TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)be true Madhyamikas, the Tibetan Madhyamikas who follow Candraklrti-in
other words the majority of Tibetan scholars-resolutely oppose and refute their
theories.
Certain authorities also compare the theory of the Jo nail pas, and after them
of the unorthodox Sa skya pa doctor Sakya mchog !dan ( 1428-1507), concern-
ing the Void-of-the-other with the explanation the author of the Brhat{ikii gives
of the parinispanna as being Void of the discursive and phenomenal represented
by the 'imagined' (parikalpita) and the 'relative' (paratantra).^2 According to the
orthodox Yogacaras on the other hand, the paratantra Void of the parikalpita is
the parinispannalaksm;a.^2 •
To substantiate their particular interpretation the Jo nail pa masters referred to
a group of canonical texts known as the 'Sutras teaching the Essence' (siiin po)
which includes the Tathiigatagarbhasiitra, the Srlmiiliidevlsif!lhaniidasiitra and
the Mahiiparinirvii!Jasiitra. At the same time the Kalacakra constituted one of
their principal sources. And amongst Sastra works they referred especially to the
Stotra collection attributed to Nagaljuna. It can thus be said that their doctrine
represents an admixture of the mantra method and of the intuition achieved
through practice-in-meditation (bhiivanii) of the Kalacakra with the Sutra and
philosophical method chiefly founded on the group of Sutras just mentioned.
And it was just this contestable mixture of the two methods of 'metaphysics'
(mtshan iiid) and mysticism that called forth many of the criticisms directed
against their doctrines by doctors who did not reject the validity and authenticity
of their intuition and understanding as such.
Thus, not only did the Jo nail pas have a tendency to hypostasize reality, but
they were also thought to have as it were mixed their metaphors by combining
together systems of expression belonging to different traditions. These traditions
and their symbolical systems are all nonetheless generally held to be valid in
their own domains; and only a few authorities, notably Red mda' ba
(1349-1412), actually opposed the Kalacakra and the Sa<;Iailgayoga-perhaps
much in the same way as Sa skya pm;t<;lita (1182-1251) did the later Tibetan
phyag rgya chen po or mahiimudrii system-for introducing into the well
authenticated and in themselves complete methods of the great Buddhist masters
extraneous and not easily verifiable notions and terms.
Another problem of fundamental and far-reaching importance was posed by
the method a particular school adopted to explain the Sutras; and the application
of the criteria by means of which intentional canonical texts whose meaning has
to be interpreted (neyiirtha texts) can be correctly explained and distinguished
from other canonical texts of definitive meaning (nltiirtha) was thus the subject
of much discussion. Various solutions were advanced by the different schools
which depended on their understanding of the basic doctrines of Buddhism. The
Jo nail pas, unlike many of their contemporaries, considered that the 'Sutras
teaching the Essence' were of definitive and certain meaning. And in accordance
with this view they elaborated their characteristic doctrine of the gian stan,
which they linked with the iidibuddha doctrine of the Kalacakra.