Tibetan Buddhist debates about funerary practices feature no shortage of hairsplitting. In their writings on funerary rituals in the tradition of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, the prolific Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375/76–1451) and the Sa skya pa savant Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge (1429–89) quarrel over what might appear to be very minor issues. This article looks at one such exchange, specifically, how these exegetes understand the details of “visual transmission” and how successive iterations of observation and imitation between master and disciple constitute an authoritative lineage. The article reveals that the specifics of each author’s position on visual transmission was the product of polemical pressures for each one to articulate the specifics of their viewpoint. Understanding a disagreement like this requires contextualization. When Go rams pa was writing his response to Bo dong Paṇ chen, he was receiving support from a local ruler who had been a disciple of the late Bo dong Paṇ chen. Looking to secure further patronage for himself and the Sa skya tradition more broadly, Go rams pa certainly had reason to defend the Sa skya patriarch Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147–1216) against Bo dong Paṇ chen’s critiques. However, limiting this debate to issues of patronage would be reductive at best. Although this point of disagreement may seem minor, it reveals a sophisticated analysis on how textual and empirical evidence cohere in order to determine correct tantric practice. In this sense, elements of tantric Buddhist traditions are deeply indebted to empirical knowledge.
