Korea Journal of Buddhist StudiesISSN:1598-0642(Print)불교학연구회

In interpreting Yogacāra doctrine, the seeds of the extrinsicemptiness (gzhan stong) viewpoint can be found in Pt 116, plates111. 2 – 112. 1 of the Dunhuang manuscripts found by Paul Pelliot(1878-1945). Pt 116, plates 114. 2 – 3 also introduce a definition ofintrinsic emptiness (rang stong) based on dependent origination(pratītyasamutpāda) and emptiness (śūnyatā). These early Tibetanmanuscripts are a significant clue to the oldest understandings ofintrinsic emptiness and extrinsic emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism. According to previous research, the concept of extrinsic emptinessof the Jo-nang School originates from rightly grasped emptiness(sugṛhītaśūnyatā), on which the Bodhisattvabhūmi, a Yogacāratreatise in Sanskrit, expounds. That is to say, the existing researchemphasizes the first development of extrinsic emptiness in IndianBuddhism, whereas this paper tries to throw light on the startingpoint of extrinsic emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism. The 155th verse in the first chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga-Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra suggests that buddha-nature(tathāgatagarbha) itself is not emptiness but that ‘adventitiousdefilements (āgantukakleśa), these indeed are emptiness.’This last point is an essential doctrine of the Jo nang School, adoctrine explained in the bKa’ bsdu bzhi pa etc. by Dol po paShes rab rgyal mtshan (1292ˉ1361). This doctrine converges onthe viewpoint of gzhan stong. On the other hand, the Theg chenrgyud bla’i don bsdus pa by rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059ˉ1109)defines buddha-nature itself as emptiness, parallel to the definitionthat ‘all phenomena (dharma) are emptiness’ found in thePrajñāpāramitāsūtra. The proposition that substantial self-naturedoes not exist in all phenomena converges on the viewpoint ofintrinsic emptiness. According to Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan,each of these two emptinesses, intrinsic emptiness and extrinsicemptiness, corresponds to each of the two truths (i.e. the surfaceand ultimate truths), or in other words, ‘the dependent arisingphenomenon’ and the Buddha’s transcendental wisdom. From the above argumentation it is clear that differentunderstandings of dependent origination, emptiness, and buddhanaturehave existed in Tibet, and such differences were caused bythe peculiar differences of each era, region and the viewpoints ofcommentators or Buddhist thinkers. The fact implies again that theBuddhist essential doctrines of dependent origination, emptiness,and buddha-nature are relative notions which are always being reinterpretedand transformed according to historical trends, and arenot eternal, immutable and absolute notions.