Detail about the Pratimoksha Vow as a Nonrevealing Form in Vaibhashika

Vasubandhu adds further detail about the type of nonrevealing form that a pratimoksha vowed restraint is in his Autocommentary (Gretil 200.12-14, Derge 172B): 

Just as (the nonrevealing form of the vowed restraint of) abstention from taking a life depends for its arising on the great elements (of a revealing form) as (the foundation from which it) arises, so too it is just those (great elements that function as the foundation from which also arises abstention from the rest of the seven naturally uncommendable actions) up to chattering meaninglessly. What is the reason? It is because the non-difference of (these) elements (as the common foundation for the revealing form of obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven) is like the nondifference of the mind (appropriating the revealing form of the body as its physical support when obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven). But the (subsequent) nonrevealing forms for (refraining from) the seven in the pratimoksha vowed restraint have as what they depend upon for their arising (in each subsequent moment of their continuum) another and another (set of presently-happening) great elements (of the revealing form of the body that is refraining from committing the behavior one has vowed to abstain from). 

(Skt.) yānyeva ca bhūtānyupādāya prāṇātipātādviratirutpadyate tānyeva yāvat saṃbhinnapralāpāt / kiṃ kāraṇam / cittavat bhūtābhedāt / prātimokṣasaṃvare tvanyānyāni mahābhūtānyupādāya saptāvijñaptayo bhavanti / 

(Tib.) ‘byung ba chen po gang dag kho na rgyur byas nas srog gcod pa spong ba skye ba de dag kho na las tshig kyal pa spong ba’i bar du skye'o/ /ci'i phyir zhe na/ sems bzhin du‘byung ba tha mi dad pa’i phyir ro/ /so sor thar pa’i sdom pa ni‘byung ba gzhan dang gzhan dag rgyur byas nas rnam par rig byed ma yin pa bdun skye’o/ 

Vasubandhu explains with an analogy that an entire set of pratimoksha vowed restraints constitutes one nonrevealing form; it is not that each vowed restraint in the set is an individual nonrevealing form. The analogy is as follows. There is just one motivating consciousness, with its accompanying mental factors, that appropriates the great elements of revealing form of the body as its physical support when obtaining a set of pratimoksha vowed restraints. This is because there is just one revealing form of the body when obtaining the set: one kneels just once when receiving the vowed restraints. It is not that for each of the individual vowed restraints within a set of pratimoksha vowed restraints there is an individual, separate revealing form of the body and an individual consciousness, with its accompanying mental factors, that appropriates it. Similarly, there is just one nonrevealing form for the entire set of pratimoksha vowed restraints that arises simultaneously with that revealing form of the body. 

This analogy is based on historical precedent. When Buddha first gave monk ordination and then, later, nun ordination, he conferred the vowed restraint of refraining from the seven naturally uncommendable actions (rang-bzhin kha-na ma-tho-ba, Skt. prakṛtisāvadya) – taking a life, taking what has not been given, engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior, lying, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, and chattering meaninglessly. As situations arose from conduct within the monastic community that caused society to look down upon the community and down upon the Buddha’s teachings, Buddha prohibited certain other actions for his monastics. These were known as prohibited uncommendable actions (bcas-pa’i kha-na ma-tho-ba, Skt. pratikṣepanasāvadya). With their promise to safeguard against each new prohibition, the monastics received an additional branch to the nonrevealing form of their vow. This occurred through the power of the Buddha proclaiming the prohibition in person and did not require the monks and nuns already ordained to take a new ordination or to acquire an additional nonrevealing form.

The vowed restraint of refraining from all the naturally uncommendable and prohibited uncommendable actions, then, constitutes just one nonrevealing form, although this vowed restraint has many branches (yan-lag) or parts, like the body having many parts. It isn’t that someone obtains a vowed restraint from each of these actions one by one during the ordination. Thus, there is just one vowed restraint to abstain from all the uncommendable actions to be refrained from and so just one nonrevealing form. The same is the case with bodhichitta vows and tantric vows. 

At the time of the Buddha, pratimoksha vowed restraints were not differentiated according to different lineages. With the diffusion of the Dharma to different societies and in different languages and dialects, eighteen so-called “Hinayana” or “Nikaya” schools arose, each with slightly different interpretations of what Buddha taught. Thus, there developed slightly different enumerations of the monk and nun vows and slightly different ordination procedures. 

According to tradition, the divisions into lineages of monastic discipline (‘dul-ba, Skt. vināya) arose in the next generation after the Buddha. First, however, there were just four lineages of monastic discipline traced from four of Buddha’s disciples:

• The Sarvastivada (thams-cad yod-par smra-ba, Skt. sarvāstivāda) ordination lineage traces itself back to Buddha’s son, Rahula (sgra-gcan ‘dzin, Skt. Rāhula). The Mulasarvastivada (gzhi thams-cad yod-par smra-ba, Skt. mūlasarvāstivāda) and Dharmaguptaka (chos-sbas-pa, Skt. dharmaguptaka) ordination lineages derive from the Sarvastivada lineage. 
• The Mahasanghika (dge-‘dun phal-chen-pa’i sde, Skt. mahāsaṃghika) ordination lineage traces itself back to Mahakashyapa (‘Od-srung chen-po, Skt. Mahākāśyapa), the initial compiler of the abhidharma teachings and presider over the First Buddhist Council at which the teachings to be included in the Three Baskets (sde-snod gsum, Skt. tripiṭaka) were codified. The Mahasanghika ordination lineage was the one held by Atisha, although he could not transmit this in Tibet since he did not come there with the requisite number of fully ordained monks needed for conferring ordination. 
• The Theravada (Skt. gnas-gtan sde-pa, sthaviravāda) ordination lineage traces itself back to Mahakatyayana (Ka-tya’i bu chen-po, Skt. Mahākātyāyana), known for his ability to expound on Buddha’s brief discourses. 
• The Sammitiya (Mang-pos bkur-ba’i sde, Skt. saṃmitīya) ordination lineage traces itself back to the Arya Upali (Nye-bar ‘khor, Skt. Upāli), the initial compiler of the vinaya literature.

The monk or nun vowed restraint in each of these lineages is not of the same essential nature (ngo-bo gcig) as the monk or nun vow in the others, since each has a different number of branches and is received through different rituals. Thus, the monk or nun vow from one lineage cannot be transformed into or interchanged with that of another lineage.

Within the Gelug tradition, according to the Panchen (Pan-chen bsod-nams grags-pa) textbook tradition, pratimoksha vowed restraints only have a nonrevealing form. For all the other Gelug textbook traditions, they have both a revealing form and a nonrevealing form. Thus, in the first moment when obtaining the vowed restraint, the vowed restraint has both a revealing and a nonrevealing form, and from the second moment onwards, only a nonrevealing form. 

In The Meaning of the Facts, An Annotated Subcommentary to (Vasubandhu’s) “Autocommentary to ‘A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge’” (Chos mngon-pa mdzod-kyi bshad-pa'i rgya-cher ‘grel-pa don-gyi de-kho-na-nyid, Skt. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣyā-ṭīkā-tattvārtha) (Derge Tengyur vol. 210, 19B), Sthiramati explains Vasubandhu’s above statement: 

Concerning the line, “It is because the non-difference of (these) elements (as the common foundation for the revealing form of obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven) is like the non-difference of the mind (appropriating the revealing form of the body as its physical support when obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven)” – for example, the non-difference of the mind that is its (the nonrevealing form’s) generator is a non-difference by means of the mind for all (seven) abstentions, taking a life and so on, being the simultaneously arising cause (for all of them). Like that, the great elements, as well, that are its generator are non-different for all (seven) abstentions. 

(Tib.) /sems bzhin du 'byung ba tha mi dad pa'i phyir ro zhes bya ba ni dper na de skyed par byed pa'i sems tha mi dad de/ srog gcod pa la sogs pa spong ba thams cad kyi sems lhan cig 'byung ba'i rgyu yin pas tha mi dad pa de bzhin du skyed par byed pa'i 'byung ba chen po dag kyang spong ba thams cad la tha mi dad pa yin no/ 

A simultaneously arising cause (lhan-cig 'byung-ba'i rgyu, Skt. sahabhuhetu) is one that occurs at the same time as its result. Just as a revealing form arises simultaneously with the primary mind and mental factors that appropriate it as their physical support and thus cause it to arise (motivate it), similarly the four great elements comprising the revealing form also arise simultaneously with the revealing form that they comprise. 

Jinaputra Yashomitra explains in more detail in The Clarified Meaning, An Explanatory Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) “Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod kyi ‘grel-bshad don-gsal-ba, Skt. Sphuṭārtha Abhidharmakośavyākhyā) (Gretil. ed., Derge Tengyur vol. 143, 15A-B):

In the line, “So too it is just those (great elements that function as the foundation from which also arises abstention from the rest of the seven naturally uncommendable actions) up to chattering meaninglessly,” the word “up to” (includes the vowed restraint of refraining) from taking what has not been given, engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior, lying, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, and chattering meaninglessly.

As for the line, “It is because the non-difference of (these) elements (as the common foundation for the revealing form of obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven) is like the non-difference of the mind (appropriating the revealing form of the body as its physical support when obtaining the vowed restraint of refraining from all seven),” just as the mind that is its (the vowed restraint’s) generator (skyed-par byed-pa, Skt. utpādaka) is non-different (for each branch of the vowed restraint), likewise the elements, as well, that are its generator are non-different (for each).

But the great elements (of the revealing form) are not the foundation (gzhi, Skt. āśraya) for the nonrevealing form (of the sevenfold vowed restraint) through (these great elements being what it depends upon) in the sense of (being) what (subsequently) hold it up (rten, Skt. ādhāra). How then? It is through (the great elements of the revealing form being what the nonrevealing form has depended upon) in the sense of initially setting forth its continuum.  Therefore, the statement, “it arises from elements that are not different (for each of the branches of the vowed restraint)” is not contradictory.

As for the line, “(But the subsequent nonrevealing forms for refraining from the seven) in the pratimoksha vowed restraint (have as what they depend upon for their arising in each subsequent moment of their continuum) another and another (set of presently-happening great elements of the revealing form of the body that is refraining from committing the behavior one has vowed to abstain from),” this is because of it (the continuum of the nonrevealing form of the vowed restraint) not being subsequently maintained by (the) mind (that was its generator). 

(Skt.) yāvat saṃbhinnapralāpād iti. yāvacchabdenādattādānāt kāmamithyācārān mṛṣāvādāt paiśunyāt pāruṣyāt saṃbhinnapralāpād iti. cittavat bhūtābhedāt. yathā tadutpādakaṃ cittam abhinnam. evaṃ bhūtāny api tadutpādakāny abhinnāny eva. na cādhārārthenāvijñapter mahābhūtāny āśrayaḥ. kiṃ tarhi. tatpravartanārthena. Tasmād abhinnabhūtajeti vacanaṃ na virudhyati. prātimokṣasamvare tv anyānyānīti. acittānuparivartanīyatvāt. 

(Tib.) /tshig kyal pa spong ba'i bar du zhes bya ba la/ bar du zhes bya ba'i sgras ni ma byin par len pa dang 'dod pas log par g.yem pa dang / brdzun du smra ba dang / phra ma dang / ngag rtsub po dang tshig kyal pa spong ba bsdu'o/ /sems bzhin du 'byung ba tha mi dad pa'i phyir ro zhes bya ba ni ji ltar de skyed par byed pa'i sems tha dad pa ma yin pa de bzhin du de skyed par byed pa'i 'byung ba rnams kyang tha mi dad pa kho na yin no/ /'byung ba chen po dag ni rten gyi don gyis rnam par rig byed ma yin pa'i gzhir gyur pa ma yin no/ /'o na ci zhe na/ de 'jug par byed pa'i don gyis te/ de lta bas na 'byung ba tha mi dad pa las skye'o zhes smos pa 'gal ba med do/ /so sor thar pa'i sdom pa ni 'byung ba gzhan dang gzhan dag ces bya ba ni sems kyi rjes su 'jug pa ma yin pa'i phyir ro/ 

In the first moment of the arising of a vowed restraint, the force of the motivating consciousness and accompanying mental factors – in particular, the mental factor of the urge for engaging in the action of body (namely, kneeling) to obtain the vow – as the generator of the nonrevealing form of the vowed restraint, causes the consciousness and mental factors to appropriate the great elements of the revealing form as their physical support. In doing so, this generator consciousness and accompanying mental factors, like the generator great elements of the revealing form, also contribute to setting forth a continuum of nonrevealing forms. 

However, they do not subsequently maintain the arising of the continuum of momentary nonrevealing forms that follow. This is because urges for engaging in the action of body to refrain from the uncommendable actions one has vowed to refrain from committing cannot appropriate as its physical support the subsequent momentary nonrevealing forms of the vowed restraint that arise. This is because nonrevealing forms are nonmaterial. After the initial moment of the arising of the nonrevealing form of a vowed restraint, the arising of subsequent moments in the continuum of nonrevealing forms is maintained automatically by the power of the vowed restraint itself.

Similarly, after the initial moment when the nonrevealing form of a vowed restraint arises dependently on the presently-happening generator great elements of the revealing form of the body when obtaining the vowed restraint, the arising of subsequent moments in the continuum of nonrevealing forms is maintained by the power of the great elements in the continuum of the revealing form of the body that is refraining from committing the behavior one has vowed to abstain from. This is similar to the analogy Vasubandhu used, as cited in the previous part of this series, of the force of the great elements of the hand setting a wheel in motion and the great elements of a stretch of the ground maintaining its continuum. 

In The Sutra on Repaying the Kindness of the Buddha, the Great Skillful One in Methods (Thabs-mkhas-pa chen-po sangs-rgyas drin-lan bsab-pa’i mdo) (Derge Kangyur vol. 76, 175B), Buddha states: 

When first receiving the regulations (of monastic vowed restraints), as soon as the karmic impulse of (these) four – (kneeling and) petitioning for and requesting (the vowed restraints three times) – has been enacted, the ethical self-discipline is fully attained. The revealing form of the ethical self-discipline (that arises with) the initial mental urge (sems) is called “a karmic impulse” and is also called “a pathway of a karmic impulse.” The revealing forms of the ethical self-discipline (that arise) from subsequent moments of mental urges are called “karmic impulses” but not pathways of karmic impulses. 

Being like that, the revealing form of the ethical self-discipline (that arises) from the first moment of the (initial) mental urge fully arises as an incited (karmic impulse) (bsam-pa). It is called “a pathway of an incited karmic impulse” by means of it (being in a pathway that) contains what has been incited. Because the revealing forms of subsequent ethical self-discipline, having been caused by the previous ethical self-discipline, automatically and spontaneously establish themselves, then although they are called “karmic impulses,” they are not pathways of (incited) karmic impulses. 

(Tib.) thog ma khrims nod pa’i tshe gsol ba dang zhu ba bzhi’i las byas ma thag tu tshul khrims rdzogs par ‘gyur te/ thog ma’i sems skad cig ma dang po’i tshul khrims kyi rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs ni las zhes kyang bya/ las kyi lam zhes kyang bya’o/ /sems skad cig ma phyi ma las khrims kyi rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs byung ba ni las zhes bya’i/ las kyi lam ma yin no/

/de lta bas na sems kyi skad cig ma dang po las tshul khrims kyi rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs bsam pa yongs su rdzogs te/ bsam pa dang ldan pas bsam pa’i las kyi lam zhes bya’o/ /tshul khrims snga mas rgyu byas te/ tshul khrims lhag ma’i rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs lhun gyis grub pas de bas na de la las zhes bya’i las kyi lam ma yin no/

In the context of this passage, the inciting karmic impulse is the mental factor of an urge in a previous action of the mind with which one considers and decides to take the pratimoksha vowed restraint. The four revealing forms of the body kneeling and the speech repeating the request for the vowed restraint three times constitute the incited karmic impulse. In the Vaibhashika system, in keeping with the explanation in this sutra, ethical self-discipline is not a mental factor as it is in the other Indian tenet systems. Rather, it is the incited revealing and nonrevealing forms of the body and speech that arise in the first moment (meaning in the initial phase) during which the four revealing forms take place. In other words, according to this sutra and Vaibhashika, ethical self-discipline refers to one’s behavior and the physical impulses that affect it, rather than to the state of mind that affects our behavior.    

The ethical self-discipline that is the incited revealing form, as the method implemented for causing the action of obtaining the pratimoksha vowed restraint to take place, is part of the “pathway” that constitutes the karmic action of obtaining the vow. This pathway consists of the persons from whom the vowed restraint is received, the distinguishing of those persons and of what one is vowing to abstain from, the intention to receive the vowed restraint, a constructive emotion, the revealing and nonrevealing forms, and the finale of actually obtaining the vowed restraint. A mental urge, which is not a karmic one, engages the body and speech in these actions and, because the pathway (the actions) contains the incited karmic impulse of the revealing form, it is called “a pathway of an incited karmic impulse.” Calling it that is in accord with the custom of calling the whole by the name of its part, like saying “I broke my arm” when you have broken a bone in your arm. 

In subsequent moments after having obtained the pratimoksha vow, the revealing forms of the body and speech that arise are not the shape of the body kneeling and the sound of the voice requesting and repeating the words of taking on the vows. These revealing forms are the shape of the body and the sound of the voice refraining from committing the actions one has vowed to abstain from. These revealing forms are karmic impulses, but they do not arise as incited karmic impulses by the force of having been incited by the inciting karmic impulse (the urge) with which one thought about and decided to take on the vows. These revealing forms arise automatically by the force of the ethical self-discipline (the nonrevealing form) established when obtaining the vowed restraint. Not being incited karmic impulses, these revealing forms of not transgressing the vowed restraints are not parts of a pathway of an incited karmic impulse and so cannot be called “pathways of an incited karmic impulse.” 

Vasubandhu also states that a vowed restraint – specifically, a pratimoksha vowed restraint – is a karmic impulse and is called “ethical self-discipline” This karmic impulse refers to both the revealing form and the nonrevealing form that arise during the first moment or phase when obtaining the vowed restraint. The Gelug masters other than those who follow the Panchen textbooks follow Vasubandhu on this point.

Vasubandhu states in A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge, Put in Verses (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi tshig-le’ur byas-pa, Skt. Abhidharmakośa-kārikā) (IV.16ab) (Gretil ed., Derge Tengyur vol. 140, 11B): 

A vowed restraint, (which is) a karmic impulse, is also called “ethical self-discipline” and “something excellent done.” The revealing and nonrevealing (forms) of the first (moment) are a pratimoksha and a pathway of what perform it.

(Skt.) śīlaṃ sucaritaṃ karmasaṃvaraścocyate punaḥ / ādye vijñaptyavijñapto prātimokṣakriyāpathaḥ //

(Tib.) /tshul khrims dang ni legs spyad dang / /las dang sdom pa zhes bya'o/ /las dang sdom pa zhes bya'o/ /dang po'i rnam rig rnam rig min/ /so sor thar dang bya ba'i lam/

The Sanskrit word “pratimoksha” (prātimokṣa) is translated into Tibetan as “so-sor thar-pa.” The Tibetan term means “individual liberation,” because the Tibetan translates the prefix “prāti” with “so-sor,” which means “individual,” and “mokṣa” as thar-pa, which means “liberation.” Although “individual” is one of the meanings of the Sanskrit prefix “prāti,” “prāti” can also mean “first.” Further, although “liberation” is one of the meanings of the Sanskrit word “mokṣa,” “mokṣa” can also mean a “shedding.” Vasubandhu explains in the following passage that these other meanings are the meaning in the term “prātimokṣa.” A pratimoksha, then, is a “first shedding of negative karmic potential occurring in the first phase when taking on the vowed restraint.” We shall translate it as an “initial shedding.”

Vasubandhu elaborates in his Autocommentary to “A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Skt. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣyā, Tib. Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi bshad-pa) (Gretil ed. 207.18-21, Derge 140, 177B):

Pratimoksha (an initial shedding) refers to the revealing and nonrevealing forms in the first (phase) of receiving the vowed restraint. The meaning is because (in that first phase there is) a casting off of negative karmic potential because of that first shedding (Skt. prātimokṣaṇa) [Tib.: because of that riddance]. [Skt. only: As for (the terms’) own connotation, because of being something that performs (the function) of extending (itself), it possesses (the characteristic of) a slaughtering of (what brings about) a change for the worse.] Thus, it is called (both) a vowed restraint for an initial shedding and, from being a vowed restraint of the body and speech, a pathway of a karmic impulse. (This is) because of its having been received in the principal (karmic pathway – namely, the karmic pathway of the action of taking on the vowed restraint). In the second and so on moments (after having obtained the vowed restraint), it is just a vowed restraint that was an initial shedding but not (itself) an initial shedding. (This is during) the follow-up phase and is not (the case during) the principal pathway of the karmic impulse.

(Skt.) saṃvarasamādānasya prathame vijñaptyavijñaptī prātimokṣa ity ucyate / pāpasya tena prātimokṣaṇādutsarjanād ity arthaḥ / svārthe vṛddhividhānādvaikṛtavaiśasavat / prātimokṣasaṃvara ity api kāyavāksaṃvaraṇāt karmapatha ity ucyate / maulasaṃgṛhītatvāt / dvitīyādiṣu kṣaṇeṣui prātimokṣasaṃvara eva na prātimokṣaḥ / pṛṣṭhaṃ ca na maulaḥ karmapathaḥ /

(Tib.) sdom pa yang dag par blang pa’i rnam par rig byed dang / rnam par rig byed ma yin pa dang po dag ni so sor thar pa zhes bya ste / des sdig pa las so sor thar pa’i phyir te / spang ba’i phyir zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go / so sor thar pa’i sdom pa’i zhe kyang bya ste / lus dang ngag sdom pa’i phyir ro / las kyi lam zhes bya’o / skad cig ma gnyis pa la sogs pa la ni so sor thar pa’i sdom pa kho na yin gyi so sor thar pa ni ma yin no / mjug yin gyi las kyi lam dngos ni ma yin no / / 

The first period, during which the pratimoksha vowed restraint is both a revealing and a nonrevealing form, occurs during the principal (dngos, Skt, maula) karmic pathway of taking on the vowed restraint, when one kneels and repeats three times the request for receiving it. This is when the initial shedding occurs and one obtains the vowed restraint. The follow-up phases (mjug, Skt. pṛṣṭha) occur form second moment onwards after the revealing form occurs of obtaining the vowed restraint. At this point, the nonrevealing from is a vowed restraint that was an initial shedding and no longer a vowed restraint that is an initial shedding. 

Thus, the initial shedding of negative karmic potential occurs during that first phase when one is kneeling and requesting the vowed restraint. 

Chim Jampeyang, A Filigree of Abhidharma (311), explicitly states that the meaning of “prāti” in the word “prātimokṣa” is “first”:

Further, the revealing and nonrevealing forms of the first phase of receiving a pratimoksha is a {common locus of} an initial shedding and a vowed restraint and is also an actual pathway of a karmic impulse that performs it. (This is) because it is the {initial} shedding of negative potential, because it is a vowed restraint of the body and speech, and because it is a gateway for producing (subsequent) karmic impulses (of refraining from transgressing the vowed restraint). 

From the second moment onwards, it is only a vowed restraint that was an initial shedding but not (itself) an initial shedding. This is because, when the meaning of  “pratimoksha” is taken as an “initial shedding,” the (initial) shedding has already been completed (in the second moment and onwards). Although (the second moment and onwards) occur at the finale of this pathway of a karmic impulse, they do not occur in  the main (phase of the pathway).   

(Tib.) yang so so thar pa’i sdom pa thob pa’i skad cig ma dang po’i rnam par rig byed dang rnam par rig byed min pa ni  so so thar pa dang sdom pa {gzhi mthun pa} dang bya ba’i las gyi lam {dngos} zhes kyang bya ste / sdig pa las {dang po} thar pa’i phyir dang / lus ngag sdom pa’i phyir dang / las ‘byung ba’i sgo’i phyir ro / skad cig ma gnyis pa phan chad ni so so thar pa’i sdom pa kho na yin gyi / so so thar pa ni ma yin te / so so thar pa’i don ni pratimoksha zhes bya ba dang por thar pa yin na thar zin pa’i phyir ro / las gyi lam gyi mjug yin gyi dngos ni ma yin no /