Mahamudra and the Middle Way (Post-Classical Kagyu Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-Nature) Set of 2 Volumes

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The Mahamudra teachings that form the doctrinal nucleus of the various Tibetan Bka brgyud' sects in Tibet have stimulated a rich heritage of philosophical, poetic and didactic writings since their inception in the 11th century by the physician-turned-monk Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen (1079-1153). Yet they have also been the target of unremitting criticism by other Tibetan Buddhist schools beginning with Sa skya Pandita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan's (1182-1251) denunciation of certain modern-day Mahamudra (da lta'i phyag rgya chen po) views early in the 13th century. As a result, the doctrinal history of Bka' brgyud traditions has frequently been interwoven with polemics, and increasingly so as the expansion of their institutional networks and doctrinal influence brought them into closer dialogue and confrontation with other ascendant Tibetan Buddhist schools. In the midst of such exchanges, Sgam po pa's Mahamudrä teachings have always found able defenders, and not all of them having a primary affiliation with any Bka' brgyud lineage. Apologists have included the likes of the Sa skya master Shakya mchog Idan, and many Rnying ma masters including Klong chen rab 'byams pa (1308-1364), Rtse le Sna tshogs rang grol (b. 1608), and Zhabs dkar Tshogs drug rang grol (1781-1851). The tradition was also to some extent validated by the Dge lugs polymath Thu'u kwan Chos kyi nyi ma (1737-1802) who followed a standard Tibet- an rhetorical strategy of defending the purity of the early Bka' brgyud founders while accusing modern-day proponents of various misinterpretations of their original teachings.

Attempts to legitimize the authenticity of Dwags po Bka' brgyud teachings have generally proceeded from the contention that these teachings not only accord with authoritative Indian Buddhist doctrinal systems but also represent their ultimate import or definitive meaning (nges don). This placed the onus on defenders such as the four examined in this book to establish the continuity of Bka' brgyud doctrines and practices with authoritative Indo- Tibetan traditions of exegesis (bshad lugs) and praxis (sgrub lugs) and also show how they offered a distinctive path beyond the many errors, deviations, and impasses that result from a wrong or partial understanding of such traditions.