The Jonang Tradition, Other-Voidness and Great Madhyamaka

There are two major objections raised by critics of the Jonang view. The first is that if other-powered conventional phenomena can only be cognized by conceptual cognition and not by non-conceptual cognition, not even sense cognition, this is the view of nihilism. 

The second objection is that if the other-voidness of the clear light mind does not exist in the self-void manner as devoid of truly established existence, this implies that it has truly established existence. The problem here is how one defines self-void. If being devoid of truly established existence means that something is only provisionally existent and ultimately does not exist at all, then the clear light mind is not devoid of this type of truly established existence, because it has thoroughly established positive qualities. If, however, being devoid of truly established existence means that something still conventionally exists as a dependent arising, as the critics claim, then to say that something does not exist in that manner can only mean that it is truly established.

There is a confusion between the terms “ultimately existing” and “truly existing.” Jonang defines these terms such that ultimately existing means to have qualities, such as discriminating awareness and compassion, while non-truly existing means non-ultimately existing, which implies having no actual qualities at all. The critics define the terms differently. Ultimately existing means truly existing, and something truly existing cannot exist at all. Therefore, how can such a thing have qualities? Non-truly existing means existing as a dependent arising and thus having qualities.

Moreover, the Jonang view does not use the term “dependent arising” to mean arising dependently on mental labeling, as its critics use it. Jonang uses the term in the sense of arising dependently on unawareness of reality (ignorance), as in the presentation of the twelve links of dependent arising. When this distinction is not made clear, much misunderstanding follows.

Yumo Mikyo Dorje’s other-voidness view was inspired by the Kalachakra discussion of devoid-forms. Kalachakra presents two voidnesses: voidness without an aspect and voidness with an aspect. The first refers to the absence of truly established existence. The second refers to devoid forms. These appear as the reflection of the subtlest consciousness when the energy-winds are made to enter the central energy-channel. Devoid forms are void in the sense of being devoid of atoms, like an image that appears in a magic mirror. The Kalachakra meditation technique uses them as the cause for the Form Bodies of a Buddha.

Since devoid forms are devoid of atoms, which constitute the relative world, and since the final or ultimate devoid form is the corpus of form bodies of a Buddha, with all their positive qualities, Yumo Mikyo Dorje took the ultimate level to be devoid of the relative in the same manner that devoid forms are devoid of atoms. In this way, he derived other-voidness.

There were many other lineages and interpretations of Kalachakra in Tibet. The implication of other-voidness that Yumo Mikyo Dorje drew from the presentation of devoid forms is not shared by the other Tibetan traditions. Others say that devoid forms exist in the same manner as all phenomena, both relative and ultimate. Everything is self-void, meaning that everything lacks truly established existence but does exist as a dependent arising.

Yumo Mikyo Dorje’s disciple, Dharmeshvara, decried Nagarjuna and the Prasangika tenets as not teaching the deepest fact of reality, other-voidness. By the time of Dolpopa (1292–1361 CE), the codifier of the Jonang position, the theory of other-voidness was also associated with the teachings of Asanga. Dolpopa presented Asanga as the teacher of a more profound tradition of Madhyamaka than the Prasangika of Nagarjuna. He referred to Asanga as the source of the Great Madhyamaka (Skt. Mahāmadhyamaka) school.

Dolpopa was a disciple of the Third Karmapa. Both wrote extensively on the Kalachakra system. The Third Karmapa also advocated other-voidness. But it is clear from his Mahamudra Prayer and his commentary on the Uttaratantra that he supported the view that all phenomena, including the mind itself, are devoid of truly established existence. Maitripa and the early Dagpo Kagyu masters such as Milarepa also wrote forthrightly about adhering to the Prasangika view. More research needs to be done to determine whether the formulation of a Great Madhyamaka school of Asanga predates Dolpopa in the Jonang line, whether the term ever appeared in the Third Karmapa’s writings, and whether Dolpopa was influenced by the Third Karmapa’s Uttaratantra interpretation or the earlier meditation lineage of this text.

The Sakya masters of sub-schools other than Jonang are divided in their acceptance of other-voidness. Some, such as Shakya Chogden (1428–1507 CE), assert it and speak of the Great Madhyamaka. Others, such as Tagtsang Lotsawa (b. 1405), are extremely critical.

Shakya Chogden divided Madhyamaka into Yogachara-Madhyamaka and the Madhyamaka that Propounds No True Existence. The latter is divided into Svatantrika and Prasangika, with Svatantrika having Yogachara and Sautrantika divisions. Yogachara-Madhyamaka is another name for Great Madhyamaka and is divided into proponents of self-voidness and other-voidness. Both divisions of Great Madhyamaka are based on the works of Asanga with their commentaries by Vasubandhu. This scheme of Shakya Chogden does not seem to have been widely accepted by most of the Sakya tradition.

By the time of the Eighth Karmapa Mikyo Dorje (1507–1554 CE), a three-fold division of the Indian Madhyamaka school was prominent within the Karma Kagyu tradition. It has remained so up to the present. The Svatantrika and Prasangika divisions teach self-voidness, while the Great Madhyamaka of Asanga and Vasubandhu introduces other-voidness. The Prasangika presentation of self-voidness is taken as a view that asserts nothing positive. It was propagated with the intention of merely clearing away the mind’s tendency to grasp at fantasized ways of existing. Shakya Chogden did not portray Nagarjuna and the Prasangika school in this nihilistic manner. The Eighth Karmapa’s other-voidness teachings are elaborated in terms of the Uttaratantra, Kalachakra and the tantric level of mahamudra.

The nature of the mind itself, or ordinary consciousness, is the other-voidness. This is referring to the subtlest level of consciousness discussed in the highest class of tantra. It is devoid of all grosser levels. As Buddha-nature, it has all the good qualities that are the basis for the enlightened state. Naturally existent obscurations of the subtlest mind, such as truly established, findably existent stains, do not exist at all. Fleeting obscurations, such as the conceptual thoughts and disturbing mental factors of the grosser levels of mind, such as differentiating consciousness, are self-void. They are devoid of truly established existence. They are the same as an illusion. They do not need to be cleared away, since the Buddha-nature cannot be stained by them. One must simply focus on the clear and aware state of the subtlest consciousness, the other-voidness.

Karma Kagyu asserts that although the Uttaratantra is not a tantric text, nevertheless its discussion of Buddha-nature hints at the highest tantric teachings on the subtlest mind. Thus, the Great Madhyamaka is basically a highest tantra presentation. The Karma Kagyu three-fold division of Madhyamaka is a way of organizing Buddha’s sutra and tantra teachings into the structure of Indian schools of tenets. It is based on a completely different understanding of Nagarjuna and the Prasangika school than that presented by the other Tibetan Buddhist sects.

If one takes Nagarjuna as not asserting anything positive, then indeed Nagarjuna is a “naive Madhyamaka” as the Jonang and some later Karma Kagyu masters assert. If one sees Nagarjuna’s refutation of truly established existence as meaning that everything is a dependent arising, then to call him “naive” and his teachings “despicable” are fighting words.

Taranatha (1575–1634 CE) was the last great master of the Jonang school. He clarified and expanded the intentions of Dolpopa. The Jonang position had been severely criticized philosophically by most other Sakya, the Gelug and the Nyingma traditions. It was supported primarily by Karma Kagyu and Shangpa Kagyu. In 1658, the Fifth Dalai Lama closed the main Jonang monastery and banned the printing of Jonang texts. There were overriding political reasons for this drastic action.

The Jonang tradition did not completely die out, although it was never revived as a separate tradition. There does not appear to have been a break in the lineage of the Jonang transmission sub-school of the Shangpa Kagyu. Furthermore, the Eighth Tai Situpa, Chokyi Jungne (1700–1774 CE), visited a former Jonang monastery and found Katog Tsewang Norbu (1698–1755 CE) and a hundred nuns still following the Jonang teachings. The Eighth Tai Situpa revived the other-voidness view in the Karma Kagyu.

The Rime (non-sectarian) movement developed in Kham, southeastern Tibet, in the nineteenth century. The main figures were:

• The First Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche, Yonten Gyatso (1813–1899 CE), from the Karma Kagyu school
• Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (1820–1892 CE) from the Sakya tradition
• Ju Mipam (1846–1912 CE) of the Nyingma.

In many ways they can be seen as the spiritual heirs of the Eighth Tai Situpa.

In advocating a non-sectarian approach, these Rime masters primarily taught the other-voidness view. There were two versions, and these are currently still found in the Nyingma and Karma Kagyu traditions respectively. To understand their differences, we must first introduce the topic of the three rounds of transmission of the Buddha’s teachings (the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma).

Although some masters assert that the three rounds were a temporal division of Buddha’s teachings, most accept that the division is based on subject matter. In the first round, Buddha taught the four true facts (four noble truths) and provisionally, with the Hinayana tenets, that all phenomena have truly established existence. In the second round, with the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their Madhyamaka tenets, Buddha taught that all phenomena lack truly established existence. According to Gelug and some Sakya masters, the third round refers to the Chittamatra tenets that some phenomena lack truly established existence, whereas others exist in this manner.

Kagyu, Nyingma and other Sakya masters define the third round differently. They set it as the sutras in which Buddha taught about Buddha-nature. These would include the sources of the Uttaratantra teachings and hint at the highest class of tantra. All traditions agree, however, that the three rounds is a classification scheme exclusively for Buddha’s sutra material.

Buddha taught both interpretable and definitive teachings. Interpretable teachings are to be taken only provisionally. They are intended to lead one further to a deeper level of explanation. Definitive teachings are the level to which the interpretable lead. They may be accepted the way they stand.

All Tibetan Buddhist schools agree that the first round of teachings is interpretable. Gelug and some Sakyas assert the second round to be definitive and the third, being the Chittamatra tenets, to be interpretable. Kagyu, Nyingma and other Sakyas take the third round to be definitive, since they set the third round to deal with Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature, as the subtlest clear light mind presented in highest tantra, is to be taken definitively. They would agree, however, that the Chittamatra presentation is interpretable.

Nyingma Rime authors assert the second-round teachings on the lack of self-established existence also to be definitive. They accept Nagarjuna’s presentation of Prasangika in much the same way as do the Gelug. The lack of self-established existence does not preclude phenomena from having qualities, and everything, including pure awareness, lacks inherent, findable existence.

Karma Kagyu Rime authors assert the second round to be interpretable. They present Nagarjuna and the second round as simply refuting self-established existence, without asserting anything positive. The subtlest clear light mind is beyond this because it has all good qualities complete as its nature.

There can be two positions with respect to this second way of asserting the subtlest mind as other-voidness. The subtlest clear light mind cannot both have self-established existence and lack all qualities. This is because either (1) it lacks self-established existence but has qualities, or (2) it has both self-established existence and qualities. The former is the Karma Kagyu Rime position. The latter is the position the critics of Jonang accuse the Jonang masters of holding.

Karma Kagyu Rime masters state that their assertion was the actual intention of the great Jonang masters Yumo Mikyo Dorje, Dolpopa and Taranatha. From the point of view of the conventional mind, the clear light mind lacks self-established existence as Prasangika argues. From the point of view of the clear light mind itself, one cannot say it is devoid of self-established existence because a Prasangika assertion of self-voidness does not allow for any qualities including the quality of being devoid of self-established existence. As His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has said, these Jonang masters had great attainments from their meditational practices, but their manner of expressing themselves was a bit unfortunate.

Although there are philosophical differences among the Tibetan Buddhist schools, most of these can be reconciled when taking into account the different definitions and points of view. Tibetan Buddhism has not been a sterile copying of Indian Buddhism, with no original thought or innovations. Tibet has been a fertile ground for the use of skillful means to develop systems of thought suited to the ways of thinking of the local people.

The different theories and interpretations found in the various Tibetan Buddhist schools give ample material for sharpening the mind through traditional debate. Even within one tradition, such as the Gelug, there are several standard interpretations, with each generating a set of textbooks. Each division of the major monasteries follows its own textbooks. If everyone held the same position, there would be no benefit gained from debate. Because there are differences, the exercise of trying to hold one position against attacks in logic from the others provides an excellent training for developing an exceptionally perceptive state of mind (Skt. vipaśyanā). Such a state of mind helps bring one closer to the Buddhist goals.

When there have been sectarian disputes in Tibetan history, these have primarily been politically motivated. The study of the development of Tibetan thought cannot be divorced from the study of Tibetan political history. The political intrigues among the Mongols, Chinese, Manchus and Tibetans strongly influenced the interaction among the Tibetan schools of Buddhism and Bon.