This project, titled ‘The Collection of “Indian Mahāmudrā-Works” (Tib. phyag chen rgya gzhung) and their Tibetan Reception in the Early Bka´ brgyud Schools’, is carried out by Dr. <a href=”http://www.tantric-studies.org/people/klaus-dieter-mathes”>Klaus Dieter-Mathes</a> and is supported by a grant from the German Research Council (DFG).
Certain aspects of the Bka´ brgyud teachings on mahāmudrā, such as the possibility of a sudden liberating realization or the possibility that a beginner may attain mahāmudrā even without Tantric initiation, became a highly controversial issue in the 13th century. For Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251), such teachings represented a new development stemming from a Sino-Tibetan influence on Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen (1079–1153). Later Bka´ brgyud pas defended their not specifically Tantric or sūtra mahāmudrā tradition by adducing Indian sources such as the Tattvadaśakaṭīkā or the Tattvāvatāra. These belong to a genre of literature which the Seventh Karmapa Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454–1506) called “Indian mahāmudrā-Works” (phyag chen rgya gzhung).
In the first phase of the project, Dr. Mathes investigated the practice described in these mahāmudrā works and found that it is not necessarily Tantric. In Saraha´s dohās it is simply the realization of mind´s co-emergent nature with the help of a genuine guru. Maitrīpa (ca. 1007– ca. 1085) uses the term mahāmudrā for precisely such an approach, thus employing an originally Tantric term for something that is not a specifically Tantric practice. It is thus legitimate for later Bka´ brgyud pas to speak of Saraha´s mahāmudrā tradition as being originally independent of the Sūtras and the Tantras. For Maitrīpa, the direct realization of emptiness (or the co-emergent) is the bridging link between the Sūtras and the Tantras, and it is thanks to this bridge that mahāmudrā can be linked to the Sūtras and the Tantras. In the Sūtras it takes the form of the practice of non-abiding and becoming mentally disengaged, while in the Tantras it occupies a special position among the four mudrās.
Dr. Mathes will now analyze the Tibetan transmissions of these teachings up to 1232, the year in which Sa skya Paṇḍita presented in his Sdom gsum rab dbye his critique of sūtra mahāmudrā, that is, before an apologetic reaction to the latter had been provoked for the first time.