Mi-pham on Juggling Balls

Ms. Theresa Bachhuber, a student of mine, is proposing to study Mi-pham rNam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho’s (1846–1912) Decalogy consisting of the Ut pal lnga (“Five Blue Lotuses”) and Ral gri lnga (“Five Swords”), for her doctoral research. The Decalogy, if I may, has been characterized as rjes gnang gi bstan bcos, which insinuates that the ten works actually constitute Mañjuśrī’s Word, or, de facto a revealed teaching of Mañjuśrī, and hence a kind of buddhavacana, somewhat like the Maitreyic Pentalogy (Byams chos sde lnga), but de jure “permitted/granted/authorized to be passed on as composed treatises.” The insinuation, in other words, is that these are actually revealed scriptures in the guise of śāstras. Of these, the Shes rab ral gri has been the topic of her MA thesis. One of the Five Swords, the brDa shan ’byed the tshom drwa ba gcod pa’i ral gri, which may conveniently be called the “Sword that Severs the Net of Doubt,” or, “Doubt-Severing Sword,” is actually a small work on the Buddhist philosophy of language based mainly on Dharmakīrti. This small work is terse and is written in verses. The composition is dated: 4th day of the 4th month of the Fire-Horse (me rta) year. The year should be Fire-Male-Horse (me pho rta) and should correspond either with 1846 or 1906. He was born in 1846 and so the year of composition must be 1906. Perhaps because of its terseness, Mi-pham appears to have felt the need to compose a commentary with topical outlines. Despite the auto-commentary, the work remains quite difficult. For this reason, mKhan-rin-po-che Padma-shes-rab (henceforth: Khenchen), one of my most revered teachers, wrote a commentary on it. His commentary too is dated. It was completed on the 8th day of the 11th month of the Water-Monkey (chu sprel) year. The year can be specified as Water-Male-Monkey (chu pho sprel) and would correspond with 1992. It was composed on the occasion of the establishment of the Shug-gseb-o-rgyan-rdzong nunnery in Dharamsala. I do not think Khen Rinpoche’s autograph has been preserved. My friend, Thinley Dorji, made the initial copy based on the autograph. And later the commentary was published in the form of computerized print.

I apologize for taking this autobiographical detour. In 1991, I must have been in my fifth year of studies in the Ngagyur Nyingma Institute (NNI), Namdroling monastery, Mysore, South India. It was the year Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. I used to stay with late mKhan-po dBang-phyug-bsod-nams, one of the first and best mkhan pos that the NNI procreated. In the beginning I really had to struggle with my studies. Getting used to both levels of Tibetan language (i.e., spoken and written), getting used to the intricacies and complexities of Tibetan Buddhism, and the like, were very challenging. Note that my oral entrance examinations were conducted in English. mKhan-rin-po-che Tshe-dbang-rgya-msho translated the questions and answers. Gradually I felt increasingly confident. I remember having done extremely well in my fifth year. I was looking forward to studying in the sixth year. One evening, however, in the beginning of the term in 1992, a monk came to my room, and said: “Rin-po-che (i.e., sKyabs-rje Pad-nor Rin-po-che) is asking you to come to his residence.” My heart started pounding. I hurried to his residence. There I saw Khenchen and others with Pad-nor Rin-po-che. Rin-po-che simply said, “You are going to Dharamsala to teach this year.” mKhan-pos present there simply exchanged knowing glances. I do not recall if I uttered any word. I had no information whatsoever about my new mission. Whom I am going to teach? Where I am going to stay? So I ended up consulting Khenchen a great deal. He was my main contact person (Bezugsperson). I had never been to Delhi or Dharmasala. My dear friend, Thinley Dorjee, was sent to Bir to teach. So the two of us travelled together. We were greeted by the searing April heat of Delhi and the coolness of the Himachal mountains of Dharamsala. My struggle in Dharamsala taught me a great deal of things about life and responsibility. In short, it turned out that my mission was to establish the Shug-gseb-o-rgyan-rdzong nunnery and impart monastic education to approximately three dozens of Tibetan Buddhist nuns. With the support of intuitions such as the Tibetan Women’s Association and Department of Religion and Culture; individual such as Rinchen Khando Choegyal, who also happens to be the consort of Ngari Rinpoche, the youngest brother of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Ven. Lobsang Dechen, Representative (later Minister) Ven. Tsering Phuntsok; and above all Khenchen, we (i.e., the Shug-gseb nuns and I) set up the nunnery and through sheer persistence managed to lay a strong foundation for academic study of Buddhism. As soon as Khenchen completed his teaching obligations for the 1992, I requested Khenchen to come to Dharamsala and spend some time with us giving teachings on Mi-pham’s Nges shes sgron me until we all leave for Bodhgaya to attend the Nyingma Monlam Chenmo. Khenchen graciously accepted the invitation. We had no proper accommodation for him. So I moved to a dingy cellar-like room and whitewashed my room to accommodate him. In the meantime, my friend Thinley had also completed his teaching obligation in Bir and he came to Dharmasala to stay with us. We all attended Khenchen’s classes. We followed Khro-shul ’Jam-dpal-rdo-rje’s commentary. I acted as a “Revisory Teacher” (skyor dpon). By then, nuns have made tremendous progress. They had not only memorized Mi-pham’s mKhas ’jug sdom byang, they could write them down without any spelling mistakes, and explain the texts in their own words. Mastery of the mKhas ’jug gave them a solid foundation in the field of non-Tantric Abhidharma and general Mahāyāna doctrines. They gained a great deal of confidence they needed. They dared to challenge some monks in a debate and to outwit them. They recited daily what they have memorized. Khenchen occasionally would stop explaining certain complicated issues saying that it would be too difficult for them. They would protest saying that their teacher had already taught these things to them and that Khenchen should not withhold anything from them. They were also happy to learn that they could now follow the teachings of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. It was such a rewarding experience to witness all these.

It was on this occasion that Khenchen composed a commentary on the Doubt-Severing Sword. The author’s colophon mentions the place, time, and the occasion. Khenchen separated the basic text from the commentarial text. This is necessary because it the basic text and the commentary seem often mingled. He based himself on Mi-pham’s own annotated commentary (mchan ’grel) and the topical outline (sa bcad). He merely added “minor clarifications” (gsal byed phran bu) for the sake of enabling easy access (’jug par bde ba’i ched), that is, for “those whose intelligence is fresh/new” (blo gros gsar bu rnams), i.e., for beginners. Khenchen’s goal is thus quite modest. He makes it explicit. It is not a full-fledged commentary. I recall Khenchen asking me then a couple of things. One of these questions being the term sgong used by Mi-pham both in the basic text and the commentary. I do not think I had any meaningful suggestion then. In 1992, we did not have the luxury of the digital sources that we have access today (2022). Khenchen has graciously consented to give a reading transmission of Mi-pham’s Decalogy to Ms. Bachhuber. On this occasion, Khenchen asked me again if I could shed some light on this term sgong.  

One of the bedrocks of Mi-pham’s intellectual edifice is Dharmakīrt’s ideas. He even composed a guruyoga manual to invoke Dharmakīrti. Unlike some of his works, which were posthumously completed, his commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika, the Legs bshad snang ba’i gter, is a work to which he paid great deal of attention and caution. He had consulted several Indian and Tibetan commentaries and tried his best to come as closest as possible to Dharmakīrti’s own ideas. Mi-pham’s context in which the term sgong is used seems to be clear. I try to understand his ideas by only using his own words found in the basic text and the commentary: “It is difficult to distinguish/differentiate/discriminate (dbye tshul dka’ = dbye bsal dka’) the referents (i.e., dngos po’i tshul = “modes of reality, modes of entity”) by ascertaining “This is it; this is not,” and so on, namely, on account of being confused in the convention of how terms are applied/employed” (sgra ’jug pa’i rnam gzhag la rmongs nas = sgra ’jug rmongs nas).” Why is it difficult? The reason he gives is: “on account of the influence” (shan gyis). The reading shan gyi, found in some editions, should be deprecated. The auto-commentary reads shan gyis and so does Khenchen’s commentary. I propose to paraphrase the phrase shan gyis here as “through or because of the contamination/adulteration of accidental/coincidental causes of errors” (’phral gyi ’khrul rgyus bslad pas). We can in general think of all kinds of external or internal factors that could trigger, for example, perceptual, conceptual, or, cognitional errors. Now the pertinent phrase that needs clarification is sgong bzhin (basic text), or, ji ltar sgong bzhin du (commentary). All elements of a formal syllogism seem to be present in this statement: A is B because of C, for example, D. The crux here is: How are we to understand the example or case expressed by “like D”? First, let us be clear that etymologically the Tibetan word sgong seems to be cognate with gong bu. In fact, I feel that the latter is more common than the former. Thus Khenchen’s literal explanation of the word sgong as spungs pa’i don  “having the sense of ‘heap/heaped’” is actually correct. The question here is thus not so much about the meaning of the word sgong per se but its pragmatic use in the given context. Second, there are several Sanskrit words that have been translated as sgong or gong bu: golaka, leṣṭu (as in sa’i gong bu), piṇḍa, guḍikā, śimbi (as in til gyi gong bu = tilaśimbi). But we can be quite sure that our sgong here is a rendering of golaka in the sense of a “ball” or “globe” for playing with. Third, it seems also worth keeping in mind that not all translators chose to translate golaka as sgong (or gong bu) but as ri lu, which etymologically seems to mean something like “that which rolls,” and hence a “ball” or “pill” (which is globular in shape). Fourth, we should rule out that our sgong here refers to “crystal ball” (sphāṭika/sphaṭika: shel sgong) although the analogy of “crystal ball” is often used in Buddhist sources. Fifth, our sgong is clearly a rendering of the Sanskrit māyāgolaka, which has been employed by Dharmakīrti in the Pratyakṣa-Chapter (verse no. 104) of his Pramāṇavārttika (Miyasaka 1972: 54–55): kvacit tad aparijñānaṃ sadṛśāparasambhavāt | bhrānter apaśyato bhedaṃ māyāgolakabhedavat ||; Tib. ’dra ba gzhan ni yod pa’i phyir ||  la lar yongs su mi shes te || ’khrul phyir sgong gi tha dad bzhin || tha dad mthong ma med phyir ro ||. Naturally post-Dharmakīrti Indian authors employed this term as well. I cannot go into these details. As I mentioned above, the reason for rendering māyāgolaka simply as sgong seems to be the metrical constriction in the Tibetan translation. Indeed, we do find the translation sgyu ma’i sgong and sgyu ma’i ri lu in the Tibetan translations of other commentaries in prose (Negi: passim). Sixth, I do not seem to find the word māyāgolaka recorded and explained in the Sanskrit lexicons available to me. We can only hope to learn from our Sanskritist colleagues. But I feel that the word māyāgolaka, which seems to mean something like “balls of illusion,” actually mean “juggling balls.” Mi-pham’s commentary on this verse clearly seems to support this understanding (Beijing, 1995, p. 277). His rtsed mo mkhan should be our “juggler.” He mentions only two balls (gong bu gnyis) but a skilled juggler can throw many more balls. Note his formulation: dper na rtsed mo mkhan gyis gong bu gnyis ’dor len myur bar ’phangs pa’i sgong gi tha dad pa. The edition I use reads ’dod len but it should be, in my view, emended to ’dor len “throwing and catching.” Seventh, the use of the analogy of māyāgolaka in the Pramāṇavārttika and the one in Mi-pham’s Doubt-Severing Sword are not totally identical. The general context of the former seems to be the refutation of the position that recognition is a valid perceptual cognition. For Dharmakīrti, however, recognition may look like a valid perceptual cognition but it is not. Recognition seems to be understood as an erroneous blend of recollection and the current perception of something else. It is a kind of conceptual association/integration. The actual point of the above Pramāṇavārttika verse is that owing to causes of error, one may not always cognize the separateness/difference of the juggling balls although the balls are undeniably separate/distinct. In the Doubt-Severing Sword, however, the difficulty in distinguishing one referent of a certain term from the other is compared to the difficulty in distinguishing one juggling ball from the other. Thus the verse may be translated thus: “It is difficult to distinguish the [specific] referents on account of being confused in the application of term, [that is,] owing to the impact [of the causes of error] just as [it is difficult to distinguish] juggling balls [from one another for the same reason].”