Meditation Differently: Phenomenological-Psychological Aspects
of Tibetan Buddhist (Mahamudra and sNying-thig) Practices from
Original Tibetan Sources
Reviewed by Mark Tatz
The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Vol.114 No.4 (Oct-Dec 1994)
pp.653-654
COPYRIGHT 1994 American Oriental Society
This book contains seven chapters, and half is devoted to the
seventh: the translation of a work with the abbreviated title, "The
Sun's Life-Giving Force," composed by rTse-le rGod-tshongs-pa
sNa-tshogs-rang-grol (sixteenth century). The Tibetan title is not
provided. The first six chapters are the translator's introduction.
The author, rGod-tshangs-pa, attempts to reconcile two systems of
praxis, the Mahamudra and the rDzogs-chen, associated primarily with
two schools: the bKa'-brgyud and the rNying-ma. He expounds them in
the traditional framework of "ground, path, and goal." His emphasis
upon the middle term justifies "meditation" in the book title,
although the philosophic underpinnings are kept visible throughout.
The translator's qualifier "differently" must be intended to
denigrate other, unmentioned schools, and the grammar of the
meditation differently" demonstrates his inveterate creativity.
A derivative purpose of the author, who belongs to the rNying-ma
school, is to authenticate the rDzogs-chen system by demonstrating
its consistency with Mahamudra, whose Indian provenance is not
doubted. rDzogs-chen texts and their "tantra" sources were excluded
from most editions of the Tibetan canon of translated scripture, and
for good reason: even as rGod-tshangs-pa presents them, for example,
they demonstrate a preoccupation with cosmogonic beginnings that is
not typical of Indian Buddhism.
The translated text does indeed present the experience of meditation
in unusual ways. Important topics include (p. 1.50) the role of
inspection (dran pa, smrti) - whether it entangles the mind or
facilitates liberation; the relationship of the two systems to
supreme yoga-tantra (pp. 135ff) and its psycho-physiology (138ff.);
and the effects of the "lighting up" experience (p. 150). on
behavior in the world - in a word, non-activity. Still farther along
the path kpp. (pp.153ff), the bodhisattva's wisdom and powers are
presented from the point of view of the bodhisattva's mind, not - as
in most other texts - by observation from outside. Even the dreams
of bodhisattvas are described.
Because the rDzogs-chen has been studied less than the systems of
other schools, the value of bringing this text to light is all the
greater. However, the dearth of alternative renderings makes it
difficult to assess the translators interpretations. The
bibliography contains numerous Tibetan sources but no study or
translation by any contemporary buddhist or buddhologist, aside from
the translator himself There is no question of Professor Guenthers
high level of linguistic competence; the following issues are raised
in the spirit of inquiry.
The term "Being," drawn from Heidegger, leaps out of the text. The
translator has responded in previous works to the suggestion that it
wrongly imputes to rDzogs-chen thought a quasi-substantialism. The
term translates gzhi, more commonly translated as "ground."
In the text by rGod-tshangs-pa, gzhi is rendered initially as
"basis" (p. 96), then as "Being" (pp. 97ff.). This "Being" (in
parentheses, p. 97), is imputed with "overall purposing" - 2
development that seems to stretch past substantialism to
anthropomorphism. A substantialist interpretation may be justified
by this very work of rGod-tshangs-pa, who relates (and deflect) a
Mahamudra criticism of rDzogs-chen as substantialist for its
treatment of gzhi (here translated as "ultimate stuff," p. 130).
However, it seems doubtful that gzhi is as prominent in the
rDzogs-chen system as it is in the translators. In a passage of
chapter three (p. 28) translated from the mKha'-yang of kLong-chen
Rab - 'byams-pa, the term "Being" appears six times (twice it is
placed within parentheses) whereas it does not appear at all in the
original Tibetan. This instance could be multiplied.
In numerous places besides, abstract nouns are created where they do
not appear to be warranted by the Tibetan text. Restricting our
examination to the translation proper, the phrase ka dag pa (p.
101), generally understood to mean "pure from the beginning" and
here a modifier to "pristine awareness," is translated
"diaphaneity." Likewise the term gnaslugs is translated as
"abidingness" (p. 109), rather than the more literal "manner of
being/continuing."
Here also, it should be borne in mind that rDzogs-chen authors have
themselves come under attack by other Tibetan scholars for imprecise
reification. However, there are other areas where the translators
interpretations can be clearly seen as attempts to rationalize the
system in accord with contemporary concerns.
In regard to sexual practices in the highest tantras, Guenther
argues (p. 67) that woman is not objectified; rather, he says, she
is "a mystery (gsang) that the objectivist/reductionist because of
his vulgar and derogatory nothing but, way of thinking equates and
identifies with her cunt (bhaga)." However, the text to which he
refers (mkha'-yang, 265) says unequivocally: "The essence of the
body of the ritual mother (yum) is the bhaga."
Likewise (p. 68), woman is not - according to Guenther - "a mere sex
object"; that is only the view of ordinary ignoramuses. But the
pages of text to which he refers for corroboration (mKha'-yang,
271ff.) contain a description of potential female partners as
superior and inferior according to the size and shape of their
genitals, a mode of classification drawn directly from Indian
kama-sastra literature. They are accorded names ranging from "lotus"
to "elephant." Needless to say, there is no measurement for the male
protagonist.
References should include (where appropriate) the author, title,
volume number within collections, and publication data. The
publication is defective, with holes in some pages.