TBRC
W8039. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13570$W8039

125

The awakening of virtuous habitual tendencies is the affinity of flourishing (rgyas gyur
gyi rigs). As this, too, is the sugatagarbha in the context of the tantras, there are some terms
[employed therein] such as the distinctions of the six sense sources and the creation of the
habitual tendencies of studying.
Well then, as for the empty nature of mind, when it arises as the various interdependent
occurrences of delusionthe fetters of the two obscurationsthere is sasra; when the empty
nature of mind arises as the various interdependent occurrences of accumulation and
purificationthe non-deluded liberation from the two obscurationsthere is non-abiding
nirva.
Well then, as nirva is true and sasra is untrue, delusive, and false it therefore means
that [sasra] does not infiltrate objective reality (yul gyi gnas tshul). Since nirva is
undeceiving and non-deluded it is presented as the ultimate truth. Likewise, this presentation of
the falsity of sasra and the truth of the ultimate is also not in the context of the uncategorized
ultimate. However, it is within the context of asserting the ultimate meaning of what is
categorized. As for the context of presenting it as the conventional truth in the tradition of
Glorious Moon [Candrakrti], it is not possible for both to be the final sense, and so it is
presented provisionally as the truth of the ultimate itself and within that context it is the subject
being characterized (mtshan gzhi), which is exclusively the truth of nirva.
Though this is how it is stated, even [this so-called] final nirva is not the genuine
absolute. Since that does not transcend compounded phenomena, what is final (mthar) is a single
truth and is not something to be attained (rnyed pa ma yin). The non-duality of bliss and
emptiness taught in the final mantra treatise(s) and Mahmudr as well is what is meant by the
inseparable, the union of bliss and emptiness as a single flavor, as the emptiness of the

126

enlightened mind of the ultimate sense that is free from elaboration and the bliss of the
enlightened mind of the conventional sense, which is the wisdom mind of love without reference
that includes the noble minds of the Mantrayna.

This was answered for Yung Chadrel.

127

128

Appendix 3: Miky Dorjs Two Truth Schema (In Recognizing the Blessings, A Response on
the Sugatagarbha and the Dharmakya, and the Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas)

Ordinary
Beings
(so so
skye
bo/skye
bo tha
mal pa)

Incorrect
Conventional
(log pai kun rdzob bden pa)

Authentic
Conventional
(yang dag kun rdzob)

Categorized
Ultimate
(rnam grangs pai don dam)

Uncategorized
Ultimate
(rnam grangs ma yin pai don
dam)

False object (yul brdzun pa)

Dualistic mind (blo)
Appearances of the impure
mind (sems ma dag pai
snang ba)
Adventitious stains (glo bur
gyi dri ma)
Ignorance (ma rig pa)
Deceptive for immature
beings (byis pa rnams la ni
slu bar byed pa)
The two obscurations (sgrib
gnyis)
Delusion (khrul pa)
Sasra (khor ba)

Not perceived nor

known by ordinary
beings

Not perceived nor known by

ordinary beings

Not perceived nor known by

ordinary beings

Perceived as a fabricated
entity (bcos mar gyur pai
dngos po)
Known to be untrue (bden pa
ma yin)
Appears as an illusion, a state
of interdependence, and
simply as concealing [what is
true] (phags pa rnams la ni
sgyu ma ltar rten byung nyid
kyi kun rdzob tsam gyur)

Noble
Beings
(phags
pa)
&
Siddhas
(grub
thob)

Metaphysical
Basis In
Reality

Interdependent manifestation
(rten brel sna tshogs su shar ba)
of the empty nature of mind (sems
rang bzhin stong pa nyid)

The rpakya
(gzugs kyi sku)
Bliss of the
enlightened mind
(byang sems kyi
bde ba)
Love without
reference (dmigs
med kyi brtse ba)

Inseparable from the

ultimate

Authentic object (yul

yang dag pa)
Authentic perception of
primordial wisdom (yang
dag pa gzigs pai ye shes)
Based on accumulation
and purification (bsags
sbyang)
True (bden pa)
Nirva (myang das)
Objective reality (yul gyi
gnas tshul)
Does not transcend
compounded phenomena
(dus phyas las ma das)
Provisional presentation
of the ultimate (gnas
skabs su)
Interdependent manifestation
(rten brel sna tshogs su shar
ba) of the empty nature of
mind
(sems rang bzhin stong pa
nyid)

The svbhvikakya (ngo

bo nyid sku)
Union of bliss and
emptiness (bde stong zung
jug)
Free from elaboration
(spros bral)
Single truth (bden pa gcig
pa)
Not to be attained (rnyed
pa ma yin)
Non-dual (gnyis med)
Mahmudr (phyag chen)
Accords with the final
mantra texts (sngags
gzhung mthar thug gi)
Final presentation of the
ultimate (mthar)
Primordial wisdom free from
all conceptual elaborations of
dualistic phenomena (gnyis
chos kyi spros pa thams cad
dang bral bai ye shes) i.e. the
dharmakya, the aspect
devoid of any nature
inseparable from the
dharmadhtu (chos kyi
dbyings dang byer med pa
rang bzhin med pai yan lag
chos kyi kus)

129

130

Bibliography
Broido, M. M. Padma dkar-po on Tantra as Ground, Path and Goal. Journal of the Tibet
Society, 4 (1984): 59 66.
. Padma dkar-po on Integration as Ground, Path and Goal. Journal of the Tibet
Society, 5 (1985): 5-54.
. Padma dkar-po on the Two Satyas. Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies. 8(2), (1985): 760.
Brunnhlzl, Karl. The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagy Tradition. Ithaca:
Snow Lion, 2004.
. Gone Beyond:

The Praj Pramit Stras, The Ornament of Clear Realization, and Its
Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagy Tradition. Vol. 1. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2010.

Burchardi, Anne. The Logic of Liberation: Epistemology as a Path to the Realization of

Mahmudr. In Himalayan Discoveries, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2013, p. 27-44.
Buswell, Robert E., and Robert M. Gimello. Paths to Liberation: The Marga and Its
Transformations in Buddhist Thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.
Cabezn, Jos Ignacio. "The Canonization of Philosophy and the Tibetan Rhetoric of Siddhnta
in Tibetan Buddhism." In Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota,
edited by Paul J. Griffiths and John P. Keenan, 7-26. San Francisco: Buddhist Books
International, 1990.
Lhalungpa, Lobsang P, trans. Mahmudr The Moonlight: Quintessence of Mind and
Meditation. By Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1986.
Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Goldfield, Ari; Levinson, Jule; Scott, Birgit; and Scott, Jim, trans. The Moon of Wisdom:
Chapter Six of Chandrakirti's Entering the Middle Way with Commentary from the
Eighth Karmapa Miky Dorjs Chariot of the Dakpo Kagy Siddhas. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow
Lion Publications, 2005
Guenther, Herbert V. The Life and Teachings of Naropa: Translated from Tibetan with
Philosopical Commentary Based on the Oral Transmissions. Oxford: Clerendon Press,
1963.
Higgins, David. On the Development of the Non-mentation (amanasikra) Doctrine in IndoTibetan Buddhism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29, no.
2 (2006): 255303.

131

Jackson, David Paul. Enlightenment by a Single Means: Tibetan Controversies on the Selfsufficient White Remedy (Dkar Po Chig Thub). Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994.
Jackson, Roger. The dGe ldan-bKa brgyud Tradition of Mahmudr: How Much dGa ldan?
How Much bKa brgyud? in G. Newland (ed.) Changing Minds: Contributions to the
Study of Buddhism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins. Ithaca: Snow Lion. 2001.
Natural Mind in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism." Religion Compass 5, no. 7
(July 2011): 286.

."Mahmudr:

Kilty, Gavin, trans. A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages: Teachings on Guhyasamaja Tantra.
By Tsongkhapa. Edited by Thupten Jinpa. Translated by Gavin Kilty. Boston: Wisdom
Publications, 2013.
Kragh, Ulrich T. "Culture and Subculture - A Study of the Mahamudra Teachings of Sgam po
pa." Master's thesis, University of Copenhagen, 1998.
Lopez Jr., Donald S. Polemical Literature (dGag lan). in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre,
edited by Jos Cabezn and Roger Jackson. (Snow Lion Publications, 1996) Chapter 12.
Martin, Dan. A Twelfth-century Tibetan Classic of Mahmudr: The Path of Ultimate
Profundity: The Great Seal Instructions of Zhang. The Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol 15, no. 2. (1992): 243.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: G Lotsawa's Mahmudr
Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhga. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.
the Stras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrpa and His Circle on the
Formation of Stra Mahmudr in the Kagy Schools." In Tibetan Buddhist Literature
and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, 9001400: Proceedings from the Tenth
Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, edited by Ronald M.
Davidson and Christian K. Wedermeyer, 201-227. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006.

."Blending

Miky Dorj. Phyag rgya chen po'i byin rlabs kyi ngos 'dzin. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo
rje. TBRC W8039. 3: 765 - 776. Lhasa: S.N., 2004.
http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13592$W8039
. Bde

gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo rje.
vol. 3: 323 - 326. Lhasa: S.N., 2004.
http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13570$W8039

. Hwa

shang dang 'dres pa'i mdzub tshugs su bstan pa. In gsung 'bum of Mi bskyod rdo
rje. vol. 15: 1085 - 1096. Lhasa: S.N., 2004.
http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13641$W8039

Rheingans, Jim. Communicating the Innate: Observations on Teacher-Student Interaction in

132

Tibetan Mahamudra Instructions. (Paper presented at the second International

Association of Buddhist Universities conference at Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya
University, Wang Noi, Ayutthaya, Thailand). Buddhist Philosophy and Meditation
Practice. 2012. Pg. 177-201.
.The

Eighth Karmapa's Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal. (PhD thesis, Bath Spa
University, 2008).

. Narratives

of Reincarnation, Politics of Power, and the Emergence of a Scholar: The Very

Early Years of Miky Dorj in Lives Lived, Lives Imagined: Biography in the Buddhist
Traditions. Edited by Linda Covill, Sarah Shaw, and Ulrike Roesler. (Boston: Wisdom
Publications, 2010). Pg. 241-297.

Rinzin, Tsepak. Tibetan-English Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology. Dharamsala: Library of

Tibetan Works and Archives, 2008.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. A Karma bKa brgyud Work on the Lineages and Traditions of the Indo
Tibetan dbu ma (Madhyamaka) The Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle: Essays on
Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2010: 323
. Buddha-nature,

Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective:

On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1989

Stearns, Cyrus. Buddha From Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master
Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Thakchoe, Sonam. The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way.
Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2007.
Van Schaik, Sam. The Great Perfection and the Chinese Monk: Nyingmapa Defenses of
Hashang Mahyna. Accessed November, 18, 2014. http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang
mahayana/
Wangchuk, Dorji. Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2012): 15-38
Williams, Paul. A Note On Some Aspects of Mi Bskyod Rdo Rje's Critique of Dge Lugs Pa
Madhyamaka. Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983): 125-145.

133