Jeffrey Hopkins. Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism:
Dynamic Responses to Dzong-ka-baÕs The Essence of Eloquence: I.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999, xiv + 528 pages, ISBN:0520211197 (cloth), US $45.00.
Reviewed by

JBE Online Reviews

Paul G. Hackett
University of Maryland at College Park
phackett@cstone.net

Copyright Notice
Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no charge is madeand no alteration is made to the content. Reproduction in any other format with theexception of a single copy for private study requires the written permission of theauthor. All enquiries to jbe-general@jbe.la.psu.edu.

HopkinsÕ latest book is the first of a planned threevolume set ofcontributions to research in the Cittamàtra (ÒMindOnlyÓ) Schoolof Tibetan Buddhism complementing his previous work on theMàdhyamika (ÒMiddle WayÓ) School. Although drawing on numerous
sources both within and outside of the dGe lugs (ÒGelukÓ) tradition both
written and oral, Hopkins restricts the content of this first volume to anannotated and detailed translation of the prologue and first chapter of Tsongkha paÕs (ÒDzongkabaÓ) Legs bshad snying po (ÒThe Essence ofEloquenceÓ), an exegesis of the hermeneutics of the Cittamàtra School;
intra and intersectarian differences and specific philosophical disputes
Hopkins reserves for discussion in future volumes.
The focus of the Cittamàtra chapter of Tsong kha paÕs text andHopkinsÕ book is on the meaning of the trisvabhàva (Òthree naturesÓ) as
presented in the fundamental Cittamàtra såtra, the Saüdhinirmocanasåtra(ÒThe Såtra Unraveling the ThoughtÓ), in both its ontological and hermeneutical dimensions, and on the seventh chapter of the såtra in particular,
the paramàrthasamudgataparivarta (ÒThe Questions ofParamàrthasamudgataÓ), where a clarification is requested on the meaningof svalakùaõa (Òown characterÓ) in the context of the praj¤àpàramità(ÒPerfection of WisdomÓ) såtras. The answer given by the Buddha on theJournal of Buddhist Ethics 6 (1999): 232

JBE Online Review

trisvabhàva, the correlated triniþsvabhàvatà (Òthree nonnaturesÓ), and thecompatibility of the praj¤àpàramità såtras with the Cittamàtra worldview
serves as the springboard for Tsong kha paÕs and HopkinsÕ exegesis.
HopkinsÕ treatment of Tsong kha paÕs presentation of Cittamàtra takes
three forms which are reflected in the three major parts of the book: annotated translation, a sectionbysection critical analysis of the text and itsissues, and a critical edition of the text in Tibetan script. Given the difficulty of translating such a dense philosophical text, Hopkins has succeededin avoiding copious footnotes by opting for a novel approach to textualpresentation. Although he provides footnotes in each section, Hopkins hasembedded page crossreferences in and between all three sections of thebook, allowing the reader to easily reference the original text from thetranslation or analysis, and vise versa. By means of this structure, thereader gains insight into the methodological rigor behind HopkinsÕ translation at an almost pedagogical level. A notable example is HopkinsÕ unpacking of a twoverse quote from MaitreyaÕs Madhyàntavibhaõga (ÒDifferentiation of the Middle and the ExtremesÓ) used by Tsong kha pa. Although given with heavy bracketing in the translation section (p. 182), thecorresponding section of HopkinsÕ analysis (pp. 305307) leads the reader
through a wordbyword analysis of the stanzas from the subtleties of Sanskrit grammar to the integration of the subcommentaries of Vasubandhu
and Sthiramati culminating in Tsong kha paÕs final reading.
HopkinsÕ MindOnly begins with a historical contextualization of both
Tsong kha pa and his text. This leads into a review of seventeen of thetwentysix subcommentaries to Tsong kha paÕs text which Hopkins obtained and references during the course of his presentation, from the fourteenth century student of Tsong kha pa, mKhas grub (ÒKedrupÓ) up throughthe twentieth century Òscholar of scholarsÓ ÕJigs med dam chos rgya mtsho(ÒJikmaydamchögyatsoÓ). A short discussion of the basic ideas ofthe Cittamàtra School follows which serves the twofold purpose of both
framing Tsong kha paÕs text in the Cittamàtra worldview and contextuallyintroducing HopkinsÕ translation equivalents in an etymological manner.
Because of this, many of HopkinsÕ terms which seem awkward or contrived at first  Òunreal ideationÓ for abhåtaparikalpa (Tib. yang dag pa
ma yin paÕi kun tu rtogs pa), Òotherpowered naturesÓ forparatantrasvabhàva (Tib. gzhan dbang gi rang bzhin), and so on  attainmeanings clearly associated with HopkinsÕ chosen rendering. To HopkinsÕ
credit, once he defines these terms they are used consistently throughout
the book, yielding coherence and continuity to the work.
As Hopkins describes it, the original text contains Òabrupt, unannounced shifts of topic, unspecified references, omissions and seeming conJournal of Buddhist Ethics 6 (1999): 233

Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism:

tradictionsÓ such that it is Òvirtually impossible to plunge right into it without becoming lostÓ (p. 26); hence its reputation as a Òsteel bow and arrow.Ó
As Hopkins describes it (p. 16),
[Just] as it is hard to pull a steel bow to its full extent but if one can,the arrow will course over a great area, so even the words  not toconsider the meaning  of this text are difficult to understand but,when understood, yield great insight. The metaphor states a martial
challenge to the reader, calling for heroic strength of intellectualwill; the work is viewed as one of genius, difficult to control because of its often cryptic brevity but yielding profound insight if
pursued with analytical fortitude. (The metaphor also may be a polite way of communicating that the book is so abstruse and sometimes apparently selfcontradictory that it takes tremendous effort
to attempt to construct a consistent account of DzongkabaÕsthought.)

HopkinsÕ book is undoubtedly intended as a response to this martialchallenge. Following his exhaustive treatment of the ÒPrologueÓ to thetext, Hopkins partitions Tsong kha paÕs text into two sections which arethen subdivided into chapters (with their titles as given by Tsong kha pa)
and supplemented by subsection headings drawn from the commentaries.
The first section comprises four chapters which deal explicitly with thequestion posed in the Saüdhinirmocanasåtra, the answer given by theBuddha, the meaning of the trisvabhàva, and ParamàrthasamudgataÕs restatement of the overall meaning. The second section deals with the eightchapters of Tsong kha paÕs text which address explicitly the hermeneuticaldimension of the Saüdhinirmocanasåtra, the compatibility of the såtra
with the various writings of Maitreya, Asaõga, Vasubandhu, andDharmakãrti, the manner in which the Cittamàtra system presents a ÒmiddlewayÓ avoiding the extremes of permanence and nihilism, and finally, thedifferentiation of the teachings of the Buddha into the definitive and interpretable as the three Wheels of Doctrine. All of these issues and sections
are mirrored in the other parts of the book. Issues within the text that areclear points of controversy are either dealt with or marked in the footnotes
as references to the other two volumes in the series. Although the work
stands on its own merits, these references to the unpublished volumes leave
the reader in a state of anticipation of HopkinsÕ treatment of the more subtle disputes which the footnotes merely allude to.
In looking at the issues and apparent contradictions in Tsong kha paÕstext that animate the Tibetan commentarial literature, Hopkins engages inthe sort of textual analysis which is unfortunately not in favor in academia
Journal of Buddhist Ethics 6 (1999): 234

JBE Online Review

today. In this book, the value of such an enterprise is clearly demonstrated:
HopkinsÕ treatment of the dGe lugs presentation of Cittamàtra is truly
masterful. This book presents a wealth of knowledge and stimulating engagement with the material, revealing the intellectual mastery of Tsongkha pa over Buddhist philosophy and hermeneutics. At the conclusion ofthe book, the readerÕs imagination is left sparked with questions. One feelsthat Cittamàtra is fertile ground for further investigation, and wonders particularly how other interpretation lineages such as the Sa skya or rNying
ma have dealt with these issues as well as the source of ÒmistakenÓ views
persistently refuted by Tsong kha pa, the Jo nang pas. Although Hopkins
briefly mentions the comparable philosophies of idealism espoused in Europe over the centuries (pp. 3738), he does not pursue that avenue ofresearch. Such a comparative study remains needed and would complement HopkinsÕ exceptional work of integrating what he calls Òpart of ourworld cultureÓ (p. 4) into the broader world of ideas.

Journal of Buddhist Ethics 6 (1999): 235